# Where's this anecdote on Jackson Pollock from? Is it true? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 29, 2017, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573 "2017-09-29T03:57:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![El\_DeLuxo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_deluxo/32/9043_2.png) [@El\_DeLuxo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_DeLuxo)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/21 "2017-09-29T14:49:28Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Every one of these circumstances would have resulted in better paintings than actually exist. Well, _de gustibus non disputandum_, _honi soit qui mal y pense,_ and like that. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/22 "2017-09-29T16:20:49Z")
My kid could paint that. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/23 "2017-09-29T17:01:01Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > My kid could paint that. Maybe this is sarcasm, but as **Chronos** has pointed out, he can’t (unless he’s as talented as Pollock). Personally, I like Pollack a lot. On the other hand, other non-representational artists like Mark Rothko don’t do much for me. But I wouldn’t contend that Rothko’s paintings aren’t good just because I don’t like them as much as Pollack. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/24 "2017-09-29T17:49:50Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Supposedly, mathematicians have analyzed Pollock’s paintings and demonstrated that they are not just random spattering. There are patterns to where the paint is on the canvas. > > But that doesn’t address the real issue. Is patterned spattering anymore a work of art than random spattering? Is there a point to the work? Even if you can prove that Pollock was putting paint exactly where he wanted it to be, it doesn’t prove that he had a good reason for it being there. > > I’ve seen some of Pollock’s works, up close and in person. I’ll admit that I personally don’t see whatever it is that other people have seen in them. That doesn’t mean the artistic merit isn’t there. It may just be that I don’t see it. The mathematics of it is mainly to try to authenticate paintings. It cannot have been part of Pollocks craft, or reception. You can find mathematical principles in splatters whoever did them. ---
**Author:** ![Enter\_the\_Flagon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Enter\_the\_Flagon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enter_the_Flagon)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/25 "2017-09-29T17:52:02Z")
> [@DesertDog](#): > > This. I’ve tried the Jackson Pollock [emulator](http://www.jacksonpollock.org/) and even an art troglodyte like me can see that compared to the real thing, they are lifeless. Now, it may be it’s because I’m moving a mouse around rather than a physical brush with physical paint, but I don’t think so. Speak for yourself. I made a snowman with bunny ears! ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/26 "2017-09-29T17:53:27Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > My kid could paint that. My kid saw Pollock’s work at MOMA and said, “Wow, that’s fantastic!” ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/27 "2017-09-29T17:55:37Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Maybe this is sarcasm, but as **Chronos** has pointed out, he can’t (unless he’s as talented as Pollock). Depends on the painting. For example, I actually kind of like the one that Gyrate posted. But [this](https://www.jackson-pollock.org/images/paintings/convergence.jpg) one, for instance, is IMHO a completely and utterly worthless piece of garbage that I literally wouldn’t take for free if I didn’t know it had a resale value. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/28 "2017-09-29T18:01:19Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Depends on the painting. For example, I actually kind of like the one that Gyrate posted. But [this](https://www.jackson-pollock.org/images/paintings/convergence.jpg) one, for instance, is IMHO a completely and utterly worthless piece of garbage that I literally wouldn’t take for free if I didn’t know it had a resale value. Look at the blue section just to the left and above the center. If that doesn’t speak to you… ---
**Author:** ![74westy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/74westy/32/3950_2.png) [@74westy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/74westy)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/29 "2017-09-29T18:12:08Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Look at the blue section just to the left and above the center. If that doesn’t speak to you… He did that part from across the room while only temporarily conscious. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/30 "2017-09-29T18:31:01Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Supposedly, mathematicians have analyzed Pollock’s paintings and demonstrated that they are not just random spattering. There are patterns to where the paint is on the canvas. > > But that doesn’t address the real issue. Is patterned spattering anymore a work of art than random spattering? Is there a point to the work? Even if you can prove that Pollock was putting paint exactly where he wanted it to be, it doesn’t prove that he had a good reason for it being there. > > I’ve seen some of Pollock’s works, up close and in person. I’ll admit that I personally don’t see whatever it is that other people have seen in them. That doesn’t mean the artistic merit isn’t there. It may just be that I don’t see it. Well, you can say the same thing about music: at first blush, it’s really just a random assortment of frequencies, representing nothing. But if you do some analysis, you find certain patterns within the frequencies—what we call ‘harmonies’. Now, there’s really no good reason for certain of these patterns to sound ‘better’ than other do—it’s essentially just due to our neural wiring. Furthermore, the sort of pattern-matching we do with sounds is pretty much automatic (essentially because our auditory system does Fourier transformation natively), while it’s not when it comes to visual stimuli. But that doesn’t mean there can’t be aesthetic value to certain kinds of arrangements of blotches of color, just as there is aesthetic value to certain kinds of arrangements of sound frequencies. After all, there’s no reason a sunset—which is just a sort of pattern of colored patches—looks pleasing to the eye, whereas the same sort of arrangement re-done in different colors (think bright green, orange, and pink, for example) wouldn’t. So look at a Pollock the way you would look at a sunset: not trying to find some sort of meaning (there’s no meaning at all to sunsets) or artists message (again, sunsets carry no message), but just try to appreciate the arrangement of blotches of color as exactly that. And if it doesn’t work for you, well, fuck Pollock, there’s lots of other artists. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/31 "2017-09-29T18:41:06Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > The mathematics of it is mainly to try to authenticate paintings. It cannot have been part of Pollocks craft, or reception. You can find mathematical principles in splatters whoever did them. Actually, that’s not true in general: a truly random arrangement of blotches wouldn’t have any sort of pattern (other than merely describing it completely, blotch by blotch). And while I highly doubt that Pollock was in any way conscious of the mathematical aspect, it’s not unheard of that people with highly refined aesthetical sensibilities develop a fine sense of the impact of artworks on an audience. Eric Kandel has done some very [insightful analysis](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/89556/the-age-of-insight-by-eric-r-kandel/9781400068715/) of how expressionist works by artists like Egon Schiele, Oskar Kokoschka, Gustav Klimt and others parallel recent discoveries in neuroscience—for instance, directing attention to just those parts of an image of a person that yield the strongest response regarding neural activity. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/32 "2017-09-29T18:55:00Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Actually, that’s not true in general: a truly random arrangement of blotches wouldn’t have any sort of pattern (other than merely describing it completely, blotch by blotch). > > And while I highly doubt that Pollock was in any way conscious of the mathematical aspect, it’s not unheard of that people with highly refined aesthetical sensibilities develop a fine sense of the impact of artworks on an audience. Eric Kandel has done some very [insightful analysis](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/89556/the-age-of-insight-by-eric-r-kandel/9781400068715/) of how expressionist works by artists like Egon Schiele, Oskar Kokoschka, Gustav Klimt and others parallel recent discoveries in neuroscience—for instance, directing attention to just those parts of an image of a person that yield the strongest response regarding neural activity. They aren’t analyzing blotches in the Pollocks. They’re looking at the geometry of the splatters. Splatters have mathematics to them no matter who throws them. They aren’t random. The difference between a pollock and a naive painting is not randomness vs order. They are trying to use math, fractals and statistics to include or eliminate works attributed to him. But I don’t think they think they are looking at the fruit of his artistic intent. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/33 "2017-09-29T19:38:53Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Depends on the painting. For example, I actually kind of like the one that Gyrate posted. But [this](https://www.jackson-pollock.org/images/paintings/convergence.jpg) one, for instance, is IMHO a completely and utterly worthless piece of garbage that I literally wouldn’t take for free if I didn’t know it had a resale value. You miss my point. It doesn’t matter whether you like a particular Pollack painting or not, an average person couldn’t duplicate the style. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/34 "2017-09-29T19:48:31Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > The difference between a pollock and a naive painting is not randomness vs order. They are trying to use math, fractals and statistics to include or eliminate works attributed to him. But I don’t think they think they are looking at the fruit of his artistic intent. Mathematical analysis has been used to try to authenticate Pollock paintings. But it’s also been proposed that Pollack’s paintings are appealing because they resemble the fractal patterns present in nature, and we, for whatever reason, find such fractal patterns pleasing. Pollock certainly wasn’t aware of the mathematical foundations of his art, but he (IMO) very likely was attempting to generate aesthetically pleasing patterns through his unconventional style. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/35 "2017-09-29T21:00:11Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > So look at a Pollock the way you would look at a sunset: not trying to find some sort of meaning (there’s no meaning at all to sunsets) or artists message (again, sunsets carry no message), but just try to appreciate the arrangement of blotches of color as exactly that. No, I can’t accept this argument. I’m not a religious person so I don’t believe that sunsets are created. They’re a natural phenomena. So they don’t have a message. But I expect something different from art. It may not necessarily have a message but it should have a reason. Otherwise, what’s the purpose of creating art? If you define art so broadly that anything you can experience qualifies, then what’s the point? A five year old really can create art just as good as Jackson Pollock’s by that definition; you can look at a painting by either one equally. If Pollock matters, it must mean that there’s something in his art that isn’t present in a child’s painting or a random splattering of paint or a sunset. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/36 "2017-09-29T21:05:03Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Mathematical analysis has been used to try to authenticate Pollock paintings. But it’s also been proposed that Pollack’s paintings are appealing because they resemble the fractal patterns present in nature, and we, for whatever reason, find such fractal patterns pleasing. Pollock certainly wasn’t aware of the mathematical foundations of his art, but he (IMO) very likely was attempting to generate aesthetically pleasing patterns through his unconventional style. It has been proposed after the fact. It just makes my BS meter go off. But saying the paintings are “appealing” because they recapitulate something natural, or that he was attempting to “generate pleasing patterns” doesn’t say anything you wouldn’t say of any artist at any time in history. It sounds like ex post facto confirmation bias. What artist in what obscure artform doesn’t grapple with “pleasing patterns” for his whole career, whether they want to create them or avoid them? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/37 "2017-09-29T21:09:14Z")
All artists try to create patterns of various sorts, and many succeed. What sets Pollack apart is that he was able to create patterns of a sort that no other artist has been able to. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/38 "2017-09-29T21:21:40Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > All artists try to create patterns of various sorts, and many succeed. What sets Pollack apart is that he was able to create patterns of a sort that no other artist has been able to. All artists do create patterns, and they all succeed. I think Pollock was doing something no one else **did**. Whether anyone else **could** hasn’t been answered definitively. But could we try to get his name right? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/39 "2017-09-29T21:31:17Z")
OK, I don’t know that nobody else could. But I do know that none have, _even though many have tried_. I’m not sure how you get that “all artists succeed”. Speaking only for myself and my own art, I’ve certainly failed at some of the patterns I’ve attempted. Sometimes I conclude that the pattern is actually impossible, despite my initial impressions, and sometimes I know it’s possible, but it’s just beyond my skill level. And apologies on the misspelling. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2017, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573/40 "2017-09-29T21:38:36Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, I don’t know that nobody else could. But I do know that none have, _even though many have tried_. > > I’m not sure how you get that “all artists succeed”. Speaking only for myself and my own art, I’ve certainly failed at some of the patterns I’ve attempted. Sometimes I conclude that the pattern is actually impossible, despite my initial impressions, and sometimes I know it’s possible, but it’s just beyond my skill level. > > And apologies on the misspelling. I just mean that it is a commonplace that artists are at work on patterns. They all make them. The good ones and the bad. Saying that Pollock was at work on this is a mundane fact. I don’t know the history of people trying to replicate Pollock. Do you think he is the only artist who actually worked with splatters who was real? No one else was worth a damn? Who were Pollocks aesthetic children? Did they surpass him? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-this-anecdote-on-jackson-pollock-from-is-it-true/797573.md?page=3)