more splatter space
2006-08-29 14:19:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Signilda 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
'I think it was an essential element of the impact of the work. Pollack's monumental sized canvases brought forth the epic and noble in man's creative vision during an age of uncertainty and fear in a culture that had become politicized through media.
Many people forget that he was tutored in the craft of painting by Thom. Hart Benton (even thought Pollack himself refuted any benefit from their association). Benton's murals are an echo of this sentiment of the epic and noble (a theme that re-occurs within American Art countless times). I think that Pollack's sub-conscience was silently at work here and he was evoking that time spent with Benton. Pollack's work is part of an age when the monumental was being exalted, look at the buildings of the time, or the politics of doom that was being practiced then. When Pollack became labeled with the mantel of Formalism (after Greenburg practically deified the man), that was the beginning of the end for him. It was this high jacking of Pollack's art into a cultural/political statement that Formalism was that caused his untimely death. Pollack went far beyond this in his statement about the monumental and it was the failure of the populace at large to comprehend this that made him stop producing near the end.
At least that's my take on him.
2006-08-29 17:56:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by paintmonkey61 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Garbage is garbage whether it is a miniature or a mural. Salvador Dali said the best painting is the most realistic and that one drop of Vermeer's divine blue paint is worth more than all that came after it. That is doubly true of Jackson Pollock's crude splatters. A science magazine said he created some fractals. That is OK as a curiosity, but it's not something to hang on walls of museums. In doing fractals, a large scale is best. It is hard to do them small, and viewers miss much if a painter can do them.
2006-08-29 17:40:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by miyuki & kyojin 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Obviously many have the thought---the bigger the better but there's also the ability to get up close and personal to tiny details created by the paint. I personally believe that paint has a purpose in life just like anything else, often the ways it runs together are much more spectacular than the way it appears when one is deliberate with it. Best wishes
2006-08-29 14:20:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by colorist 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think the ambitious scale of his work came about because he was such a driven man, independant and did his own homework. I think that if he didn't do his own homework, he would never have become the well known artist he is today.
His work was very physically engaging, working with large amounts of paint in layers, unlike the act of sitting behind a computer expecting the world to give you a free ride.
My conclusion, you get out of life what you put in.
2006-08-29 14:58:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by smelly pete 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because their size and style really just make you take notice. In fact, I was just looking at one of his paintings the other day and I thought, "You can always tell a Pollack" because his stuff is one-of-a-kind.
2006-08-29 14:21:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by traveller 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
That sounds like an essay question. I think you should do your own homework.
2006-09-01 13:20:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by K 3
·
0⤊
0⤋