Can you tell me why Jackson Pollock is a great painter?

Question

To many if not most of us, the thing that makes him great is not readily apparent.

No insults, please. I just don't get it, and I'm looking for a fresh insight. I can accept that he's great if every expert declares it is so. But I would like to know why.

Answer 1

Perhaps the work of Jackson Pollock the great American dripper raises that question as often as that of any.

Clement Greenberg, the art critic the authors feel was most responsible for nurturing and growing Pollock's reputation, but even as it does so, it makes very clear that Greenberg's thought is more subjective pronouncement than coherent aesthetic theory.

Greenberg saw in Pollock the avatar of his notion that representational painting violated the essential truth of the canvas. It was mere reproduction. Creativity demanded that the artist respect the "flatness" of the surface by not trying to make of it something it was not. Abstraction, without a referent in the figurative, justifies itself. It does not mean; it is, to paraphrase the poet. What makes a painting great is the use of color, the relationships between the colors on the canvas.

The trouble with this is there remains the question: what makes one use of color great art and another garbage? Greenberg would look at a painting and declare, "That works." He'd look at another and say that one didn't. Why one did and one didn't never quite seemed to get articulated.

Answer 2

I think art is subjective. If you don't find it "great" then I think you're entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else is entitled to theirs. However, I think that it should also be noted that art isn't just subjective on an individual level (I like it but my neighbor doesn't) but the popularity of one movement over another is also subject to the contemporary thought (for example Van Gogh wasn't popular during his lifetime but is now considered to be one of the greatest artists in the history of art).
I personally like Pollock because, as some have stated before me, it gives off an energy. I've seen his work in museums and I feel hypnotized by it. It should be noted that Pollock lived in the age of photography and film, where pushing a button gave you the image that so many artists before tried to immitate by spending hours in front of their canvases. So what was the interest in immitating when art has become about expressing something more? Even when you look at most artistic photography today it no longer tries to capture a mere straight-forward image, because otherwise it wouldn't be art, it would be a picture I took at my friend's party. So I think what Pollock (among with others) did was to try to get rid of the constraints of the real and just try to show emotion / action. That's probably why he is considered to be revolutionary and why experts declare him to be a great painter, he opened new doors in the evolution of art.

Answer 3

It's very rare that a person is truly the first to do something. Jackson Pollock was the first artist to create "splatter paintings" which were unlike anything being created at the time that he worked. Sometimes genius might not look technically hard, but it takes an amazingly creative mind to come up with something new and innovative that challenges the art world to see the world in a different way.

Answer 4

"No insults, please".... Why should we? If anyone would be insulted by this question...He/she probably would not like Pollock anyway.

Pollock was new, daring, hyped. I like the energy in the paintings. I really don't think he is a great painter but he is a great artist..."Isn't that the same?" No, there is a lot of great art that only needed a great idea or influence.

Pollocks art does not need any skill, anyone can do it..BUT...not anyone would make a great painting. It seems, feels like he puts his life spirit into a painting. It just oozes life and excitement.

Answer 5

Do you know, I don't understand why he is considered a great painter, either. Perhaps it had to do with the balance of his dribbles and dabs of color and the choice of them.

To me a great painting is Vermeer, or Rembrandt, or Turner, or Michaelangelo and I could go on. To me Pollock is just style without content, and to me that is not greatness--it may be interesting, but not great. Vermeer's photographic quality, or the ability of Hals to use these frenetic bold brush strokes to seem to capture a person's expression as if it were immediate, or Rembrandt's use of light--these are great to me, but then I have often thought that I am a dodo bird, who went extinct in the 19th century.

Maggie

Answer 6

Jackson Pollock was so great because he was bale to create pieces that show and convey movement, energy, flow.. looking at his work gives you an emotion, a feeling.
Unlike the great masters who painted with perfection life in a real photo like way that showed their amazing technique Pollock broke free from that in a abstract way. It was said about him that “what was to go on the canvas was not a picture but an event. The big moment came when it was decided to paint 'just to paint.' The gesture on the canvas was a gesture of liberation from value — political, aesthetic, moral."
That’s what’s so great about him
IT MUST BE SAID- that you ONLY get that by looking at the real painting, not a poster of it.i hope this helps

Answer 7

maybe he was great for his time, i don't think anyone in this current time can produce that kind of art and be great (in this millennium).

art is also subjective and depends on who the audience is.

i agree with the guy or gal that said Rembrandt is great.

i think this guy is great

www.kevinmurphy.biz

Answer 8

Simply because he has a knack for painting.He instinctively knows what subjects to paint,colors to use ect,ect.Its not a gift everyone has.some do,but most dont