Talk:Jackson Pollock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wyoming,
a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wyoming.

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Flag of New York City
Portal:NYC
 NYC Portal

This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B Class: This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject on Painting This article is related to the WikiProject Painting, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of painting. For guidelines see the project page or the Contributing FAQ. You can discuss the project at its talk page or see a list of tasks to do here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jackson Pollock article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Who's Harold Shapinsky

And what is he doing here?

[edit] A few biographical corrections

I corrected the name of Springs, Long Island (it is not "The Springs") and the description of his house there (it was/is not a "large country home" but an ordinary shingle style farmer's house). I also corrected the information about the Life (not Time) magazine article in 1949 (not 1951) and added the word "possibly" because the headline was written as a question -- "Is this the greatest living painter in America?" -- and not as a declaration. user:jsandersnyny

[edit] Cleaned enough?

I agreed with the inherent bias in the first paragraph and removed it. I cleaned up some grammar and added some timeline-based headings. For such a popular artist, this page could definitely be more in-depth...what do you think? user:jtascarella 18:17, 18 April, 2006

[edit] car insurance map?

What is the purpose of the 'car insurance map' link at the bottom of this page?

It was a spam link added by User:195.69.160.4 last night. Now history. -- Solipsist 16:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JacksonPollock-1.jpg

The image in this article (Image:JacksonPollock-1.jpg) does not currently have any source or copyright information - and so it can now be deleted. I've looked around on google images for the original but can't source it. Does anyone here know where its from or have a free replacement image they could upload? Cheers Agnte 18:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

It is difficult to overestimate the influence that Pollock has had on 20th Century Art. His work and persona exemplify and extend the myth of the Creative Genius Artist, and the Individual as a force for breaking new boundaries and unleashing powerful new ideas upon a staid and conservative culture and society.


...sounds pretty biased to me -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.238.186.93 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 10 February 2006.

I tend to agree. It is the sort of thing that would be OK if it were sourced and attributed to someone, but otherwise it is a bit strong for the lead paragraph. -- Solipsist 11:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see I wasn't the only one who had this reaction. I'm going to put {{npov}} on it for now, although I agree that if it's sourced/attributed then it's fine and the tag could then come off. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
This sentence is unecessary and redundant given the first sentence of the article. I would just delete it. Catharticflux 21:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This sentence belongs in a bio, not in an encyclopedia.

Balloonsrise 7:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the entire first paragraph, save the first sentence, could be deleted for bias, down to the clause which reads "that the brilliant democratic society and culture of America could give rise to." The first sentence by itself is an appropriate opener for a properly wikified article, with subsections and table of contents. Baeritone 19:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Claiming bias is difficult when talking about an artist like Jackson Pollock. The first sentence in dispute says, "It is difficult to overestimate the influence that Pollock has had on 20th Century Art." I wouldn't say this is bias. Whether you like Jackson Pollock or not, his impact on the development of Abstract Expressionism is indisputable. He is one of the most important artists of the 20th century. It is not bias to point this out or point out his influence over the genre of painting. The second sentence does sound more like content from a critic of his day, such as Clement Greenburg or Harold Rosenberg. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, if the sentence came from a knowledgable source. Any bio of Jackson Pollack must have interpretations of his work and his impact on the world of art. I would like to see the second sentence in the disputed section stricken but replaced with a quote from a genuine interpretation of Jackson Pollack's importance to modern art from a comtemporary critic.-- Missiletest 12.24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crap

Wow. This guy's work is complete trash. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.130.186.81

-- Thanks for sharing, guy!

Man, if this guy thinks the work of one of the most innovative artists in the twentieth century is trash, then it must be true!
Mmmmm. "Trash" is in the eye of the beholder. You might like this work by Malevich, though! -- the GREAT Gavini 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, crap :)

I definitely don't see how this guy's work is now the highest selling painting in the world. Abstract artists better watch out for second graders with a mind to sell their artwork...

I agree completely, but see the talkheader this isn't a forum. Quadzilla99 18:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You can't expect all the knuckle dragging neanderthals to understand deeper art --80.41.28.81 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If those who "understand deeper art" are willing to spend gazillions of bucks for this kind of thing, that's what I call an "equalizer". Wahkeenah 01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't help to refer to those who don't like his art as "knuckle dragging neanderthals". In fact, most people would look at his work and make a comparison to kindergarten fingerpainting or similar. Quite understandable, and therefore the question as to why anyone would pay squillions for some swirly rubbish arises. I'm not sure that we have addressed this view enough in the article. For my part, I love his work, as opposed to most other modern art. You could go through the Tate Modern, keep only the JP painting there (and maybe a Modgliani or two) and the world would be the better for it. If you equate art with music, then JP's works are a symphony. And a lot of modern art is some schoolkid banging on a drum. --Pete 10:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You raise the question that even if it's attractive, how much would you be willing to pay for an original? I'm reminded of the old saying that we knuckle-draggers use: "A fool and his money are soon parted." Wahkeenah 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
While that's a simplistic and misleading view - is everything with a high pricetag worthless? - there is some validity in it. I regard much of modern art as a waste of space and good canvas, despite the huge amounts invested.
However, with a good JP, there is clear evidence of the skill and talent invested. If, as the article suggests, one may equate art with dancing, then JP is a painted record of ballet. A different type of dancing painting than a Degas, but every bit as masterful. Then there is the place in art history of a seminal Pollock - how great a value can you put on something that helped to change the way we look at art? One could work at it and produce something akin to a Pollock now, but it would just be a "me too". Like Apollo 14.
In the end, it comes down to how we regard art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And also in his pocket, perhaps. --Pete 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. You find it valuable in an artistic sense, because you like it. I saw the illustration and I kind of like it too. But I wouldn't spend much money on it. I recall going to the Chicago Art Institute and being impressed by how many canvases were out in the open. You could get close enough to the detail, to see the brush strokes and get kind of a connection with the artist. And if the guard wasn't looking, you could touch them (no, I didn't, but I could have). All of those kinds of items were "modern art". The classics were behind bulletproof glass. That tells you all you need to know about the relative merits of those objects, in the minds of the museum administrators. Wahkeenah 20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it reflects the difference in ease of repair. --Pete 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point. And if they sell painting kits in the souvenir shop, they can save on costs by having kids on field trips do any needed touchups. Wahkeenah 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

well he probelly thinks that your artwork is crap!!! haha

[edit] Price of Blue Poles — A Sunshade Lust please take note

This page says Blue Poles was sold for $2,000,000, but when you click on the link for the painting, that page says it was sold for "US$967,000 (A$1.3 million)." Which is correct?

It was US$2 million, which at that time was A$1.4 million. The Australian dollar is worth a lot less against the US dollar now - US$2 million would now be about A$2.6 million. Elitism 11:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Confirmed. The price indicated by the National Gallery of Australia is US$2 million here. Elsewhere, this price is quoted as A$1.3 million. The current exchange rate between USD and AUD is not relevant to the price that was paid in 1973. Slowmover 21:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[comment removed by author -- didnt see it was already addressed in article --Storkk 16:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] Criticism section

This section was added by RuthieK on 27 August 2006 [1] and tagged for cleanup from 2 November 2006. The section on criticism of Pollock has been removed – the relevance of this section is not clear as it does not present encyclopedic information regarding the artists work. The section appears to reproduce work from other articles and has several discrepancies in the citations. Although criticism is a necessary part of art, this section should be discussed on this "Talk" page. → friedfish 10:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example of work

There should be an example of his work on his page. Are there any public-domain paintings of his? Gaterion 20:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't need public domain paintings. Using examples of his work for the purpose of criticism and commentary is pretty black letter fair use, and we do it for numerous other artists (e.g. Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein). john k 16:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The putrid stench of postmodernism

14/88

Unsigned by User talk:86.143.169.171 on December 28, 2006 (as if we have to preserve the comment) Americasroof 02:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos and Cquote Comments

Pollock's Galaxy, a part of the Joslyn Art Museum's permanent collection.
Pollock's Galaxy, a part of the Joslyn Art Museum's permanent collection.

This article by in large is much better than when I last made contributions last summer. However I was shocked to see the photos almost all deleted along with some biographical information about life and death in Springs. I put photos back. The Galaxy photo (included here) for a long time was the only representation of his work. I'm not real crazy about it since there are more significant works out there. But if that's all that's available you might want to put it back.

One other thing, I really, really, really hate the cquotes. I think they are too big, too ugly and shout too loudly "look at me." On an article about an artist where the artist work should dominate the cquotes a very distracting.

Americasroof 02:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand they might work in conjunction with the photos. The might, kinda grow on you in this context...sort of like the work of a certain artist.  ;-) Americasroof 03:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ???

How can people say this man's artwork is crap?!

Pollock help Revolutionise abstract art!

just appreciate it!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/c/Talk%7EJackson_Pollock_36a4.html"