Talk:Jackson Pollock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jackson Pollock article.
Article policies
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

[edit] Native American Thing?

So the whole section on the connection between Pollock's work and Native American art, while somewhat interesting, smacks of original research, or at least poorly-written encyclopedic content. I don't know if it should be here at all, and at the very least it should be cleaned up and sourced better. Ideas? Personman 05:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I included one "need for citation", but it actually needs much more. On the question of psychological terms, I'm not sure if the incorrect use of "subconscious" is related to the source of the article, in which case it should remain. Otherwise, both Jungians and Freudians use the term "unconscious". In the same vein, the technique pioneered by Freud is called "psychoanalysis", whereas Jung's is "analytical psychology". Hence the change I made from Pollock's "psychoanalysts" to "analysts". I also changed some spelling from British to American (shows how I am able to overcome my own prejudices) seeing that the article is about an American. Peashy 11:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, I put some more "need citations in", but am thinking it's time for a bold edit dm 12:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree and would like to add/ request that the first sentence be clarified. First, Indians are from India, and if Pollock received inspiration from N. American Aboriginal Art I would like to know which band.(Oct 7) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.16.150 (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[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

Its not trash just not worth as much as people pay for it...


A DISCUSSION BOARD IS NOT A PLACE FOR SPEWING INCIDENTAL PERSONAL VIEWS! However, this is a special case. Are we sure Mr. Pollock was not really using his vomit technique on these canvases (drip mats)? It is popular to call him a fraud, but that is unfair. He was, artistically, nothing but a buffoon. The alcoholism is only natural in context. That anyone attributes talent to this canvas vandal is a monument to the human capacity for self-deception. 74.69.151.88 07:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde wrote over 100 years ago:

All art is at once surface and symbol Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work

   is new, complex and vital.

When critics disagree the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he

   does not admire  it. The only excuse for making a useless 
   thing is that one admires  it intensely.

All art is quite useless.


All the vitriol here fits this well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.132.30 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[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!

Well the communists "revolutionized" government in 1917, but 74 years later it failed and now there are few that defend communism with a straight face. Maybe after Pollock's been dead for 74 years his work will be looked at the same way... at any rate, art criticism is by definition completely subjective. One can not dispute Pollock had a major impact on modern abstract art, but whether that impact was positive or negative is purely a matter of opinion. 75.70.123.215 09:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chimpanzee With A Paintbrush

I may be mistaken but sometime in the mid 1970's weren't a group of Pollack's 'splatter' paintings displayed with a group of similar paintings done by a chimpanzee and then presented to a group of 'notable' art critics and none of whom could accurately differentiate which were Pollack's and which were the chimpanzees?? I seem to recall reading about that in a contemporary issue of Time or Newsweek.. CanadianMist 16:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of the incident but I'd have to agree it might be possible. Now, what does that mean? If a human could swing like a chimp, he'd be hailed as a world class gymnast. There are generally several dimensions to some of these questions.

In painting, there are elements like composition, color, contrast, subject, etc. Now, the question is, could one isolate one or more of these elements? What would a painting be like that had no color? No contrast? What about no subject? That is what abstract art seems to be about. Even where there is no subject - it's not a picture of a vase with two flowers, or an old barn, or a person; it's not a picture of anything - yet it might convey a mood, or a feeling, or maybe an attitude or something like that. If a viewer can make some kind of connection, they might be willing to pay money for it... or it may be that the artist is finding something inside themself and doesn't care if it sells.

On a similar note, people make music with lyrics that tell a story; but they also make music with no story or words - just notes, whether an orchestra or a jazz ensemble. It conveys moods and emotions and maybe ideas. Thus, a painting by a chimp might have some value. Monkeys can use language. Dogs are notorious for living life to the full just as fish are famously 100% immersed in their element. Maybe an abstract painting might be something where a person deliberately tries to "run thru the jungle, the wind in my hair and the sand at my feet."Friendly Person (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible lock? Lots of vandalism

For whatever reason, it seems there's a lot of vandalism on this page. Thoughts? dm 01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be that it (the vandalism) would be a tribute to the achievement of his work. Bus stop 02:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography, et al.

The biography section is crap. Really, it is. One of the most basic things to include, a cause of death with some sort of surrounding details (hell, besides the infobox, his YEAR of death isn't even mentioned), is entirely omitted -- as are his parents' names, and his adolescent/20s life. The rest of the article needs tons of work too: there are a whole mess of unsourced statements, four of the five sources used suck (none are easily verifiable as there are no online sources; instead, there are two books by the same author (neither specifically about Pollock), a physics magazine article about fractals, and an exhibition catalog), there is a whole bunch of detail missing about his technique, about critical reception both during and after his lifetime (from BOTH sides of the argument); there is almost nothing said whatsoever about his personal life (remember, the article is about HIM, not just his work), the sections are illogical and disproportionate (i.e. an entire section devoted to his switching from naming his paintings to numbering his paintings -- which, by the way, contains an UTTERLY unrelated and irrelevant statement regarding a movie about a trucker who may have bought a Pollock at a thrift store for $5). Also, there are no pictures of Pollock; and there are very few (2) of his work, which is a severely lacking representation of him and what he created and is notable for. Personally, I know nothing about Jackson Pollock (which is why I looked for this article in the first place), otherwise I'd do my best to contribute. As it is, this is one piss-poor excuse for an article about a very remarkable 20th century painter (the 20th century distinction is important, because it means that unlike a 3rd century painter there is PLENTY of information readily available about him and his work and his life). It would be wonderful if this could be brought up to Featured Article quality. So is there any person, knowledgeable about Pollock, who is willing to take responsibility for this article? That would be super. Piercetheorganist 03:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right: this needs to be made a priority project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. I'll get it listed there and see if I can get some editors involved. Freshacconci | Talk 11:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caption of image

The first image in the article has the following caption:

Controversy swirls over the alleged sale of No. 5, 1948 in 2006 for a reported $140 million

That statement should be referenced, or a different caption written --SeaphotoTalk 04:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No American Indian Influence

Pollack's supposed influence by Native American sand painting is insubstantial and misleading. While Pollack was exposed to Native American art, he nevertheless denied it had any influence on his work. The only similarity is that they both were painted flat on the ground, beyond that there is no further similarity. My argument is that Pollack's association to Native American sand painting is so insignificant that it should not be mentioned as a serious influence. And it is somewhat misleading in that it implies Pollack understood the deeper and sacred meaning of Native American Indian rituals and brought them forward into his art. But neither his art, nor his life appeared to support that assumption. Patrick Howe (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link

I'm removing the 'pollock Simulator' link out because it is totlly demeaning to his work and serves no purpose. --Uwaisis (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I undid that. Let's discuss. I thought it was fun to play with and does no harm. Could other people weigh in? I'd like to know if people think this link should be removed. --JaGa (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
it has nothing to do with jackson pollock. it is unencyclopedic. Anastrophe (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't know you constituted an entire discussion all by yourself. --JaGa (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
nobody else has weighed in, besides Uwaisis who initially removed it. i concur with Uwaisis. it's a small consensus, but consensus nonetheless. your rationale that it does no harm is countered by Uwaisis' rationale. I also concur with Uwaisis on that point. this is a 'gag' site, that has nothing to do with jackson pollock other than appropriating his name for an online plaything. it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia bio. Anastrophe (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Lol, Ana, you're too self-righteous by half! - and I wonder if you would've supported consensus if it'd gone against you - but I won't prevent removal of this link that upsets Uwaisis and you so. Peace out. --JaGa (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thanks for sharing your personal commentary about me, but it's irrelevant to what's under discussion. your comments are uncivil, and not assuming good faith. i waited two days before removing it, waiting for some other responses. this isn't a high traffic article. for anyone else who might like to weigh in, here's the site under discussion: http://jacksonpollock.org/ . Anastrophe (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the other two. It totally fails external linking guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations

Why did you delete my quotations section? --Space Often (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As was mentioned on your user talk page, you need to provide verifiable sources for quotes. freshacconcispeaktome 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)