I can't say that I was deeply moved by the Jackson Pollock paintings. However, I can see why he created the art that he did and where his inspiration came from. Obviously, interpretations vary, as we discovered in the class discussion. Albeit, I feel that his medium of expression is somewhat obvious no matter how unclear the exact details of his work are.
Even though most of Pollock's paintings could easily be mistaken for a child's finger painting, anyone who makes on honest attempt to interpet his work will come out of it with something. He was an educated man, and clearly didn't paint just for the sheer purpose of applying paint to canvas. No matter how you interpet his paintings, a new perspective, greater knowledge, or reenforcement of ideas will be the result. The titles of them provide a much greater depth to the viewer. With the title in mind, a mode of thought is provoked. Thus, it is of no concern to Pollock what is taken away after seeing a specific painting, he is successful in causing one to think about a topic in the context of what he has created. The viewer is immediately consumed by color choice, line variation, thickness and depth, and the balance and layout of the entire painting.
In class, some people saw soldiers in one painting, protecting "the secret". Others saw that same "secret" as a coffin where a man was lying, and some even saw two figures lying in a coffin. This proves my point perfectly. Every individual in class was caught by some facet of each painting. Whether they disagreed, agreed, or weren't sure if they had any opinion on what was being conveyed was irrelevant. The painting, in essence, produced a full pallet (no pun intended) of thought processes. Pollock's paintings were unlike any other artists of the time, and he knew that they would force people to think outside the box.
No comments:
Post a Comment