This is Jackson Pollock’s One: Number 31 (1950), which is on display at the Museum of Modern Art, and is also the focal point of our study of Pollock thus far in this class. Now, at face value this may seem as though it is just a simplistic splattering of paint, one that “a fifth grader could do.” That must be one talented fifth grader… What Pollock did for art, which is an undeniable fact, is create this chaotic masterpiece (and many others) that fits the category of Action Painting, which for better or worse fits in the movement of Abstract Expressionism. He was revolutionary, truly befitting the dictionary definition of avant-garde. Like I said, however, there is no argument, this is absolute fact; art was never the same after Jackson Pollock. However, there is discrepancy in the criticisms of his works and what they mean for art, especially from the art theoreticians Clement Greenberg and Harold Rosenberg. Greenberg’s critique of Pollock would put emphasis on the final product, the actual painting on the wall, rather than how the painting was created by the artist. In his mind, at least to my understanding the artist himself is irrelevant and that the painting is for itself by itself, almost as though it was an immaculate conception. Rosenberg, on the other hand, places emphasis on the actual process of the painting, and that the process is that which is “divine.”
When juxtaposing these two theories and applying this juxtaposition to Pollock, I am inclined to purvey the school of Rosenberg, for several reasons. This first is that, simply put, Jackson Pollock, above any other painter that Greenberg would characterize as an Action Painter (de Kooning, Gorky, etc.), did not live on the easel, an idea that Rosenberg looks at extensively, describing his idealized notion of the painting off the easel/wall. To Rosenberg, the purity of painting can only be separated if the painter let’s go of the notion of the easel/wall and its emphasis on the finished product, and focuses soley only losing themselves in painting, which is easier done on the ground/off the wall (coincidentally exactly the style Pollock used). Also, although from afar a Pollock looks as if it is flat, further examination suggests that he added a physical three-dimensionality to his works, perhaps a reconceptualization of the focal point/depth painting of the Renaissance. Exhibit A:
It can be clearly seen that, along with gobs of paint, there are actual tangible objects embedded into the painting. Pollock used this technique to invade the visual space of the audience, which, in turn, invited the audience to take a step into the new world created by the painting. It was not merely a record/reproduction of the thoughts of the artist, but Pollock’s worked emphasized the mind of the artist himself, turning the focus away from the finished product and toward the thought of how on earth could a mind splatter paint with such mastery. In essence, the painting becomes the mind of Pollock, not just a reproduction of his thoughts or an object on a wall.
I believe that through his revolutionary work, Pollock acted as an intermediary between Cubism, Expressionism, and the Minimalist movement. His complete breakdown of form created simply bare bones painting, with the emphasis on the process of painting. Minimalism takes Pollock a step further and even rejects the notion that art has a process at all, but rather that art is merely a concept in the mind of an artist and that he does not even have to create anything with his own hands. Minimalism also emphasizes the invasion of space, something found in the infantile stages in Pollock’s works. So, perhaps it is sufficient to say that Pollock became a heavy influence of the creation of the Minimalist style, both through art and through his “bad-boy” pretentious style that Minimalists came to reject.
For a short synopsis of Jackson Pollock and his works watch this: