| |
|
| Who likes this man's work? I find his early stuff to be rather interesting before he got into the gestural abstraction and splatter paintings. I know he's most known for works like "Number 1, 1959(lavender mist)" and the like, but I can't seem to understand or appreciate something so acutely personal and bereft of outward meaning. It seems a tad trying to heap praise on a style that obviously means a lot to the artist but means very little to the audience. I'm not saying something extremely personal is bereft of meaning, however(I'm thinking Mark Rothko's work here), just that Pollock's style didn't have much... well... artistry to it. I appreciated his splatterings when I first viewed them for their visceral intensity but quickly grew to wonder why this style was so intensely popular. For in the end there really wasn't much rhyme or reason to his later work, and they were almost all uniform in content. Of course, Pollock was almost entirely popular with the upper classes and gallery owners during his heydey, and generally disconnected from the masses. However, due to the film that just came out Pollock is obviously making a mark on more than just the corporate offices of America where his paintings usually find homes. I talked to my dad, an artist, about Pollock and he generally said the same thing, that while Pollock was a truly gifted artist he spent the remainder of his life concentrating on an art style that takes no talent at all. I'm probably in the minority here. |
|
|
