Jump to content

Talk:Jackson Pollock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 222.247.84.102 (talk) at 15:10, 10 November 2014 (→‎Fractals or no Fractals?: Of course). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WP1.0 Template:Vital article

Untitled

Influence

From research I've done, I've read in many sources that Pollack's unique style was influenced by the artist Max Ernst. However, I see no mention of Ernst in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.21.115 (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the 1930s he worked in the manner of the Regionalists, being influenced also by the Mexican muralist painters Orozco, Rivera, Siqueiros as well as the German painter Max Ernst.Barrymartin2 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the death section, there is a link for "Springs" that leads to a disambiguation page for "spring." I can't edit this page, so can someone please update it to Springs, New York? 206.169.65.43 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on the Biography

"in an alcohol-related, single car crash " -this is a bit euphemistic, isn't it? Why not say that he was drunk at the wheel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.181.46.66 (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

because it's more specific.

I think the Charlie Rose interview about Pollock should be linked to this Article somehow because it goes into the end of his life in depth and detail, and includes a letter from the brother of Edith Metzger stating that Pollock murdered his sister and the protest against showing his work ( glorifying Pollock ) at the MoMA at the end of the 20th Century.

The last 20 minutes of the film, and the director's commentary on the DVD also go into detail about the decline and death of Pollock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.18.19 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

LEGEND

I saw one of his paintings at MOMA in NY and he actually put nuts, bolts, cig butts into the paint when he mixed his paint for his paintings. Pretty frickin amazing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.211 (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Per this edit comment): actually, it does violate Wikipedia policies at WP:TALK: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." freshacconci talktalk 18:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an excuse to remove items you dont agree with more than staying on topic. This post does discuss him and his importance and even gives insite from a user who has apparently seen some of his art up close and people like you coming along and PICKING and CHOOSING what you THINK IS HELPFUL is NOT HELPFUL its censorship. This post is in dicussion and posting items like this serves the purpose of sparking DISCUSSION. Get a clue will you?? --199.209.144.211 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Legend" is a bit strong isn't it? All he did was splatter stuff on paper. No effort; like one of the article's sources said, "glorified wallpaper". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.55.168 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ebert once said something like: "For every person who thinks Jackson Pollock was a genius, there are a thousand who say: My kid in kindergarten can paint better than that." Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The page currently carries a tag stating that thie introcution is too short. I exanded the introduction to create something of a summary of the article below, but that edit was reverted without comment. Here is what I wrote:

Paul Jackson Pollock (January 28, 1912 – August 11, 1956) was an influential American painter and a major force in the abstract expressionist movement. He is most famous for developimg a new and unique way of applying paint to canvas called action painting. He laid the canvas on the floor rather than upright on an easel, and he dripped the paint onto the canvas rather than brushing it on. He enjoyed considerable fame in the 1950s, but struggled with alchoholism all of his life and died tragically at the age of 44 in a alcohol-related, single-car crash. Pollock and his paintings remain popular. In 2000, Pollock was the subject of an Accademy Award winning film starring Ed Harris. In 2006, Blue Poles was valued at US$15 million and No. 5, 1948 sold for US$14 million.

Why was this reverted. -ErinHowarth (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted because it is inaccurate, poorly written, covered in depth below, and in essence unfit as a an introduction..It reads as though it was written by someone who is unfamiliar with both Pollock and Abstract expressionism..certainly no expertise there..sorry...Modernist (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. In what way is it inaccurate. I took the details from the article below. If it is inaccurate, then the article also needs to be revised. Of course it is covered in depth below, that is the definition of an introduction. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break...where did you get this from - "He is most famous for developimg a new and unique way of applying paint to canvas called action painting". - sounds like high school...Just because today is his birthday here it comes....more - No. 5, 1948 sold for US$14 million - actually it sold for ten times that figure - and it should not be in the lead, nor should the Harris film be in the intro..for starters..Modernist (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you need a break, perhaps you should turn off the computer and go take a nap. You seem very grumpy today. I culled the reference to action paintiiong from these sentences: Pollock's technique of pouring and dripping paint is thought to be one of the origins of the term action painting. With this technique, Pollock was able to achieve a more immediate means of creating art, the paint now literally flowing from his chosen tool onto the canvas. By defying the conventional way of painting on an upright surface, he added a new dimension, literally, by being able to view and apply paint to his canvases from all directions. The refernce to the Harris film is given as an example of his continued popularity as are the references to his highest-selling paintings, as suggested by the Wikipedia Style guied: "[The lead section] should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." If I got it wrong, and No. 5, 1948 sold for 140 million instead of 14 million, then is is easily corrected with an edit rather than a revert.-ErinHowarth (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly the article needs a lot of intelligent research and work, not a cosmetic lead in...Modernist (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... for what it's worth, I respect Modernist's non-intransigent attitude, my apologies. Niubrad (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects

I feel that the wikiprojects:

Wyoming,
new york
arizona

are a bit excessive, i have removed them nishantjr (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important Works: "Lucifer?"

I do not see "Lucifer" (1947) listed as one of Jackson Pollock's "important works." Hunk and Moo Anderson may have hung the painting in their daughter's (Mary Patricia "Putter") bedroom for a number of years, but that should not be construed as meaning that they thought the painting was inconsequential. This is a very powerful piece that exhibits several of Pollock's choices in media and technique. Please see commentary by Bill Berkson (art critic) and Will Shank (Conservator) regarding this painting as shown at SFMOMA--http://www.sfmoma.org/multimedia/interactive_features/61#71.198.125.158 (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Doug Herrick[reply]

JacksonPollock.org

I have added jacksonpollock.org in Jackson POllock in pop culture. Jacksonpollock.org website has achieved substantial popularity. Most famous facebook app, very popular iphone app and 100.000s visits per year. Also the winner of 2009 webby awards. It is certainly equally if not more accepted in popular culture than movies like Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? which are featured in the pop culture section. Please consider adding this interpretation to the popular culture section. Thanks.NikolaT (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is commercial linkspam and has no place in this article it was deleted for good reason...Modernist (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage sentence in introduction

I'm re-removing a sentence in the introduction about Pollack's marriage to Lee Krasner.

Yes, the introduction should introduce the contents of the article. But it should not jump from a very general first sentence explaining that he's an artist, to a fact about his marriage that is specific down to the month, then back to another very general sentence about him being famous. It's jarring and awful to read.

Besides that, there's no need for this sentence anyway because it doesn't 'introduce' a significant part of the article. The sentence is repeated almost verbatim at the start of the third section, and there aren't any further significant details about Pollack's marriage to Krasner after that. If their marriage had a subsection or was in any way a significant portion of the article, I could understand it getting a mention in the intro, but that's not the case.

If there's any need to even mention his wife in the introductory paragraph, it should at the very least be written differently and toward the end of the paragraph, not bizarrely juxtaposed right up front. As it was, the sentence was completely out of place and pointless. Rodeosmurf (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His marriage to Lee Krasner belongs in the introduction, her presence was integral to Pollock's life, career, and reputation. I rewrote the inclusion, thank you for your input...Modernist (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No information on his depression

This is solely an account of his technique, there is no connection to his life and how it influenced his artwork. He suffered from depression and from alcoholism and those are major biographical items that cannot be omitted. A correction should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.213.30 (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. WP lists him as having suffered from clinical depression. Sounds to me like an important fact about his life, and one whose influence on his life and work may be documented and discussed in some reliable source. David Spector (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism

Did he convert to Judaism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.91.78 (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. He had a "christian" wedding in a Christian church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.18.19 (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Squire or The Stone Roses inspired by Jackson Pollock?

There is no doubt that most of the artwork for The Stone Roses, which is done by their lead guitarist, John Squire, was inspired by the works of Jackson Pollock. Just look at their legendary The Stone Roses (album) artwork- The Stone Roses- (Bye Bye Badman- is what the artwork is called), it is without question that it draws influence from Pollock and his works. So why is there no mention of it, at least in the popular culture section?

(http://www.john-squire.com/art/byebye_orig.jpg) - The piece from their debut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.100.112 (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the lyrics to "Going Down" ("Yeah she looks like a painting/Jackson Pollock's Number Five"). He's also quite forthcomming about his influences. "Apart from untitled, I made the album covers on canvasses that are roughly four times the size of a vinyl album. They were straight rip-offs of Jackson Pollocks done in that style." [1] Dendlai (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent Antiamericanist?

Is Eva Cockcroft prominent or even most prominent or really only completely unknown? She still might be right of course.--Radh (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tate Modern holdings

I notice the Tate website lists 6 Pollocks in its collection: [2] These ones look worth listing as major works:

  • 1938/40 Naked Man with Knife
  • ~1941 Birth
  • 1948 Number 23
  • 1948 Summertime Number 9A

Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical debate - Removed Craig Brown comment

Deleted for several reasons. First, not sure if extemporized comments on a live TV show count as a reliable source (nor can one tell whether he is correctly quoted unless the broadcast or script is in the public domain - verifiability). Second, the claim that Craig Brown is an "artist" seems to derive exclusively from Wikipedia (I've just removed it from his bio page, as I can find no support for it). Third, even if the Brown remark is reproduced accurately, surely the article would be improved by replacing it with critical comment from an accredited art critic in a published source; it's not as if nobody has written about Pollock.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Frankly I agree it should be removed because it served no useful purpose in this article...Modernist (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture References: Iron Man (2008)

Pepper Potts: "Larry called. He's got another buyer for the Jackson Pollock in the wings. Do you want it? Yes or no."

Tony Stark: "Is it a good representation of his spring period?"

Pepper Potts: "No. The Springs was actually the neighborhood in East Hampton where he lived and worked, - not "spring" like the season.

Tony Stark: "So?"

Pepper Potts: "I think it's a fair example. I think it's incredibly overpriced."

Tony Stark: "I need it. Buy it. Store it.

[1]

97.119.131.237 (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of high prices

There's very little discussion of the extraordinarily high sale price of Pollack's paintings. I know very little about art and read the article in large part because I'd like to know why someone would pay such vast amounts for these works. For instance, the article mentions a painting bought in 2006 which may or may not be a Pollack. Depending on authorship, its value may skyrocket. Why is this? From my naive point of view, the art should stand on its own and have intrinsic worth only. I'd love it if the article included an intelligent discussion (sourced, of course, not just random speculation) that could explain why this is not so. The price seems to have greatly increased over the last few decades as well, from the sale price and more modern estimates for Blue Poles. Is there a reason?

There was a sort of discussion on this issue in one of the archives, but it was basically someone saying "his paintings suck / are way overvalued" and others agreeing or disagreeing. This post is instead meant to suggest an improvement to an article about which I know little.

[For full disclosure, since it's relevant to my good faith, I find the paintings of Pollack's that I've seen to be quite interesting, but not worth anything close to what they're valued at. The ultra rich apparently need hobbies like everyone else.] 67.158.43.41 (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good question for posting to the Humanities reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Rockwell Connoisseur, an art lesson in disguise

Is an in-joke. Rockwell is the uptight viewer, plus by painting the Pollock painting inside his graphic illustrative painting, he's saying, "you're not special, anyone can do that." AT THE TIME (and even a little bit today), traditional artists hated abstractionists for painting like children and not taking the time to learn to draw properly. (Now we know that Pollock was disturbed and expressing his emotion in he only way he knew how, like an animal, as stated in the movie, "I am Nature.") In the late 20th century, Fantasy painters such as Boris and Frazetta also railed against and lampooned (Connoisseur is a lampoon)"modern art" with Boris stating in his book, Fantasy Art Techniques, that "...modern art had crawled up it's own ass." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.18.19 (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Pollack is alive (02/05/2012)

I just created an account to be able to share this information. I will let the more experienced users verify and edit the content.

I just finished reading one of our local (Long Island, NY) magazines, called Dan's Papers, Volume LII, Number 44, dated February 3, 2012. It includes an interview and photo of Jackson on his 100th birthday last week. He even jokes about the reports of his death.

He has lived quite a full life since the crash. Someone please confirm this data and update soon.

Dcestaro (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dcestaro, I believe the Rattiner article was intended as a bit of a folksy spoof. The same author has written a book about Pollock's death. Apparently, he and Pollock were friends.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I threw it out there for someone to confirm rather than doing any editing. It never occurred to me that this piece would be presented as it was without a disclaimer at the end. Thanks for informing me. Dcestaro (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just that kind of tongue-in-cheek writing. For example, the article explains his hands shake too much to paint. Seen his work? JFHJr (㊟) 00:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And PS, sorry you got a WP:BITEY response. Also, thank you for bringing this to WP:BLPN. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

What's the deal with removing the signature? They're found in many articles and it adds a nice touch to the Infobox. Thanks Jenova20 18:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been argued, discussed for years and it was decided by consensus that we don't include signatures of artists in the visual arts articles for a variety of reasons. There is no line in the infobox for a signature - that is not a coincidence - that was a decision made by the visual arts project several years ago. While other projects use them we don't in the visual arts...Modernist (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an infobox for people with that line. I can't say i understand why they decided against signatures, especially for dead artists where they can't be abused...Jenova20 18:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations, forgeries, and a host of other issues as well as visual distraction were a few problems. Here is a link to one of those conversations that we had several years ago Template talk:Infobox artist...Modernist (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no copyright on a dead person's signature?
Seems stupid, i'll take your word for it though and leave it in this instance. Thanks for telling me Jenova20 18:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fractals or no Fractals?

According to this article Taylor' s method is insufficient to show that Pollock had such an intuition of the nature of chaotic motion and his paintings may not be fractals at all. I think this should be added to the article. I m going to add it if there isn't any disagreement.--NNeilAlieNN Talk to me 20:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Open University BBC show called "The Code", episode 2 - Shapes presented by Oxford Unversity Mathmatics Professor Marcus du Sautoy shows that Pollock had literally stumbled across a Universal Law of self similarity, later expressed by Mandelbrot (so called in popular media as "God's Fingerprint" or more formally as Mandelbrot's Set). His Chaotic Motion did indeed express fractal self similarity of different scales that is expressed everywhere in nature and that this was the key to it's appeal. Geometry that matches nature compells us. Nature's geometric beauty lies behind the Mona Lisa, for example as Humans express self similarity similar to the Earth (75% Ocean vs 75% water in humans, or that the nerves and blood vessels are identical to trees and river courses... etc.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01320wn

Representational --> Figurative

It might be better to use the term 'figurative' instead of 'representational'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesthecat (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing gender: her -> his

Under "The Springs period and his technique" it states that:

"Pollock signed a gallery contract with Peggy Guggenheim in July 1943... At the suggestion of her friend and advisor Marcel Duchamp, Pollock painted the work on canvas"

"Her" friend and advisor makes no sense, so I'm changing it to "his". If it really is a "her", then someone needs to clarify who "her" is. Is it Peggy? Or maybe Pollock's wife? Or maybe even Marcel is a her?

119.252.225.130 (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her is correct - Duchamp was Peggy Guggenheim's friend and advisor...Modernist (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CIA connection

I didn't see anything in he article about that - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.223.78.189 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/a2/iron-man-script-transcript.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jackson_Pollock&oldid=633236473"