Jackson Pollock & Tolstoy’s Views of His Work

(1) What do you think of Pollock?

Although initially appearing wild and disorganized, I found Jackson Pollock’s paintings to be aesthetically appealing. Upon first encountering his work, I was attracted by the plethora of colors and the chaos in which each was arranged. I held Pollock’s work to a higher regard after watching videos about how he produced his art and hearing the in-class presentation. The “dripping” technique utilized by Pollock truly enabled him to express himself through his art. Pollock’s art became meaningful in nature after I discovered his struggle against depression and alcoholism.

“When I am in my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well.”

The quote above, made by Jackson Pollock, describes the intimacy he shared with each of his pieces. I enjoy Pollock’s art because, beyond being immediately stimulated by the bold colors and seemingly frenzied assembly, his art is a meaningful expression of “self.” His art depicts his battles in life and the boisterous “drip” design expounds the alcoholic state he was in while creating many of his pieces.

(2) Align one of the theorists we've discussed with Pollock.

I chose to align Pollock with the views and opinions of Tolstoy. Tolstoy believed that a piece, in order to quantify as art, must contain the three components of (1) evoking individual feeling in others, (2) having clearness about that feeling, and (3) having sincerity amongst it.

When it comes to critiquing Pollock in Tolstoy’s eyes, Pollock satisfies the first condition of evoking feeling and emotion in others. After watching, “Who the $#%& is Jackson Pollock,” this is evident in Ms. Horton’s emotional connection to a piece of art that she believes Jackson Pollock created. Pollock fulfills the third condition of sincerity amongst his pieces as he was genuine in the intimacy he shared with each piece and was honest about the meaning they had to him.

Tolstoy would unfortunately not hold Pollock’s art in high esteem due to his inability to create art that had a clear obvious meaning. Pollock’s art, although produced strategically and purposefully, appears wild, confusing, and disorganized. The chaotic appearance of layers of multicolored “dripped” paint obstructs the clearness that Tolstoy would have sought to critically qualify Pollock’s work as art.

Image Above: "Unformed Figure," Jackson Pollock, oil and enamel on canvas, 52 inches by 6 feet 5 inches, 1953, Museum Ludwig, Cologne

Nietzsche vs. Tolstoy

Compare/discuss Nietzsche and Tolstoy. Nietzsche talks about "this collapse of principium individuationis" (p. 164) and Tolstoy talks about 'infection': "The stronger the infection the better is the art" (p.179). Are they talking about the same thing/dynamic or something different?

After reading Nietzsche and Tolstoy, I feel that they are both expressing similar concepts as both of their philosophies demand that art, especially art of quality, must deviate from the podium of individualism. Nietzsche’s philosophy about “this collapse of principium individuationis,” calls for true art to be in tension between the Apollonian force of individual character and the Dionysian force of chaotic emotions. Tolstoy’s belief that “the stronger the infection the better the art,” calls that in art the emotions of the creator must be shared, become less individualized, among those who experience the art. In both theories, art digresses from the individual who creates it to a sense of communal emotions or feelings.

Nietzsche conveys his thoughts about “this collapse of principium individuationis,” in which he composes two separate forces—Apollonian and Dioysian. Apollonian force was named after Apollo, the Greek God of Sun who represented luminosity and clearness. In Nietzsche’s account, Apollonian force served to define individualism, individual thought, and individual character. Whereas Dioysian force was named after Dionysus, the Greek God of wine, who represented pleasure and drunkenness. Dioysian force served to define illogical, chaotic emotions and feelings.

In critiquing art, Nietzsche believed that authentic art must contain a conflict between the Apollonian and Dioysian forces in that the clear individualism behind each piece must be convoluted with drunkenness emotion.

Tolstoy had a similar perception of art in that, to qualify as art, the piece must expand beyond the individual and contain the three components of (1) evoking the individual feeling in others, (2) have clearness about that feeling, and (3) have sincerity amongst it. To be considered art, individualism must be diluted as each art piece becomes less unique as more people experience the feeling that the artist experienced while creating it. Tolstoy believed, “to evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself then by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit, that feeling, that others experience the same feeling—this is the activity of art.” It is in such a sense that both Tolstoy and Nietzsche have similar views when it comes to qualifying art. In the perspectives of both men, art cannot be purely individualistic in nature.

Above Image: Image of Tolstoy

“Faking It”

Discuss the part of Faking It? that we watched - and provide a prediction: Will Paul manage to fool the experts? ..."fool"!? Why would he be a fake?

In the portion of the show “Faking It” that we saw in class, Paul O’hare, a house painter, was quickly transformed into a “fake” contemporary artist in an attempt to trick the art world of the United Kingdom. During his transformation, he had access to professional artists who taught and coached him. He took art classes in which he learned how to draw and paint using a variety of techniques. He was mentored how to understand art and speak its language. He even had professional critics come to educate him as to how art is critiqued and, as if that weren’t enough, he received a complete makeover so he could look the part of an artist.

I found the title of the show to be ironic. As Paul received more and more coaching from professionals, he became less of a fake. Instead of acting as a “fake” artist, the show does a better job converting him into a real artist (not a good artist, but a real artist nonetheless). Paul illustrated some key characteristics of professional artists in my opinion. First, he took his transformation seriously. Paul spent as much time as he could in the studio improving his artistic abilities. Second, his art was made with emotion and had profound meaning to him as he used it to express his disabilities from when he was a child. Third, Paul quickly learned to appreciate the art around him.

After listening to the professional critic’s evaluation of Paul’s artwork and demeanor, I do not believe he will manage to trick the experts. Paul’s art lacks depth that experienced artists typically capture and his novice knowledge of art is evident when he is in conversation. While I do not think he will fool the experts, I do believe Paul will have become a “real” artist by the end of the show. Paul’s inexperience and innocence in the art world doesn’t disable him from being able to produce meaningful art.