Pollock painting (1950)

It will work better using a SMALL SCREEN FORMAT.
A fragment (going on a loop) of the film of Jackson Pollock painting - shot by Hans Namuth (1950) and released as "Jackson Pollock 51" (1951). Sound is not synchronous. Available (with another short clip and a text transcript of Pollock's comments) at http://www.nga.gov/feature/pollock/process3qt.shtm

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• art
• painting
• photography
• film
• Pollock
• Hans
• Namuth
• 1950s

[ZombieBunny501]

i think he missed a spot

[remkoleeuw]

what I see these days, is that the term 'action painting' is often confused with 'live painting'. But these are not the same. Live painting cán be action painting and action painting cán be live. Jackson Pollock didn't do any performances, like many action painters nowadays do. He painted in his studio without an audience. But what I notice in the process of Pollock's painting, is that in relatively very short time, he put a huge amount of influences on the canvas. For me that is ACTION painting

[effluxide]

Pollock's paintings are in fact very sophisticated and not just random splashes. It is hard to convince people of this, who just see random splashes. Think if you heard a language that you never heard before. It would just be a noise. Haven't you ever heard a piece of music or even watched a movie or something that you thought was bad for whatever reason then heard or saw it again and changed your mind. Some people just hear random noise is Jazz music but it's not really like that at all.

[JazzKeyboardist1]

what did no chaos damn it mean? the answer does not drip from my mind

[Tattpilot]

Seems like a waste of paint. Intentional spills is ART? Deliberate dribble is TALENT? I'm guessing because he was ill made it 'special' so some call him a GENIUS. I can't appreciate the lacking of skill, though I bet it was fun to produce. I'd like to question why a lot of 'artists' could do what he did but not gain such credit. Is it because he was the first to do so?

[mereubu]

@MarineBlue1981 and many of those cigarette butts actually fell into the paintings! i read about an art conservator restoring a pollock painting. the butt had disintegrated, so she smoked a camel down to the filter and stuck it back in.

[ChazzMcNas]

Art Genius

[MarineBlue1981]

He had a fag in his mouth the whole time with all those paint fumes - can't have been healthy

[99arthur1]

actually, unlike most artists, he was very successful both financially and critically during his lifetime...Life magazine, Guggenheim, etc., his work commanded high prices and was in great demand...

He rocketed to popular status following an August 8, 1949 four-page spread in Life magazine that asked, "Is he the greatest living painter in the United States?"

pretty sure one of his works got the highest price ever paid for a painting: 140 mil in 2006

[comentariopesado]

This guy practically committed suicide with alcohol ,due to frustration of not being able to paint some thing good for the masses ! His crap that he is calling paintings are just a mass of shit!!