The Wonders of Jackson Pollock

I had a hard time accepting Pollock’s pieces as true works of art worthy of a museum until I read the Scientific American article “Order in Pollock’s Chaos” by Richard Taylor. I really appreciate the fractal analysis of Pollock’s paintings, since it is based on statistics. Since all of Pollock’s works that were analyzed showed fractals and the fractals developed over time in his works, I felt like it elevated the paintings to works of a true master. Even though Pollock likely did not realize how significant his style of painting was at the time, the fractals prove he was a true genius in his technique. As Taylor pointed out, supposed potential Pollock paintings that he has analyzed do not have fractal patterns. The patterns are obviously not easy to replicate. Further, the development of fractal patterns in Pollock’s works indicate that there was something deliberate in the way Pollock painted and that he saw drips of paint differently than other people saw them. It seems like he was able to capture a natural rhythm that resulted in fractal patterns in his paintings. Since I think the fractal patterns are such a significant discovery in Pollock paintings, I would like to find out what Taylor’s analysis of Teri Horton’s alleged Pollock painting would yield. For me, a fractal pattern analysis of the painting would offer strong evidence to the authenticity of the painting.

The philosopher Danto would likely look at Pollock’s paintings in a similar light as Warhol’s artwork. How could paint thrown all over a canvas or replicas of Brillo boxes be works of art? Pollock seemed to be doing something radically different when he threw paint across huge canvases lying on the ground. Perhaps this is what made his artwork fascinating. A combination of simplicity in how the paintings were done with drips of paint and the complexity of the large patterns in Pollock’s work must have been intriguing enough for some of the public to consider it as art. Whether Pollock intended to evoke a certain emotion in his audience or not, people were able to find connections with his paintings such that his works could be considered art and would be passed on to other generations as works of art. From Danto’s perspective, Pollock’s paintings became successful pieces of art when people accepted them as art. I think his works carried a certain intrigue that drew people in to ponder whether they really were art or not.

Tolstoy and Nietzche on Art

Tolstoy describes how real art “infects” the audience with the artist’s feelings. His description reminds me of Danto’s claim that for a work to be art an audience must appreciate it as such. For Tolstoy, real art stirs up emotions in people and provides them a glimpse of the artist’s emotions and experiences. He captures a definition of art that allows the ordinary public to recognize art. Further, Tolstoy identifies sincerity as an important attribute of an artist. This quality allows for an audience to better connect with the artwork. It is like the artist has a conversation with the individual audience member. Tolstoy provides a clean, sensible explanation of what is real art; whereas, Nietzche scours the inner turmoil of the human mind for the identification of art as a product of a dream or ecstasy. It seems like Nietzche explores the extremes of the human mind, while Tolstoy generally describes a universal idea of human emotional reaction to another human’s expression through art.

Nietzche relates principium individuationis to Apollo and a world of illusion and dreams. Then, he goes on to describe how enjoyment taken from the destruction of principium individuationis is comparable to Dionysus and a chaotic world. While this seems to describe letting go of a rational, ordered view of the world for a more emotional and turbulent one, I do not think it is quite the same thing as Tolstoy’s infectious nature of art. Nietzche focuses on competing and complex forces of the human mind. It feels like human thoughts are a battle ground for the opposing influences of the worlds that Apollo and Dionysus represent. Tolstoy seems to have identified a much clearer and straightforward idea of how people recognize and appreciate art. Tolstoy claims that emotions and feelings are critical to successful art, and I think that Nietzche would classify such reactions as Dionysian. However, something that is Dionysian carries a description with words like intoxicating and ecstasies. I find it hard to see the kind of genuine sincerity Tolstoy discusses with regard to art in a Dionysian world, even though it is clearly missing from an Apollonian world.

Can He Fake It?

In BBC’s “Faking It”, Paul an ordinary house painter attempts to become an artist with accepted works in a gallery. The idea of this show was intriguing, because often in modern art museums there are pieces that are really hard to understand, since they look like something anyone could have done. It was surprising how quickly and fervently he worked on his art. He seemed much more willing and open-minded than the average middle-class working guy. Keeping in mind that he agreed to appear on this show, his confidence seemed to be boosted by the various people from the art world who encouraged and supported him. It seemed like he realized how to use art to express himself. However, he still had a long way to go as indicated by the acclaimed art critic who reviewed his progress. The critic pointed out that much of his work appeared to be from a novice artist who was experimenting and learning how to use different mediums. Thus, I think that he will have a hard time pulling off a convincing art show.

To be most convincing, he must even dress and talk the part. This segment of the show was most interesting to me, because it demonstrated that there is a preconceived idea about who is a modern, up-and-coming artist. I thought it was cliché that they gave him artsy glasses, but he made it sound like it was one of the most crucial pieces to pulling off the artist look. Indeed, it probably did help him to feel more like part. By looking like the common notion of an artist, he could portray himself more convincingly, which was the point of the show. However, it does show that there is a certain image of the successful artist that is taken seriously in the art world, just like a business professional who wears a suit and carries a brief case. Further, it shows that there is more to being a modern artist than simply flinging paint onto a canvas or throwing together objects into a sculpture. Even with Paul’s transformation into an artist, I think he will not be able to fool all of the critics at the art show. I predict that at least one, if not two, will notice something is not quite believable about his work.

The Price of Coveting Art

In “The Old Master? It’s Down at the Pawnshop”, the basis of the art creditors is the art market formed by the works of art masters. These works are well-known, coveted, and scarce in supply, which is the foundation for the high monetary stakes. Since the owners can borrow against the art, it has significant value as an asset and brings to reality the material nature of art. Kinkade print owners would likely find it very difficult to borrow against their art collections. While Kinkade prints can have decent price tags and accumulate to significant cost, they are consumer items. Even Kinkade admits the American consumerism approach to his work. He paints images that have the widest appeal to the general public and then mass produces prints of his paintings. Certainly, the works of masters are reproduced for consumers in the form of postcards, calendars, prints, and other consumer items, but Kinkade stands out in that the ultimate goal of his work is to be reproduced and sold as much as possible.

Kinkade presents an awkward art limbo between dime-a-dozen decorative art and nearly priceless works of art masters. It is important to note that his works are not just the originals he paints himself. He has a deliberate hand in the market for his prints. He arguably has skill as an artist with his perspective, lighting, and manipulation of color. However, he seems to differ from an art master in that he aims to give the viewer what he thinks they desire, his work does not show significant development over time, and he specifically aims to create a consumer product. He turns the art world and its critics upside down by shrewdly creating a market for his prints rather than his originals. Perhaps from the view of displeased art critics, Kinkade is insulting the uniqueness and depth of the works of art masters by creating faux art masterpieces to be placed in every living room in America. While highly valued works of art can be viewed in terms of objects of certain monetary worth, they hold a gravity of meaning to the art world that is lost in the mass production and easy pleasing nature of Kinkade works.