Saturday, July 29, 2006

Art Movements: Ownership of One or Many

Jackson Pollock at his peak burned his past conditioning and present turmoil, his very identity and character as a man, and he burned them clean. There’s nobody to recognize. That’s why it can be hard at first sight to tell a true Pollock from a fake. He prepared us to believe that absolutely anything was possible for him. What determines authenticity for me is a hardly scientific, no doubt fallible intuition of a raging need that found respite only in art." The New Yorker 07/24/06

In a true art movement, does ownership disappear? The importance of making art universally accessible, by both artists and viewers, can occasionally lead the great innovators of contemporary art movements towards simplification and over-repetition in their process. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but is it an unconscious decision by the leading artist to attract disciples?

What made Picasso bigger than Pollock? Picasso and Braque certainly had their followers in the Cubist movement; but afterwards, no one could keep-up with Picasso’s ever-changing whimsical style. Picasso continued to grow and had a continuing general influence over the art world; but his major claim to fame was the Cubist movement – and that was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. On the other hand, Pollock worked his way toward the “drip” style and ultimately never strayed too far away after achieving his legendary status. Did Pollock value the concept of “art movements” more than Picasso? Was either artist more absolute in their approach? – DN

1 comment:

The Forum God said...

I'm not sure it had as much to do with their work as the society and culture of their time. I'm not a historian, but I am guessing that artists during pollock's time were not as valued by the community as they were by picasso during his time. it's the community that "decides" who to make famous. Just look at art junkyard of cut bank. our community is basically trying to immortalize some "great" artists like tim joyner. It's not necessarily how talented you that makes you famous, it's the community that writes history. I just believe that Picasso was just considered by his society to be a more valued artist pollock, but doesn't make one artist better or worse.