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