Jack the Dripper

 

Jackson Pollock was a primary in Abstract Expressionism who revolutionized all contemporary art that followed him with his radical approach to painting. Pollock redefined what it is to produce art. He realized that the process of creating a work of art was just as important as the work of art itself. With the crisis and aftermath of war, artists were troubled with the dark side of man. Anxiously aware of human irrationality and vulnerability, they sought to express their concerns by means of a new art with significance and substance. The Surrealists brought about unlimited possibilities with an emphasis on tapping the unconscious. This birthed the method of psychic automatism, where involuntary gesture and improvisation take over, freeing the artist of their conscious mind. This is exactly what Pollock did. He would employ a canvas in an untraditional way by laying it on the floor rather than an easel, leaving it raw instead of primed and stretched, and rarely attacking it with a brush. The paintings with which he utilized this method are mostly what Pollock is known for—his distinct drip paintings. From 1947 to 1950 is the period his most famous drip paintings came into existence, gaining him much recognition. Laying his canvas on the floor allowed Pollock to view and strike from all angles. He took an interest in using industrial materials, such as synthetic resin-based paints called Alkyd enamels and house paints, applying it with hardened brushes, sticks, and sometimes even basting syringes. Another detail to mention is the fact that he used extremely large canvases. This gave them an enormity and powerful presence, making it impossible to ignore his works on display. In the process of creating this style, he moved away from figurative representation and challenged traditional Western techniques, even moving away from the use of just hand and wrist in exchange for occupying his entire body with motion in what some might describe as dance-like gestures. In an edition of Time Magazine from 1956, Pollock was mockingly labeled “Jack the Dripper” for his unique style. With his perfected dripping technique that he would be permanently identified with, he was able to reach a more instantaneous means of creating art, the liquid paint literally dripping off his chosen tool directly onto the canvas.

            One of the earliest and most important pieces of modern American painting, let alone Pollock’s collection, is his painting Mural. This canvas is bursting with physical energy that was unlike anything else seen in 1943. For this painting, Pollock summoned the multitudinous stylistic practices and theoretical methodologies to which he had been exposed. Although it was not performed in the drip-painting manner, it was revered for the immediacy in which he brought together and synthesized these elements, containing references to personal, cultural, social, political, and art world happenings. With all of these available influences at his disposal, Pollock was able to take what he wanted from them and combine and transform them into his own unique contemporary method. Whereas he was thought to have no structure for his process, in 2009 it was discovered that his name is discernible in black lettering under the other layers of paint in this work. It is still being studied, with the letters being unorthodox, ambiguous, and largely hidden, but it could hardly be an arbitrary coincidence to find only those letters in that specific sequence. There have been no assertions of this before and his name is not traceable in any other works of his, but there is no evidence supporting the notion either. Although, Pollock often loathed talking about his art and rarely kept written records, is it possible that he arranged the entire painting around his name as a framework? Renowned art critic Clement Greenberg, who was a principal follower of Pollock, took one look at the painting and realized "Jackson was the greatest painter this country has produced" (Adams).

References:
 

Adams, Henry. “Decoding Jackson Pollock.” Smithsonian. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Decoding-Jackson-Pollock.html#.

“Collections: Jackson Pollock.” University of Iowa Museum of Art. http://uima.uiowa.edu/jackson-pollock.

“Contemporary Art and Design.” Resources/Teaching Materials. http://66.195.106.23/teacherpackets/teachingpackets/tp/contemp/Artwork/ConCath.htm.

Paul, Stella. “Abstract Expressionism.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/abex/hd_abex.htm.

“The Religious Affiliation of Celebrated American Painter: Jackson Pollock.” Adherents. http://www.adherents.com/people/pp/Jackson_Pollock.html.

Dada and Duchamp

            The Dadaist movement was born out of the negative reaction to the horrors of World War I, and as a reactant to the conceptual standards of art in the modern world. The goal of Dada artists was to mock the meaninglessness of that world and question the notion of art itself. They did this by challenging the perception of the viewer, leaving their pieces open to interpretation. Dadaists relied on chance rather than inflicting meaning into their works, making the movement less of a movement and more of a game. Being a byproduct and critical response by nature, this “game” was anti-war as well as anti-bourgeois. Its unruliness was a sort of mimic to the chaos and collapse of bourgeois cultural values, which crumbled due to the destruction of war. Surrealism, which came later, was also a movement to work against the cultural values and social construct of the time. They imposed a revolution to break away from the expectations of these standards. Although not directly associated with the Dadaists, Marcel Duchamp played a very important role in sharing their goals and challenging order and art.

            Duchamp’s piece, Fountain, is a prime example of the disarray of Dada. It is simply a urinal turned on its side with his signature. With its release in 1917 came scandal. Duchamp had submitted this piece into a jury-free exhibition, meaning that anyone was able to enter the show. Yet, somehow, the show’s committee rejected it, which drew attention. In turn, Duchamp published a defense in rebuttal to what the exhibition had done, expressing his feelings and theories concerning the basis of art. He raised questions on what qualified as art, having no part in its production other than the concept driving it. Could readymade or found objects be considered art? Who is to define art in the first place? I don’t believe in art as a concrete practice. Nobody has the authority to determine what constitutes a piece of art, and therefore, anything can be considered art. I also don’t think that the artist must physically make his piece to be considered an artist. If anything is an art, this includes ideas. With these in mind, anybody can be an artist. This is what Duchamp and other Dada artists wanted people to realize. If there is to be peace in the world, we must not take things so seriously.
            These are the boundaries that Marcel Duchamp was attempting to push with his works, invoking thought and seeking reaction. Even if his pieces are being criticized in a negative way, that person is still criticizing them as art. Even if they are to say, “That’s not art.” In this way, it was impossible for Duchamp to ever fail. His creative ingeniousness reshaped the form, content, and concept of art.

Gauguin

            Paul Gauguin is a Post-Impressionist painter who utilizes a discernible form of the avant-garde style. This technique can be broken down using Griselda Pollock’s formula for how to make a mark as an avant-garde artist, especially in Gauguin’s painting, The Yellow Christ. Pollock’s formula—using reference, deference, and difference—can be applied to this work to dissect how Gauguin fits the avant-garde criteria.

            First, Gauguin sets a foundation for his painting in referencing Christ on the cross. The crucified Christ has been represented countless times in paintings from history. He shows that he is aware of the traditions and conventions of the art world. This also promotes the notion that his work is relative, and therefore holds some significance.

            Next, Gauguin defers to the Impressionist movement in his painting, using relatively loose brushstrokes and having very simplified forms. For instance, the figure of Christ is depicted without individual fingers. He also uses colors that aren’t necessarily correct in terms of their realism. Such as Christ again, whose skin is shown as yellow.

            Lastly, the artist uses his color palette to evoke certain emotions. When I look at this painting, I feel a sense of warmth and comfort. It is not a gruesome scene of Christ. In fact, it looks as though he could be sleeping comfortably instead. The bright, warm colors contribute largely to this sensation because they radiate that feeling of calmness and maybe even happiness.

Caillebotte

As the march of time continues past wars and the like, factories and mass production comes in full swing. As more machines are produced to take the jobs that manual labor workers once had, less interactions take place among people. The world had become more desolate in the eyes of a particular artist—Gustave Caillebotte. I believe his works are both a celebration and critique of modern life. He had a rough life in the 1870s due to the loss of three close family members: his father in ’74, brother in ’76, and mother in ’78. With these troublesome events and grieving, Caillebotte’s view on the world changed. It helped him distinguish the collective effects of the blossoming society in which he lived. For this reason, recurring themes of remoteness and melancholies are consistent throughout most of his paintings. An example that displays these notions is his painting Pont de l’Europe, done in 1876.

In this painting, we find the characteristics of a modern society. Although the bridge structure is taking up a large portion of the scene, there is a vast landscape that stretches beyond it. There are only a handful of people in the composition, none of which seem to have any distinct contact. Immediately through this representation, there is no evident communal goal. It is an extremely spacious setting with the few people spread out in it.
            The color palette that Caillebotte uses is also quite somber. He tends to stay on the darker scale, sticking to dull blues and grays. These colors might also have a connection with the isolation that is felt through his works.

The man on the right who is peering over the bridge (which is also a symbol of modernity because of its factory-like mechanic structure) is a very important figure that contributes much to the piece. The addition of this character creates an apprehension not found elsewhere in the painting. His placement on the bridge, pose, and his gaze all emit a downhearted emotion. He stares into the distance on the other side of the bridge, with the metal beams acting as a barrier. Tension is created because this man cannot obtain the luxuries found on the other side. He is caged behind the bridge, trapped and alone.

There is a dog in the foreground that can be interpreted to have an important role in the painting as well. The bourgeoisie class had acquired a characteristic fear of the rabies virus during this time because of its apparent spreading and assumption that it came from poor peoples’ pets in the first half of the century. This dog therefore embodies that fear. It is a stray that is wandering the streets of the modern society depicted with no restraint.

The style and elements that Caillebotte chose to utilize all contribute to the painting’s sense of isolation and disheartenments: the vast spacious area with scant people, dog’s symbolization of fear, the lack of interaction, and the man’s longing gaze over the bridge.

Monet vs. Manet

            Seven years after the Paris Commune, which was the Fourth French Revolution that lasted two months, the French government had finally decided it was time to celebrate their resurgence. They felt like they were rebuilt and moving forward and out of the previous years of destruction. In 1878, June 30^th was the date chosen to hold the festival celebrating France getting on its feet again. Two Impressionist artists from the time, Claude Monet and Edouard Manet, depicted this day of celebration in their paintings, The Rue Montorgueil and The Rue Mosnier with Flags, respectively. These artists’ approaches to the task of depicting this day offer many differences as well as similarities in their paintings.
            Monet’s The Rue Montorgueil is a painting that is full of energy. His brushstrokes are very present in the work and offer movement and life to the subject matter. The scene is portrayed from an aerial view of the end of a street, looking down the road. Flags hang from every window, blowing in the breeze and the ground is almost impossible to see due to the crowds in the street. Monet’s style is avant-garde in regards to how simplified Impressionism allows him to be. It looks like he could have painted it quickly, and individuals in the street are reduced to nearly lines and blobs of dark paint. The action left behind in the viewable brushstrokes of Monet’s hand adds to the action of the content. It is painted using a brighter color palette, and appears to be a sunny day that is represented. This lightens up the subject matter as well, and makes it more obviously a festival and that the crowds of people are celebrating. There is still a dark undertone that is indirectly addressed, since the celebration is for the ending of the suffering that France had experienced in the past years. It is a festival marking the end of the consequences of the war and the revival of France.

            Manet’s painting, The Rue Mosnier with Flags, is similar in the way that it is somewhat simplified, such as with the details at the end of the street which appear as more ambiguous blobs of paint. His brushstrokes, much like Monet’s, are very visible and add a sense of motion to the content. However, Manet, I believe, has more bold colors and also uses juxtapositions of bright and dark colors. This is present in the carriage on the street against the brightly sunlit cobblestones, and even the veteran with a dark coat and slight black outline. Manet also moves the perspective of his composition closer to the ground of the street that he depicts. It is zoomed in for a more personal feel. We know that both of these artists’ paintings are avant-garde in terms of artistic characteristics, but Manet covers the grounds of political radicalism as well with his inclusion of the crippled veteran in the foreground. Perhaps he is sending a message to all of France, suggesting that they not forget what it cost for them to have their Third Republic. Manet fought in the war, and experienced the turmoil himself, so it could be his way of paying tribute to all others who were there.

Edvard Munch - The Scream

            The Impressionist Movement hosts a plethora of paintings by Impressionist artists who hoped to capture moments in time in an exaggerated form of Realism. Their work was quick in order to succeed at this and make sure nothing of their subject matter would change over time. Due to the ambiguity of some of these paintings, they leave more for the viewer to interpret, allowing them evoke more emotion from them than many traditional academy paintings. One such painting, Edvard Munch’s The Scream, 1893, stirs up many emotions, but all towards the same general form; it conjures a sense of despair and anguish, as well as fear and eeriness.

            The composition itself shows the ghostly figure of a man in the foreground with his hands on his face, wide eyes and an open mouth (like the “Home Alone” cover). He is standing on a long bridge that disappears to the left, at the end of which are two other faint figures. The background consists of a red sky, horizon line, and a lake. Certain aspects of the painting are distorted, such as the sky, landscape to the right, and the main figure himself. This is a huge contributor to the strangeness of the painting.

            The colors Munch chose to use are earthy, but bright in places. The sky is a vibrant red, and having stated that is was like “blood” turns it from what could potentially be a beautiful sunset to a strange, uncanny setting. The blue tones of the lake and the landscape in the background make for a melancholy feel. A sense of helplessness is achieved with his palette, especially in the dull foreground and pale face of the ghostly figure.

            Munch’s loose brushstrokes and use of line are a large part of what makes this painting have the affect it does. His style gives the painting a twisted and aberrant look, because it is not the way we are used to seeing things. Even the foremost figure is twisted somewhat in his pose, making him abnormal, and therefore creepy. Also, the fact that he is up front and personal in the composition, kind of large in scale, yet still rather indistinct and hazy gives the viewer (me, at least) a confrontational and uncomfortable feel—almost like you are being bombarded with all of the glooms, miseries, sorrows, and pains that this man is enduring.

            Even the name leaves me with a vexatious feel, especially when coupled with the painting. Given the name, then looking at the piece, you can almost hear the scream that the ghostly figure is emitting. Munch did a spectacular job at creating an emotional and thought provoking work. It takes your mind on an uncomfortable trip to the sublime and back, and I love every moment of it.

The Stone Breakers

            With the rise of the socialist movements, the invention of photography, and the revolutionary push of avant-garde art reacting against academy traditions also came the birth of Realism painting. One such painter, Gustave Courbet, believed that painting was an “essentially concrete art,” and embraced the notion of realism, painting only what existed in front of him—what he could see with his own eyes. He also believed in art as being utilitarian and having the potential to initiate change for the better in society. This shows through his realism paintings, which incorporate political and technical perspectives of the radical avant-garde intention. His painting The Stone Breakers (1849) is a prime example of how he includes these ideas, reacts to the authority of the academy, and tries to bring awareness to the struggles of the lower class.

            First off, Courbet’s painting fits the political radicalism viewpoint in regards to his chosen subject matter. In The Stone Breakers, he depicts two gentleman of the proletariat (working/lower class) performing intense, backbreaking labor. To anyone of the upper class, these figures would appear humble and insignificant with their laborious activities and tattered clothing. This is what makes it have the affect it does. Keeping in mind that this painting was viewed majorly by the bourgeoisie (wealthy middle class), it was seen as imposing and intimidating due to its referencing of the poor. The rich folks didn’t want to see paintings of this sort because it offered them nothing. They didn’t want to be burdened by the thought of the struggling lower class, especially since they didn’t think the subject matter was worthy enough to begin with. In these ways Courbet glorifies the working class only a year after working class socialist revolutions (ignited by Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto) and expresses empathy for their oppressed state.

            From an artistic, or technical standpoint, Courbet’s The Stone Breakers fills out the other definition of the avant-garde radical style. He breaks away from the traditions of the academic style in numerous ways, which also promote his bringing of awareness to the proletariat. His application of paint is rougher than usual academy paintings, similar to, but not to the extent of impressionism. This can possibly be seen as a reflection on the rough lives of the lower class. Also, the figures are brought to the foreground, making them fill the canvas—which also happens to be extremely large. This is another reason why the painting was so confrontational: with its enormity, usually reserved for noble or historie subject matter, it could not be avoided by the eyes of the bourgeoisie and therefore was a sight threatening to their lifestyle. Another untraditional aspect is Courbet’s disinterest in perspective and depth. There is no illusionism in the background, but rather a rolling hill that takes up the space and flattens the image in a way. Lastly, the figures’ gazes are turned away from the viewers of the painting, making them more anonymous, resulting in their representation of the general lower class. Since you cannot see their faces, they represent the masses.

            All of the characteristics of the painting offended members of the bourgeoisie, because all of its features pointed out the exploitation of the lower class by the upper class.