Jackson Pollock Now
The Museum of Modern Art, New York,
November, 1998 -February 2,1999
reviewed
by Sparrow
Some
people say this is the most important painting of the century," a
67-year old woman told her friend as they stood before
"Mural," which Jackson Pollock painted in 1943.
"Mural" was then his largest painting, utterly abstract,
resembling a huge colorful handwriting exercise. "But I don't
like it," the woman continued. "It's too ferocious."
Yes, Jackson Pollock was ferocious. His great
early painting, "The She-Wolf," was perhaps a self-portrait.
Pollock was born in Cody, Wyoming, and descended on New York like a
she-wolf to devour its art. While studying with Thomas Hart Benton at
the Art Students League, his notebooks (shown last year at the
Metropolitan Museum) document his struggle with socialist realism,
Cubism, surrealism, Picasso
Mostly
Pollock fought Picasso. At that time, fighting Picasso was like
fighting gravity. ("The She-Wolf," for example, looks like a
Picasso painting, only fuzzier.) Picasso had invented a system of
colors and shapes that expressed every human mystery—love, war,
death. All artists used his vocabulary, the way each poet works in
the shadow of Shakespeare.
Then in 1945 Jackson Pollock found an area
Picasso had not painted: sound. He and his wife, Lee Krasner, moved to
The Springs, in East Hampton, Long Island. There they lived with no
hot water and only a coal stove as heat. At night Jackson heard
sounds, which he began to paint. "The Sounds In The Grass"
series had no discernible figures. "The She-Wolf's"
fuzziness was growing fuzzier.
Jackson pursued the sounds insect noises and distant car horns—which
led him to the radical wealth of jazz. He wanted the syncopation and
fervor Lester Young played on saxophone. Pollock began to spill paint,
in a muscular dance, on canvases in his barn.
Then he broke through. "One: No.31, 1950" is a vast panorama
of jazz-inflected sounds. It looks like a Picasso painting blown to
pieces. Also, it's beautiful.
What do Pollock's paintings mean to us now? No one paints his way
anymore, except as a hip academic joke. Even he stopped painting his
way, after "Blue Poles: No. 11, 1952." His last works had
figures, and resembled his paintings of 1941.
Yet thousands of Americans throng to this show, as if it were a new
Star Wars movie. (I waited 35 minutes just to get in the museum, on a
line that stretched halfway along St. Thomas' Church, next door.) And
Pollock's story is a kind of Star Wars movie. His masterworks are the
size and shape of movie screens, and his conflict with Picasso
parallels Luke Skywalker's duels with Darth Vader. The most crowded
room of the show was a video of him painting "Autumn Rhythm:
No.30, 1950"— the movie within the movie.
Only Pollock's unhappy ending—a descent into depression, alcohol and
early death in a car—deviate from the Star Wars plot. But Americans
seek a tragic hero now—the she-wolf who ram-pages from the
mountains, rips apart the bonds of art, and returns to the mountain to
wail and die.
In 1999, we are tired of happy endings.
This article was published in
New Renaissance,
Volume 9, No. 1, issue 27
Search engine optimization by A1-Optimization
|