First, what are your general impressions of Pollock so far? How do the film's style and technique contribute to your impressions?
Second, look at your schematic structure of the artist's life (handout) and describe any points of intersection between the life events and Pollock's life so far.
Next, read the selection from Plato's Ion, posted under "assignments" on Blackboard. What is artistic inspiration in this dialogue, and where do you see similarities and differences between the text and the film?
Due Friday (Thursdays from then on), responses to each other due Sunday. Minimum 750 words (750-1000 range)
Memorial to Sir Isaac Newton
Etienne-Louis Boullée
Camille Claudel
L'Age Mur, c. 1895
Artemisia Gentileschi
Self-Portrait, c. 1630
Frida Kahlo
The Broken Column
2 comments:
The depiction of Pollock thus far gives an idea that Jackson was a troubled individual whose personality was based around art. His brain seems to work with painting or alcohol. However, the rest of the film has not been shown yet and I am waiting to find out exactly why Pollock's life went downhill in such a hurry. The humorous part is the story could have ended where we left off. However, the reality is that Jackson and his wife went past Rhode Island and would become extremely famous. The film creates a gentle vibe at this stage of this film and does not entirely lead the audience into believing something horrible has yet to come. Anyway, the conversation created by Plato that summarizes the dialect of Ion and Socrates could be related the film and artist in many ways.
Plato’s summary of a conversation between Plato and Ion implies that Pollock’s style of art could be sparked by creativity or simply inspiration. Another way to state the conversation’s main theme is to explain that Socrates analyzes Ion’s profession as a Rhapsode. Through doing so, Socrates brutally digs into Ion’s lifestyle and looks upon him as one who only follows Homer’s views.
While Ion clearly states he mostly follows Homer’s opinions, Socrates points out that painters, poets, musicians, and various other professionals are artists in their own manner and that through these individual styles one (Ion) might learn that in order to criticize an individual art, one must be experienced with that particular style. Plato’s description of this conversation is remarkable to say the least. With this said, the concept of the film and artist, Pollock, could be a large attribute to the discussion of Socrates’ views. What is art, and if there is such a thing as art, are the pieces of Jackson Pollock and Ed Harris’ work created through anything but inspiration?
Most likely the class has seen enough of the film in order to understand the characteristics of Jackson Pollock through the impressive acting of Ed Harris. Through the odd, yet beautiful filming of Pollock, it can be gathered that Pollock painted for the pleasure of painting. The scene in which Pollock paints a 20 by 8 foot painting for Guggenheim allows the audience to gather that Jackson’s style was his own and that criticizing an art style of its own is simply unfair. He would simply begin by throwing paint on the sheet and working from there with no inspiration, but simply his own brain. There were technical terms to his various styles, but he didn’t paint to fulfill certain traits of an artist. Rather, Pollock saw something remarkable in his own head and expressed these ideas through painting. How can one disrespect the style of Jackson Pollock if there is only one Jackson Pollock? Well of course, art critics in the film and in real life were able to find a way in order to slander the style of Pollock. However, the film makes a clear point that the critics would bash his style, yet point out a sense of creativity that was unknown to artists of the time.
Ion argues that a good rhapsode could be a great general. However, Ion also states that a general can not be a good rhapsode. Socrates’ always honest wisdom explains that a rhapsode is a rhapsode and a general is a general. In their own ways, these two professions are individual styles of art that can not be mixed together. There is a reason Ion was not a general and that was because he was an “interpreter of interpreters” (Socrates, 7).While the creativity of Pollock was impressive, the question has still not been answered. Was Pollock painting out of inspiration or was he just having fun? The answer could be yes and no.
In the film, Ed Harris makes certain that the audience acknowledges Guggenheim hires him after he painted most of his works. One could argue that Jackson Pollock loved painting and simply painted for the sake of painting. On the other hand, wouldn’t Pollock have created these paintings in order to become noticed, and is this not a form of inspiration? However, the film does not ever state he was trying to become noticed. Instead, he was an alcoholic who saved his own life through art. Ed Harris does a great job emphasizing this. Jackson Pollock most likely painted because he enjoyed doing so.Ed Harris does a great job understanding the importance of Jackson's style by using terrific editing, sound effects, camera angles, and impressive duplicates of actual Pollock paintings. Thus far the film has been very entertaining, and regardless of Plato's opinion of what Socrates would have said, Pollock painted for his own pleasure and inspiration.
The focus of this blog is directed towards whether inspiration was demonstrated in the film in relation to Plato's imitation of a conversation. At the beginning of the film, Pollock has very little motivation to do anything but get belligerently drunk at the local bar. However, as his wife comes into his life, he begins to paint for more than himself. In fact, Guggenheim's focus on his unique style gives him more reason to paint and through her inspiration he creates some of his most prestigious paintings. His break through by smashing down the wall and planting of the seeds in Rhode Island give him insight to his new life and in a way inspire him to produce new styles of paintings.
Response to "Inspiration"
From the beginning of the film we already know one of the most major struggles Pollock will be forced to contend with for the whole story. He is drunk, practically being carried up the stairs by his brother, jealousy condemning another famous artist for his fame “Fuck Picasso!” It is no wonder that when his brother leaves for Connecticut Pollock is dropped out from under him. The person who was helping to carry him through life was no longer there to carry him. Thank god Lee Krasner showed up in Pollock’s life when she did, and thank god she was so willing to care for such a troubled artist. If not for his talent, he would have been left alone and quite likely died. Like his work, he doesn’t fit into any particular category and his behavior displays just how much he cares about adapting to any categories. He is at a high society party with a lot of upscale folks and he gets wasted and pisses in the fireplace. He may be drunk, but he doesn’t seem to particularly care about what anyone thinks about him (Kudos to Pollock for that).
There are a number of really interesting shots in the film. When the whole family gets together for dinner it is a very symmetrical image. Pollock and Lee sit on one side of the table, Pollock’s brother and sister-in-law sit on the opposite side facing them, and their mother sits in the middle like an blackbird on a fence post. In fact, shadows become a major motif in the film. As he stares at the unpainted canvas that is meant of Peggy Guggenheim’s apartment, his shadow is cast over the emptiness. In other scenes, the characters are surrounded by darkness, lit up by shards of light coming from unseen sources as if they were ghosts in a blank black canvas.
In the apartment there are a lot of shots down a hallway corridor. The first time Lee and Jackson make love, she saunters seductively down the hall into the room at the end, perfectly centered in the shot, and slowly disrobes in the shadow. Most of the settings in the urban environment are busy and chaotic like Jacksons’ mental state. This is contrasted by the shots in the natural setting which are set in open, un-crowded atmospheres like the field and the quiet marketplace illustrating the simple, calm frame of mind that Jackson finds. Also, when Jackson and Lee are walking down the beach deciding on their marriage, does that not strike anyone else as being a crucifix? I’m sure I’m reading into it, but it seems arbitrary for him to be holding anything, so there must be some purpose for it.
The music changes between these two atmospheres. In the city the music is upbeat jazz meant for dancing and inspiring high energy in its audience. The music in the rural environment is more blue-grassy and slow creating the mental image of someone on a rocking chair smoking a pipe and looking out at the world around them, takin’ it easy.
The scene where Pollock paints the mural for Peggy Guggenheim seems to relate pretty closely with Plato’s dialogue “Ion”. We watch the painter get struck with the divine inspiration. It begins with juxtaposition between his eyes and a blank canvas. Suddenly he’s struck and moves very quickly putting down his feeling as opposed to any carefully conceived idea. What form does it take? How does it happen? We don’t know, but our eyes are glued to the screen while his eyes are glued to the canvas, much like one magnet being drawn to another with an invisible force behind it all. It seems as though he doesn’t know what he’s painting until it’s done. He is simply filling space with color until there is no space left untouched. This is the divine act of creation, done perfectly on screen. The camera works like his mind. It cuts from shot to shot as he jumps from section to section. The camera seems to be free of a tripod and subtly swoops like a brush extending a straight line.
I really liked the scene in the farmhouse when we got to see different stages in his work. On the floor he had a canvas with lines. We got to see how his art started with lines creating multiple spaces, and how he created his painting was to fill in those empty spaces with color. He would go back and forth between accentuating the lines, and filling in the spaces. This is all before his splatter paintings of course, but it isn’t too difficult to believe that the same principles apply.
I think this film is the most accessible to an artist’ life for the average audience member. It didn’t go too deep into the art history, but it allowed the viewer to learn a little about it. It didn’t pretentiously act as though it understood the artist’ inspiration and instead let the actor express it as opposed to blatantly showing some sort of definition or, worse, telling how he did it. This film did an excellent job for both the life of the artist, and the world of art in general.
Post a Comment