blog 1

The depiction of Pollack 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 Pollack'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 Pollack’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 Pollack through the impressive acting of Ed Harris. Through the odd, yet beautiful filming of Pollack, it can be gathered that Pollack 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, Pollack saw something remarkable in his own head and expressed these ideas through painting. How can one disrespect the style of Jackson Pollack if there is only one Jackson Pollack? 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 Pollack. 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 Pollack was impressive, the question has still not been answered. Was Pollack 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 Pollack loved painting and simply painted for the sake of painting. On the other hand, wouldn’t Pollack 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 Pollack 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 Pollack paintings. Thus far the film has been very entertaining, and regardless of Plato's opinion of what Socrates would have said, Pollack 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, Pollack 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.