Post 1

Inspiration, as discussed in Plato's Ion, is a mostly spiritual experience. It is the divine acting through you, removed from your own personal consciousness, as if you are merely a vessel in which to deliver some sort of artistic message. Well, that is at least what Socrates implies with a heavy load of sarcasm. In the dialogue, Socrates spends so much time trying to refute Ion's interpretation of his own talents, as well as telling him how truly uninspired Ion is, that he neglects to truly define what inspiration is. Any real implications Socrates might have made on the term are lost in sophistry and cynicism. We, the reader, after several pages of exposition, are left only with the knowledge of what inspiration is not. The film Pollock, in a segment of about 4 minutes, more distinctly tells us what inspiration is. Further, it not only tells us, but shows us.

The film Pollock begins with a subtle score. As the screen fades from black into the first shot, a TIME magazine comes into frame. A date flashes on screen- it’s 1949, and the sound of an excited crowd falls faintly into the background. As the carrier of the magazine seems to reach her destination, the camera pans up to a man. She asks the man, Mr. Pollock for an autograph over an article about him. Pollock seems to be slightly disoriented and fazed. The shot is framed in such a way that both the lighting and the colors seem to saturate the screen just a little too much. Pollock awkwardly complies and signs the girl’s magazine. The scene then ends with a flash cut into the next. The year is 1944, and Pollock, drunk as disheveled, begins to make his way up some stairs with a friend. The colors on the screen become noticeably more muted, and while the lighting remains relatively bright, the mood of the scene feels decidedly more drained than in the previous scene. This all indicates to the viewer that Pollock’s life is in shambles. The scene carries on in the same manner, and it is only until we get our first glimpse of Pollock’s work that the film seems to come back to life. Each scene with Pollock and his work’s seems that much brighter. The heavy saturation returns, but this time, it is without the filtered light that seems to make everything a little hazier. It quickly becomes evident that the heart of both Pollock and the film rests in his works. The film gathers another tone altogether when anyone else’s work is displayed. This is especially noticeable when Lee Krasner is introduced into the film. When Pollock first looks at her work, the dialogue attempts to submit a bit of reverence and admiration on Pollock’s part for Krasner. But the cinematography and lighting tell another story. The colors are darker, and even the acting seems to present less passion.

The relevance of inspiration becomes more prominent after Pollock meets Krasner. Before, we were only given hints of what inspiration meant in the form of the room holding Pollock’s work. It evoked a sense of awe in the viewer concerning how one could paint so many prolific works. Once we see Pollock at work, though, we receive a definition of what inspiration is. In each scene featuring Pollock painting, the score falls into an almost mathematically rhythmic tune and crescendos just before Pollock begins to place the final touches on his work. The focus is never on Pollock himself, but instead on the painting itself and on the movements of his hands. It is as if Pollock, the man, is completely removed from the work itself, and instead all that is left is what is being painted.

Inspiration in the film Pollock might as well be defined as divine, though Plato would possibly balk at such a suggestion with harsh cynicism. Ion is far from Plato’s only dialogue regarding his dislike of the arts. The issue seems to be a reoccurring one in his most noted work, The Republic. There is little doubt that he would have abhorred the art form of abstract expressionism, in that, in his opinion, it neither brings us closer to the realm of forms, or serves as a medium to inspire the masses. Focus on Pollock’s works in the film would prove Plato wrong though. The film shows how inspiration can, at times, be better learned through being seen.