Culture

The Masculinity And Art Of Jackson Pollock

154 Comments

Jackson Pollock. Maybe you’ve heard the name, but are unfamiliar who he was.

Born on January 28, 1912, Paul Jackson Pollock was a well known American painter and a major figure in the abstract expressionist genre. He was famous for his unique style of drip painting. Pollock was born in Cody, Wyoming, in 1912, the youngest of five sons, and grew up in Arizona and Chico, California. While living in Echo Park, California, he enrolled at Los Angeles’ Manual Arts High School, from which he was expelled. He already had been expelled in 1928 from another high school. Pollocks father was a surveyor, and early on in his life while on surveying trips together, Jackson explored Native American culture .

In 1930, following his older brother Charles Pollock, he moved to New York City where Jackson studied at The Art Students League in New York, under Thomas Hart Benton. Although Benton’s rural landscape subject matter had little influence on Jackson’s art work, Pollock often said that Benton’s traditional teachings gave him something to rebel against. Jackson had been more intrigued by the artistic style of the ethnic indian of the American southwest. This stands to reason if one watches the way American Indians produce their sand paintings and the way Pollock manipulates his paint drips, both of their methodologies are very similar.

Pollock enjoyed considerable fame and notoriety as a major artist of his generation, though he sold very little of his art work during his lifetime. The über high prices that his paintings are fetching today came about several years after his death in 1956. Regarded as reclusive, he was a loose cannon mentally, and struggled with alcoholism for most of his life.


Pictured above: Jackson Pollock’s “One: Number 31, 1950″on display at The Museum of Modern Art, New York.

Jackson was all about his painting. His priority was his art, and his wife took second place. Pollock’s work also helped make the United States take center stage of the international contemporary art scene at that time. Being among the abstract expressionists group, Jackson and many other artists lived somewhat of a Hemingway existence where they hung out together and drank heavily, and had no “wifey” chaperones in attendance.

The abstracts expressionists were described as being “…strong, ugly men….they weren’t cutie pies at all.” In other words, they were real men, hetero and alpha. This was also during a time just post WWII where men were expected to saddle up and start having families, because unlike today, back then having families was a good thing. Most certainly during this era artists were considered outsiders, perhaps one might argue they were among the very first MGTOWers of their day.


“Blue Poles, 1952”


“Number 14: Gray”

The Youtube documentary mentions that “Jackson looked to women for support” which is typical feminist-bent journalism. Indeed he had women in his life, but he always had them on his terms. He cheated on his wife literally right in front of her. He’d make out with his mistress in his wife’s presence in their house. He drank a LOT, and I think his ultimate mistress was the sauce. Sadly, Jackson Pollock died on August 11, 1956, at age 44, in a car accident while driving heavily intoxicated.

For many, the paintings of Jackson Pollock are the emperor’s new clothes when one considers the prices that his works are commanding at the auction houses today. Jackson is among the big ticket names in art and his paintings are selling in the tens of millions. As time progresses for me, I at least can respect the evolution of his artistic style that he took during his life. One has to follow the proceeding history to understand where he is coming from, and this is best portrayed in a scene in the movie “Pollock” where he is drinking with his artists cohorts, and states “We gotta break through this shit!”

Read Next: A Word On Masculinity From A 13th Century Poet

154 thoughts on “The Masculinity And Art Of Jackson Pollock”

  1. I never much appreciated Pollock … can’t really see the value in a painting that looks like something my 3 year old does.

    1. I like them. They look very appealing in their clutter and chaos. I’m not saying other artists can’t make them, but Pollack paintings are worth being in art museums.

    2. It’s not like he just spent all day throwing paint onto the canvas. Check out that one above called “blue poles.” Each color has its own texture or subtle variation on his drip technique, and out of the shapeless mess he defines the much clearer blue poles that I guess you’re supposed to really notice given the title. Then, if you look at the one called “gray” he’s doing something totally different, longer lines, more variation in the thickness, sort of exploring what his technique can accomplish with a single color.
      I’m not an art critic, but if you take a close look the guy had ideas. He had his own technique and wanted to see how far he could take it. He sort of put himself into a box by doing all these paintings the same way but then showed that even in a purposefully narrow medium he could get a whole range of expression.

        2. The oilspot in my driveway isnt reproducible …. doesnt make it a masterpiece though.

        3. It would if you could market it. That’s all modern art is these days. You just need the right angle. Find someone with enough disposable income to purchase a piece of your work, and then repeat.

        4. No, reproducable in print. You do have to actually see the object in the case of Pollock. A reproduction in a book or a projection is not going to carry the material effect.

    3. up to I saw the paycheck 4 $6313 , I be certain that…my… friend had been actualey bringing in money in there spare time on their apple laptop. . there uncles cousin has been doing this less than 13 months and resantly took care of the mortgage on their home and got a new BMW . Read More Here
      >>>>>> Workbuck <<<<<<<<
      click on workbuck if this is not open then add ( .com ) by your self…
      open the site and click on the tag ” More ” for more information and help..

    1. That is certainly a legitimate argument when one considers what is going on today. The studios of the top “artists” of today resembles a small factory who kicks out glorified corporate decorations. In fact many artists are not even doing the work any more, just mandating the specs to a team of crafts people.
      Full Metal Jacket on Art:

    1. Nice to hear from another Pollock appreciator Quintus. Indeed there is a level of control and rhythm to be seen after studying them.

      1. I was glad to see an article like this, and I’m glad you’re still around here with us.
        A lot of people don’t really appreciate how much work these paintings are, or how much planning they took. He didn’t just throw paint on a canvas. There is a scheme to these works. And what makes them more impressive is the size. Most of them are huge. You begin to lose yourself in the textures, colors, and intricacies of the patterns.
        They’re not exactly my all time favorite paintings, but they deserve their status as serious works of art.

        1. Jesus christ… labor theory of value. “How much work he put into it”. Doesn’t matter! Not a bit! Without any context, it’s scribbles, it’s chaos, it’s repeatable ad infinitum by any ordinary level of competence. Modern art is the one realm where human incompetence is tolerated and praised as novel. It’s pure shit.

        2. Well at least there are some people who aren’t complete close-minded plebs in this comment section..

        3. I concur, I’ve always thought Pollock’s work was rather good and looking at in on a monitor (or these days a fucking phone) simply doesn’t compare to standing before it. That said, his success is in large part due to banging Peggy Guggenheim.

        5. I seem to recall a scene in the Pollock movie where he wanted to plug the Guggenheim woman – im not certain if he ever did due to his being to ‘rough’ with and she was put off – i have to admit I skipped over that scene as I did not want to see some old granny chick going at it

        6. Yeah – it may be true that Pollock had his women on his terms, but the females he plugged were haggis-ugly beasts. i’d prefer to go without sex. The female actresses in the Pollock movie were way prettier than the actual women they portrayed

        7. “Yeah – it may be true that Pollock had his women on his terms, but the females he plugged were haggis-ugly beasts. i’d prefer to go without sex. ”
          I noticed this as well . Not sure how “alpha” it is ordering around a bunch of fuglies. But like the author mentioned, Jackson’s real love was for booze.

      2. A decent film but far too much camera time was lavished on Marcia Gay Harden as his wife. Can’t let the male be the only protagonist.

        1. She was quite supportive and organized the estate effectively enough to rehabilitate his reputation. Her tribal connections were paramount.

    2. when i can create the same thing with nothing but my cock and a towel then your paintings dont involve skill at all

  4. Just a quick follow-up trivia you might get a kick out of: below is a documentary following a 73-year-old former long-haul truck driver from California, who purchased a painting from a thrift shop for $5, only later to find out that it may be a Jackson Pollock. The evidence that it is indeed a Pollock, though the art establishment still refuses to accept it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmFjAAA3AT8

    1. I watched this doc a while back and I was shocked at the arbitrary judgements made by the experts. ‘It doesnt feel like a Pollock’… Just salty some idgaf philistine woman is going to make bank.. Feel sorry for the lady having to deal with such assholes

    2. The little black squares floating around have the greatest artistic value. Priceless.

    3. Well at least the female was not shitting out an aborted fetus or something. I like art but it does attract a lot of fucked up individuals.

  6. Pollock is the man. I guarantee his drip and splash style came to him one night after giving a chick a facial.

  7. Pollock is not entirely useless … but he marks the END of painting as an art form. You can’t go beyond Pollock. How many post 1960 painters (other than Warhol) has anyone even heard of? None, perhaps? The art form is dead, because it has been exhausted. The new art form is going to be some subset of virtual reality, I suspect.

    1. The new art form is going to be some subset of virtual reality, I suspect.

      Quite possibly another article addressing just that…

      1. I consider 3d and game artists to be evolutionarily dramatically superior to the post modernists and expressionists.
        They are not respected as artists, but I consider them masters. Especially in the new hand-painted style. I may not play computer games, but I consider the worlds of World of Warcraft, Torchlight, Diablo, etc. to be some of the greatest works of pure art ever created by the mind of man.

        1. Really? They look pretty mechanical and cartoon like to me. There isn’t much depth to ‘video game art’ or whatever you want to call it.
          Some abstract art is good, most of it is shit. Some Pollock is fine, but most of it is shit.

        2. The greatest artists are all craftsmen, and and the greatest art requires real time.
          Sure, they are cartoony. Then again, so is van gogh

        3. Likewise I think some of the best art that one sees today in terms of eye catching imagery is done in advertising. A lot of creativity done. But of course it has a purpose to attract attention to deliver a message.

        4. Isn’t all good art about catching attention and delivering a message? The difference is, with commercial art, the message is couched in the language of the viewer, instead of the arrogant assumption that the viewer needs to ‘learn the artistic language of the artist to comprehend his message’
          Essentially, post-modernists and expressionists are mediocre artists with a linguistic impairment.
          Frankly, Jackson Pollock pictures would make fairly decent wallpaper if their colors were more subdued. That is the only value such art possesses.
          Rodin, DaVinci, Michelangelo, Rafael, these were true artists. One can go to deviantart today and see the work of thousands of real, competent artists. that crap by pollock is nothing more than pretty patterns, and the tragedy is not that he was not recognized in his own lifetime, but that his crap sells well today.

        5. “can go to deviantart today and see the work of thousands of real, competent artists. that crap by pollock is nothing more than pretty patterns, and the tragedy is not that he was not recognized in his own lifetime, but that his crap sells well today.”
          A lot of work on deviantart is crap, but a lot is also quite good. With regards to the tragedy that Pollock’s work sells for so much what do you care? It’s not your $$$$ – and i suppose it’s an issue to take up with the collectors.
          Oddly I found that a contemporary art museum in Tehran, Iran has a Pollock painting… thats definitely strange

        6. Where is the great ‘art’ in advertising? It’s all surface, geared towards selling cheap consumer products.

        7. How is it arrogant to suggest that one needs to do work to comprehend something? Must everything be about instant gratification?
          I understand a lot of modern artists are pretentious, but it’s also true that some of the best paintings, books, films etc, require effort to understand.
          Where do we draw the line exactly?

        8. “Isn’t all good art about catching attention and delivering a message? The difference is, with commercial art, the message is couched in the language of the viewer”
          I’m inclined to agree. Then there is a lot of minimal style advertising where the imagery does the ‘talking’ and use minimal amount of text.

        9. “Where is the great ‘art’ in advertising? It’s all surface, geared towards selling cheap consumer products”
          When one looks at advertising art one keeps in mind that it is designed to sell something, but one can still appreciate the artistic quality if the work is well done.
          It’s very much like when a female shows interest in a man, and he knows full well that she doesn’t care about him, that she is after something material that he has (as is the nature of all women) but he doesn’t care because he will still enjoy blowing his load all over her tits.

        10. You talk about Adverts as great art in some way, then you moan about Warhol? Lol. What a contradiction. Warhol was making adverts before he showed in galleries and made a fortune. Then he made art about adverts. Meta-adverts. Yet you piss and moan.

        11. Why are you surprised? Pollock and Ab Ex is iconoclastic. Islam is hip to abstract voids and abstract sublime. Even if it is hostile to figurative art it is keen on the formalist and decorative.

        12. It’s not my issue directly, no. But it is a clear symbol that people are valuing crap and status more than competence. I consider that a real, true tragedy.
          Then again, ‘zombie time’ is coming. Hopefully whoever takes up the task of preserving cultural artifacts through the coming dark ages prefers real content over pretty patterns. I doubt the catholic church is up to the task a second time.

        13. Nice reframe there. It is not about instant gratification, it is about not talking with a mouth full of marbles.
          And I am also not talking about art appealing to the lowest common denominator.
          One can be intelligent without being an ‘intellectual’. intellectuals are, in fact, a social group, not a factor of one’s intelligence. Intellectuals as a social group only exist at the very end of a society’s lifespan, and both herald and contribute to the end of that society. Artwork that is designed to ‘speak’ solely to that framework has absolutely no real societal value, and is merely a method for determining who belongs to that group of ‘elite’ mouth breathers through conspicuous consumption.
          Frankly, I am reasonably certain that most of the group notices pollocks work is mostly ugly crap, but the emperor’s clothes…
          Stating that requiring ‘effort to understand’ visual art is a positive sign is a lot like ranting about how great ‘sling blade’ was due to Billy Bob Thornton’s mumbled stupidity.

        14. Quote:”Then again, ‘zombie time’ is coming. Hopefully whoever takes up the task of preserving cultural artifacts through the coming dark ages prefers real content over pretty patterns.”
          I hear what you’re sayin’. Yes if some insane multi millionaire wants to own a Pollock and pay fuckloads for it that’s his business. But for historical reasons i agree that i doubt Pollocks work would be missed nor would anthropologists and archeologists would miss out if pollocks works were lost in the shuffle.

        15. It’s not a reframe. Commercial art is about being instantly appealing, and that’s the reference you used, plus the claim that artists are ‘arrogant’ if their work insists on ‘coded’ interpretation. My point is that not every artist who is ‘obscure’ is doing so because he is a conman. You are right that obscurity or ‘difficulty’ in art is most certainly _not_ a virtue in and of itself, but nobody said it was. I certainly don’t know any self styled ‘intellectuals’ who prefer obscurity for its own sake.
          Very little ‘artwork’ of any notoriety exists solely to appeal to ‘that framework’ that you refer to above, not even Pollock.

  8. Sorry, whatever a man he may have been, his art was just… not art.
    Embrace structuralism. Post-structuralism is too amenable to feminine thought to be considered worthwhile.

    1. Post-structuralism is too amenable to feminine thought to be considered worthwhile.

      Respectfully I’m inclined to disagree as there is Picasso.

      1. Picasso was the worst because he actually had extraordinary talent as a child (realism). Take away his communist politics and he wouldn’t have hardly any fame. Any art book reads like a picture book of degeneration. Picasso is the archangel of this nonsense. Look at his “self portrait” and tell me you prefer that to realism. We live in a real world, and all of human thought and endeavors worthwhile emphasize real structures and models of reality. Modern art is a part of the march through the institutions that Antonio Gramsci described, in ruining the west’s art standards. We had the beauty of nude females and strong men as a common theme in classical late 1800s art, only to be replaced by piss christ, picasso and pollock.

        1. i blame pollock and warhol for ruining art by convincing every kid who doesn’t want to work hard that he too can be an “artist.”

        2. Warhol? He was a gifted figurative artist and designer. He helped/corrected the iconoclasm of the Abstraction championed by Greenberg by reintroducing figurative images.
          The cover art on Rolling Stone’s “sticky fingers” is his little brainwave btw. That was a classic.

        4. Most of Warhol’s shit was child’s play, c’mon! Seriously!
          It was gaudy pop nonsense.

        5. Yeah?
          I suppose Einstein was the archangel of degenerate physics. Because we live in a “real world”.

        6. Quote:”I suppose Einstein was the archangel of degenerate physics. Because we live in a “real world”.
          touché!
          That’s the crux. When artists are trying to break through to the next level, they are bound to misfire, which for some Pollock is a misfire, for others he was on target.
          But be it physics or art, pursue we do even while being criticized.

        7. Warhol was also quar-boy. Pollock was at least hetero and took his work seriously.

        8. Partly because he was delusional.
          To be fair Leonardo and Michelangelo were also gay. Their artistic reputations are unimpeachable. Gays do have to a Develop a vocational speciality art/design is probably the most productive field.

        9. Not so. It reintroduced figuration and if you look at warhols screen printing technique for Marilyn, Mao, Liz Taylor it’s a distinctive technical innovation. he was also mocking Greenberg and Rosenberg’s silly theories about abstraction by using common subject matter.

        10. Stupid comparison. But I see what you did there.
          Let’s rewind here. Picasso made deliberately “ugly” images and removed any hint or trace of beauty in his female figures and portraits. Einstein’s theories contain novel and aesthetically beautiful theories about the universe. Some lame ass critics compare advanced theoretical physics to cubism. I’m not sold on that idea. What Picasso was doing was interrupting the expectation of the viewer in regards to the representation of reality. One of the traditional functions of art. Cubism is a nice technical novelty but it’s certainly not science.

        11. Warhol was one of the worst things to happen to art. He dramatically lowered the bar. Whether you find his work to be of (limited) aesthetic value or not is a different point entirely.
          His ‘figuration’ was simplistic and his screen work was nowhere near as good as the Japanese.

        12. Quote: “Let’s rewind here. Picasso made deliberately “ugly” images and removed any hint or trace of beauty in his female figures and portraits. Einstein’s theories contain novel and aesthetically beautiful theories about the universe’
          You use the term ‘beautiful’ to describe both art and science. I hope you will be able to see how subjective you are.

        13. “His ‘figuration’ was simplistic and his screen work was nowhere near as good as the Japanese”
          That plus he had a bunch of hacks doing his printing for him.

        14. Picasso personally claimed he wanted to undermine beauty. This is not a subjective evaluation of his aims. It’s just a fact.
          Don’t you see a beauty in mathematics? A sense of the sublime even? An extra kick out of a chess game that contains exquisite moves? Anything at all?

        15. Completely disagree. The work captures something of the empty soul of consumerism and “peak America”. The horror of it all.

        16. The Japanese never appear to have made screen prints much larger than A1. Infact, they used woodblock and woodcut instead. Warhol combined screen printing with photo emulsions that look distinctive and started something new. If nothing else their stylistic shift knocked Ab Ex on the head, thank god.

        17. Consumerism is one of the easiest things in the world to comment on. and the jury is still out on whether he was actually saying anything significant anyway. After all, he was all for the mechanical reproduction of art, and even referred to himself as a machine. If anything, he spoke for the crass commercialisation of art.
          The point is that Warhol’s art does not speak to the soul. It does not tell us anything about the meaning of being human.
          He had some interesting gimmicks but he didn’t really think things through. He was too busy being a celebrity.

        18. Look at Malls in America.
          Why is consumerism easy to talk about? There’s a very strong commentary on death in his work too. The Marilyn portraits were made around the time she ODed. The subject he fixates on in many works is mortality. I don’t want to get pretentious but his work is about stuff. Pollock was a formalist who had existential pretentious.

        19. I see mathematics as being a language which it can be, and eloquent at times. And indeed logical. The human condition while uses logic and needs to in order to survive, is very illogical other times. The creative process in humans tends to get affected by the non logical aspect, sometimes very affect.
          It’s a bit like comparing jazz music styles. The early classic jazz compared to some avant garde jazz.

    2. “Embrace structuralism.”
      Can you give us an example of structuralism in visual art? I did a google search but get the impression that what defines structuralism in art is subjective.

  9. There is a story about two of Picasso’s women showing up at his studio and telling him to make a choice. He told them he was happy with the current situation and they could settle it themselves. He turned back to his canvas as they began wrestling on the floor. He later described it as one of the greatest moments of his life.

  11. “It’s abstract because I paint what I feel”
    (translation) “The truth is I can’t paint worth shit”

  12. If it doesn’t require human creativity, it isn’t worth a second of my time. Modern art is a victory of the advertising elite, proof that they can market shit to the public and actually get interest.

    1. It requires *just enough* creativity to get the progressive elites to buy into the shit.

  14. He was a hack fraud whoring himself to Peggy Guggenheim to get positive press and artwork into galleries.

      1. So was his wife Lee Krasner and indeed so was the Critic who promoted him: Clement Greenberg.
        Nothing to see here, move along.

        1. In this case the scam as YKW is pretty damned clear and utterly warranted. Mark Rothko’s reputation is even more inexplicable. Unless you factor in ethnic nepotism.

  15. A Jackson Pollock painting is really visceral disembowelment with paint and canvas.
    It is not based on skill as actual art has always been.
    It is nothing but random drippings for crying out loud.
    There is no control over the outcome of such a process.
    Do his “paintings” have some interesting look to them?Sure.
    Is it Aesthetic?Perhaps,especially of your friend circle consists of sophisticated morons.
    Is it Art?Not.at.all.

  16. Sorry I think Pollock’s stuff just isn’t art. He poked holes in the bottom of paint cans and dripped them on the canvas for crissakes. He was just the first so he gets all the cred. I think modern art is crap and fraudulent. John Stossel had a show and had 4 yr olds finger paint and throw paint on canvases and then had them put all on exhibition. He then had all these high fallutin’ art critics and academic types evaluate the “art”. Oh these pretentious assholes were going on and on about “structuralism” and using all these fancy words. Then Stossel breaks the news to these “experts” that these “works” were all done by pre-K 4 yr olds. The look on their faces. Priceless.

  17. The problem with modern art is that it generally fits into two categories when it’s actually celebrated:1) crude conceptual art(which is practically an American invention that came out of the pop art movement, emphasising ideas over aesthetics), and 2) real abstract art that bears little to no resemblance to reality and preferences form over ideas.
    I tend to prefer art that is more balanced on the whole.

    1. Quote:”generally fits into two categories when it’s actually celebrated: 1) crude conceptual art (which is practically an American”
      America certainly took part in it but I think the biggest culprit was a frenchie named Duchamp, or maybe better put Douche Champ. I think the snow shovel idiocy is among the biggest of the jokes: Duchamp’s Shovel: Art as Concept: http://youtu.be/MRv20I13vqM

      1. He’d be horrified to see that people took his jokes seriously though. I don’t think his intent was to have other artists imitate him. If anything he was a practical joker and was shocked by developments in the 1950s and 1960s by younger artists. He made his money dealing old masters and a select set of quite good sculptors. Constantin Brancusi for example. A lot of people missed the point with Duchamp. He gave up making art to play chess in the 1920s and went Galt.

        1. Quote:”He made his money dealing old masters and a select set of quite good sculptors”
          Where is your evidence that Duchamp was a dealer? I have read nothing to that affect in any of his biographies.
          And Douche Duchamp was like many conceptual artists; laughing all the way to the bank, he was not ‘horrified’ at all. Please put down the crack pipe.

        2. He was Brancusi’s dealer in the US.
          You read a biography that glossed over his finances.

        4. Thanks for the link. So what you are saying is that Duchamp, while being known to the public as an artist, in fact he earned his income by being a dealer of other artists? This is interesting.

    2. Quote: ” the romantics like Caspar David Friedrich–hence the picture i selected for my avatar”
      Friedrich is good. I like his use of light. What are your thoughts on Magritte?

    3. “The problem with modern art is that it generally fits into two categories when it’s actually celebrated: 1) crude conceptual art(which is practically an American invention that came out of the pop art movement”
      Actually it was the French conceptual artist Marcel Duchamp (1887 – 1968) who started the whole conceptual thing with the ready made as art idea

  18. My grandfather was an abstract painter through the 40s and 50s and I can tell you that the fame guys like Pollock acquire has absolutely nothing to do with talent. Typically a promoter gets a hold of the collection once the artist croaks and then they use their connections in the art scene to fluff up the work. Since everyone is pretending they have taste you get an Emperor with No Clothes scenario. Pollock is particularly egregious since it is literally just splattering paint. Of course part of the sell is that the artist’s backstory has to be about how he was a either a hard-drinking womanizer or a lunatic. Unfortunately for my grandfather he possessed neither of those qualities, or even a bizarre mustache for that matter.

    1. “My grandfather was an abstract painter through the 40s and 50s and I can tell you that the fame guys like Pollock acquire has absolutely nothing to do with talent. ”
      Good points made. Could you post some of your grandfather’s work here? Or direct us to a website?

  19. So these so-called “artists” want me to believe that this white paper who seems to have been painted by a 4 years old angry boy, required the same level of hard work, talent and dedication that Rembrandt put in his “Night Watch” ?

    1. That is a cliched and unsophisticated reaction. The fact that you think that reveals that you aren’t paying too much attention to the work. The fact that you think a 4 year old boy could do it says more about you than Jackson Pollock.

      1. I’m pretty sure that if I put the work of a child or even of a monkey among these paintings, you would not see the difference. Perhaps you would say “oh he’s been experimenting some new technique on this one. That’s wonderful.”
        Modern art is a scam, and an insult to the true beauty that expressed itself through the hard work and talent of the classical European artists.
        This is where you can find the western’s world sophistication.
        Not in this spoiled hipster pretentious crap.

        2. I don’t know… maybe the community-thou-shall-not-pronounce-the-name who is historically very talented for any parasitic activity ?

  20. Yes. It was all about who had the biggest Canvas. You ought to read up on how Abstract Expressionism was created and what socio- cultural/poltical purpose it had.
    The next stage was smearing *****on canvas.

  21. Jackson Pollock was a CIA asset. The mission of the abstract impressionists was to take attention away from art that highlighted social issues, the “Banksys” painting during the cold war.

  22. It is possible to appreciate multiple forms of art. Admiring modern art does not mean you can’t also favor traditional landscape paintings or portraits. I thought modern art was BS (some of it is, unfortunately) until I took an art appreciation course in college. Modern art actually is very interesting.
    I think some reject it because they see modern art as a rejection of the traditional values that RoK and other manosphere sites espouse. That is reactionary, however, and a not very sophisticated reaction to a varied genre of art which contains much value.

    1. Quote:”I think some reject it because they see modern art as a rejection of the traditional values that RoK and other manosphere sites espouse.”
      Like your response and you stated. You have a point that some manosphere readers are pissed at the idea of modern art. But perhaps they are losing site that the article, unless I missed something after reading it, is about Pollock and his art, not piss christ or artists feces in a can.
      Bottom line – it’s just art.

      1. Thanks for the thoughtful reply – by the way, an epic and obscure Howard Stern reference.

    2. Agree. I’m sure that many have a problem with it because it rejects conventional notions of order, space, linearity etc, but that’s part of the messy world we live in, and as you suggested, it’s not an either/or proposition.
      The best modern art can reflect the chaos of the world we live in. The worst is pretentious junk.
      I’m more of a conservative myself when it comes to art–95% of my favourite painters were born before the 20th century–but it’s absurd to dismiss art on the basis of difficulty or a negative association. i.e pseudo-intellectualism etc.

  23. In my beta years I appreciated art, nowadays I don’t really care if silly people pay silly prices for silly objects.
    As someone mentioned Modern art was CIA ‘weapon’
    Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
    It bugs me how shallow is the research behind the articles here on RoK. It’s needs to be more cutting edge.

      1. “It’s probably because the target audience slice is intended to be low IQ.”
        So how do you account for your presence here?

    2. The article is about the artist Pollock and his life, not focusing on some CIA conspiracy.

    4. “It bugs me how….”
      I’ll bet your ass squeaks when you walk across the room. Faggot.

  24. This modern art bullshit is ridiculous. Yeah I can throw some paint around on a canvas and call myself an artist too, doesn’t make me an ‘artistical genius’. If you want to see real art, go look at the classics or travel through Europe and Asia.

  25. You cannot convince me an ugly woman is beautiful, and you cannot convince me a Pollock is fine art. Beauty standards exist across the spectrum. If you have to strain to appreciate art aesthetically, you’ve been cheated.

  27. Read Lasha Darkmoon’s 2-Part Article Series “The Plot Against Art” to find out what’s really going on here:
    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Darkmoon-ArtI.html
    Part 2 begins with one of the best quotes:
    “I hate to tell you this, but if you like modern art there has to be something radically wrong with you. To feel hostile towards it is as natural as being repelled by incest.
    Modern art is out to corrupt you.”

    2. Interesting article. What struck me was just how immoral and what a scumbag convention the art world is. I have to say that the remark the author makes about modern art is over the top. His perspective smacks of the ‘degenerate’ art campaign hitler spearheaded. I can understand cases where some cunt gives a live art performance where she gives herself an abortion, or some idiot cans his excrement. But in the case of Pollock, its just drips of paint which can be dismissed as silly nonsense, but not comparable to incest.

  28. I think it important not to get Jackson Pollock confused with that Robert Mapplethorpe fellow

  29. Might as well make art out of poop. Surely with technique and artistic sensibility you can make legitimate and enduring art, no?

    2. Many of the high end art collectors are also Jewish, and own Polkock’s paintings. Jews will also fuck each other over too. Many of Maddof’s clients he fucked over were Jews.

  31. Oh look at me, I can throw a few blotches and streaks of paint on a canvas. Yes, it’s unique, and not understandable… meant to be that way (lol). I’m so anti-traditionalist that this doesn’t even have to make sense, just only to you, art is relative, and the statement it makes is more important than technique or skill. And most importantly you can all pretend to be hip by actually pretending to like this, here’s a glass of Chardonnay, now pay me $10 million. SCAM!!! Lmao

  32. In college, we were told Jackson Pollock destroyed his view of himself and his art, because one time, without thinking, he idly dripped his signature onto one of his canvases, and discovered to his horror that it was legible. That is what finished him, along with any stake he had in all the theorizing about art and chaos and madness. At least that’s what I remember being told. But what you did not mention here was, there were two young women in that car with him, one of who died too. Like Patti Smith once said, “Jackson Pollock was a…” N word.

  33. I dig his artwork…I think it’s more than just random drippings.. There’s balance in it.

  34. You seem to be missing the point that Jackson Pollock’s products, along with most mainstream abstract art, were CIA projects designed to make the USSR appear “uncivilized” by comparison. That’s why this gorilla-smear stuff got so much attention from government universities and major publishers/galleries during the twentieth century.

    1. I think this apparent fact is beyond irony. The CIA using modern art to help fight the communists and fascists. Because while the communists and fascists in other nations vehemently hated modern art, the communists and fascists in America championed it. While making everyone else who opposed it, especially religious conservatives, out to be the uncivilized ones. Not to mention the irony of how vehemently the CIA is hated by the communists and fascists of this country. The mind boggles. And what’s more, it didn’t work. Our current President is a communist. Which he denies of course. But the final mind boggling irony to me is, Obama has the most godawful taste in modern art!

      1. Yeah, and extra hilarious now that libertarian-leaning conservatives would look back at the manufactured lives of these black operatives as some kind of model of free markets, considering how many millions of dollars and how many tax-subsidized “postmodern studies” grad students it took to make Pollock’s worthless crap look like “art” to a bunch of TV viewers.

    2. “You seem to be missing the point that Jackson Pollock’s products, along with most mainstream abstract art, were CIA projects designed to make the USSR appear “uncivilized” ”
      I read the article. Interesting, but I doubt that Pollock was aware of it. He was just doing his thing and the timing of that CIA project was right for him and the other abstract expressionists.

      1. It’s possible he was just a lunatic, rather than an operative. However, barring CIA intervention, he would’ve been some basement dweller completely ignored by society and mocked for the obviously crappy product he produced (much like JK Rowling in an alternate universe). The only reason people are talking about him is because the CIA wants them to talk about them. It’s playing right into their hand to discuss his work as though it is something that succeeded in either “the free market” or “the art world,” because it didn’t–it was a complete fraud that doesn’t deserve to be considered alongside things that were recognized, at least partly, for their merit.

        1. Good points made. Pollock still died tragically, but like all famous people, one has to wonder what would have become of him had he not had the backing and support of the art patrons. I’m guessing he would have produced much less art work. I have a friend who is a successful collage artist and when i posed the ‘what if you didnt sell any ar?’ question he told me he would have produced considerably less work

  35. “Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. Imagination without skill gives us modern art.” T. Stoppard.

  36. Pollock and the other so called modernists would never have come to be regarded so highly if they weren’t shoved down people’s throats by the CIA waging a cultural cold war against the USSR:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom
    Basically no one really likes this shit, and only subhuman hipsters simulate a preference for this pseudo-art as a means to gain social distinction within their clique of pretentious losers, while the very rich buy their frauds based on nothing but price (expenditure = an honest signal of resource strength, which translates into social status) and fabricated esteem. It works because the vast majority of people, including most so called art enthusiasts, are idiots with peasant sensibilities who are only in it for the prestige it bestows on them in the eyes of their subhuman peers. No doubt Pollock et al. were completely oblivious of this due to being mental bums, but implicitly they were selling lies.
    Defenders of modernist (non-)theory are also as blue pill, deluded and hamsterly as they come, and it is no great shock that they tend to lean towards the feminist end of the sociopolitical spectrum.

    2. “Defenders of modernist (non-)theory are also as blue pill, deluded and hamsterly as they come, and it is no great shock that they tend to lean towards the feminist end of the sociopolitical spectrum”
      Interesting remark because the same topic came up recently from an artist who became red pill. He is rethinking his art entirely. The problem is that the surrealist type imagery he would paint and was admired by many for so long now he’s embarrassed by his work. His previous paintings were benign; that is to say that im confident nobody on this discussion would find his work disgusting or sexual,but hes now trying to find his new style with his new red pill sensibility.

Comments are closed.