Brady DeHoust -- Response to the Pollock Film

This blog post will deal with the Jackson Pollock film we watched in class. I have a couple of thoughts regarding the meta artistic practice of the film, as well as thoughts elicited by the subject matter. Granted, I did not get the chance to watch the full film, so this response will be incomplete. Nonetheless, I have a few things to share…

Firstly I am intrigued by the meta artistic practice of this film. It is, in essence, art about art. It is a drama about a painter. Van der Leeuw calls drama “movement and countermovement,” and image the “freezing” of movement. Two distinct art forms combined, one circumscribing the other. It seems natural that drama would be the one to subsume image. Drama can show more than one image. In order for image-art to be reflexive, it must have at least two images: one to be reflected upon, and one to display reflection or comment. Film (the medium in which the drama was presented) allows for many images, thus allowing for a greater reflexivity. Drama itself provides a length of narrative, the movement necessary to show the change. The concept of meta art is fascinating. We never get to “sojourn” in the images; it is the narrative that is dominant, thought the images (and their creator) are the subject. Interesting that the film allows us to glimpse the process of the image being created, but the creation if the film itself goes untreated.

The question with which I walked away from that film had less to do with Pollock or his art specifically, but more with the enigmatic lingo used by the art critics who cropped up throughout the story. We would see images of Pollock at work, meticulously, steadily, and swiftly applying paint to canvas in ways practically ineffable to me. There is simply the implicit understanding that he is a great artist, and this work is great art. But then the critics arrive and confirm that assumption, only they do not assume but assess. “Now this is good,” they say. “It’s not cubism, it’s not Picasso… this is original stuff. This is good.” No explanations. Just their own assessments, hidden behind the opaque barrier of their skulls, which decide by some unknown method that this is, in fact, brilliant art. But what are they thinking? Why is it great art? Someone explain to me. What are they assessing? I understand that brush strokes can be analyzed, that style and form and comparison to some subject matter can be critiqued, but there is no connection made by the critics in this film. They simply take one look and know that it’s great for some reason. I do not doubt that it’s great, necessarily. I just crave to know why. Film is obviously necessarily reductive. This would not be a drama if it was a seminar on art criticism. But I long to receive some hint of by what standards Pollock is being evaluated. Is there a set of standards, a rubric of some sort? Or is it just some old people who have been around so much art that they know intuitively what’s good and not? Is it their subjective opinions and impressions that defines what is good art? Are they just so in tune with the essence of meaning that they are the arbiters of good and bad art? Or is there an academy which teaches one what to look for? Honestly, someone please explain to me. I’m dying to know.