After reading Freud and Foucault, I think that Jackson Pollock would fit with these two theorists. Freud talked much about daydreams and how the writer or artist uses them to “offer…a purely formal, that is, aesthetic, pleasure in the presentation of his phantasies.” This pleasure we experience through our subconscious, as it releases “yet greater pleasure arising from deeper sources of the mind” that we are not aware of. Because of this argument towards artistic creation, Pollock seemed to be a perfect fit due to the way he created art. He was never seemingly really conscious of what he created and just let the “creative juices” flow, which ultimately resulted in the intertwined drippings of paint that are called masterpieces today. While many of us do not understand Pollock’s paintings, obviously they have some kind of subconscious affect on us that makes us like them despite their first appearance of jumbled paint. I think Freud would find some sort of subconscious message in Pollock’s paintings if he were to see them today.
Foucault, I think, would also fit with Jackson Pollock as an artist. His theory centered on an artist being able to challenge the current thoughts/order in society, and from his detailed analysis of Las Meninas, it is clear that he values art that contains depth, mystery, and meaning that cause the viewer to think about the piece. We discussed in class how this artwork challenged the current trends of art at the time, going from portraits of revered noblepersons to a portrait centered possibly on the viewer themselves. I think that Pollock’s work challenged how art was viewed in our time—never before had something so disorganized and seemingly untalented had passed for art. However, the fact that Pollock’s paintings are worth so much and are still around today being analyzed are a testament for them having enough of the depth, mystery, and meaning criteria to change how society views art. Seeing those critics in the movie about Jackson Pollock we watched in class and how much they could find in one of those paintings that I could never pick out myself sounds to me just like what Foucault did in analyzing Las Meninas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's a good point about picking out meaning from art--Foucault spent pages and pages and pages finding subtle meanings in Las Meninas that (let's face it) the artist may not have even consciously intended. Pollock is definitely the same way--I doubt that he ever laid out a canvas and thought "well now, I think I'll paint in fractals." That's kind of an interesting concept--that the viewer can analyze these aspects of art and present them as the "truth" about the artwork, even if the artist doesn't agree.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think there is a lot of depth to Pollock's work, and I agree that Freud and Foucault would have a lot to analyze with Pollock's drip paintings. Pollock challenged the art world, even if he did so unintentionally, and he revealed paintings that seemed to come from subconscience thought. Freud and Foucault certainly provide insight as to why Pollock's work is valued as extraordinary art.
ReplyDeleteI too believe that there is depth to Pollock's work. I also agree with you in that Freud and Foucault would see a great deal of depth too. It certainly seems that Pollock was both utilizing his unconscious and challenging art norms at the same time.
ReplyDelete