 |
| Number 1A, 1948 (1948) by Jackson Pollock 172.7 cm x 264.2 cm Oil and Enamel Paint on Canvas |
 |
| Excavation (1950) by Willem de Kooning 205.7 cm x 254 cm Oil on Canvas |
"Every so often, a painter has to destroy painting. Cezanne did it, Picasso did it with Cubism. Then Pollock did it. He busted our idea of a picture all to hell. Then there could be new paintings again."Yep. I respect Jackson Pollock. I find his work very refreshing and truly experimental.
I think that might be the reason why people think I'm trying to emulate his style then when I painted "Excavation" and "Attic". Well, I can't really say that Pollock's works completely didn't play any part in the creation of these pieces. Perhaps they did, on a subconscious level. But I really like to think that my work is... well, different from his.
Although I think I've said this before, my work is still figurative in some way. I didn't try to forsake figurative representation in the pursue of abstraction and instead, I created tension between them. It is quite apparent in my Women series paintings done a few years after this painting but this one, if you look closely, is also actually somewhat made in that same spirit.
Pollock however does try to really go abstract and try to be as non-figurative and as non-representational as possible. Why, he said it himself! I may have dementia but I remember he once said that, "Abstract painting is abstract. It confronts you. There was a reviewer a while back who wrote that my pictures didn't have any beginning or any end. He didn't mean it as a compliment, but it was." I was amazed.
Anyway, in case you are scratching your head because I said that this painting is still figurative, I will try to explain why I feel my painting is still figurative.
For one, at the very least my work still has a title. "Excavation". Nice don't you think? It may sound simple but it sure does spur a lot of curiosity and interest in guessing why I titled this painting as such. People might then get a general feeling or a vague idea about what I am trying to depict in the painting and, hey, their interpretation may not be right but at least my title allows them to analyse the painting with the figurative idea of an 'excavation' in their mind.
Pollock however, called this one 1A. That's it. Just that plain, ol' simple system of numbering. Why? Well...
"Numbers are neutral. They make people look at a painting for what it is—pure painting."So you can see that Pollock really seem to strive for the idea that a painting is to be viewed and judged for what it is, not for what it represents. A very classic example is how he freed lines from its role as a tool to render a subject matter to being the subject matter itself. I do not disagree with that view, and I can say that he shares that vision and motivation with a lot of other abstract painters both before and after him. That is very cool, I feel but that isn't what I'm trying to achieve with "Excavation".
My inspiration for "Excavation" is actually from this movie I watched: Riso Amaro, or, Bitter Rice, a 1949 Italian Neorealist movie. There's this one scene in the movie that got me ticking. If I remember correctly, there was this group of women working on the rice paddy. Generally speaking it's a beautiful rural village. That is why, if you look closely there are actually elements of recognizable things:
 |
| Do you see a nose and a mouth? |
 |
| Can you see the rough outline of a flying bird? At least make out the shape of its tail and its outstretched wings? |
Pollock however as you have seen for yourselves painted 1A purely out of paint drips. There is really almost no recognizable feature you can see in his painting, apart from his handprints on the top right hand corner of the painting. And I don't think that is supposed to represent anything either, just a form of autographing his painting.
Colour and composition-wise, I also still feel my work is also still different from Pollock.
Pollock's painting is almost uniformly crowded with lines and there is almost no part of the painting that stands out more than the rest be it by being painted with a contrasting colour or painted with more lines and texture. If I am supposed to list at least one pattern that appeared in this painting it is that everything's mostly concentrated in the centre of the canvas. All these gave his painting this very evenly distributed quality, where no one side of the canvas seems to be more packed than the other. I think this goes very well with his idea that a painting must be viewed as a whole, and for what it truly is; not just parts of it because they attract more attention.
For mine, you can see that I used blue, red and yellow to attract attention to different points in the painting. And if Pollock concentrated everything in the centre, I think I am quite the opposite. Nearing the edges of the painting I actually painted more lines and make it 'busier' than the centre of the canvas. But through these things, I ultimately made viewers focus on the centre of the painting and those colourful patches of area.
The two of us also used very unique techniques that's different from each other.
Pollock as you can see dripped enamel paint onto the canvas that he laid on the floor and it may even seem that he was 'painting' in the air before letting the paint fall and form the pattern you see on the canvas. His method was mainly about building up layers of paint.
I, on the other hand, build up layers of paint...and then scrape it. Paint it again then scrape it again until I am happy with it. Truth be told, that is on of the reasons why I call this painting"Excavation", because of the technique I used to paint it!
As such, although Pollock does to a certain degree still has control over what the paint forms on the canvas, I would like to think that I still have more control over the paint with my technique making "Excavation" slightly a bit more, how shall I say it, deliberate. This is in no way saying that my painting is better than his; just a point I think may be worth noting.
And that, people, is what I really think about when people compare this work of mine with Jackson Pollock's work! Bless your heart and see you again next time!
________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: This is just one possible interpretation. Other people/website may have a different interpretation. An example of another notable interpretation is that the piece is inspired by the booming construction in New York City during that time and Willem de Kooning is fascinated by it, thus the title "Excavation" as the construction sites were being excavated to create the foundations of buildings.
* I did not make that up, apparently de Kooning did incorporate such elements according to this site: http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/76244
Sources:
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=78699
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jackson_pollock.html
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/76244
Pollock's painting is almost uniformly crowded with lines and there is almost no part of the painting that stands out more than the rest be it by being painted with a contrasting colour or painted with more lines and texture. If I am supposed to list at least one pattern that appeared in this painting it is that everything's mostly concentrated in the centre of the canvas. All these gave his painting this very evenly distributed quality, where no one side of the canvas seems to be more packed than the other. I think this goes very well with his idea that a painting must be viewed as a whole, and for what it truly is; not just parts of it because they attract more attention.
For mine, you can see that I used blue, red and yellow to attract attention to different points in the painting. And if Pollock concentrated everything in the centre, I think I am quite the opposite. Nearing the edges of the painting I actually painted more lines and make it 'busier' than the centre of the canvas. But through these things, I ultimately made viewers focus on the centre of the painting and those colourful patches of area.
The two of us also used very unique techniques that's different from each other.
Pollock as you can see dripped enamel paint onto the canvas that he laid on the floor and it may even seem that he was 'painting' in the air before letting the paint fall and form the pattern you see on the canvas. His method was mainly about building up layers of paint.
I, on the other hand, build up layers of paint...and then scrape it. Paint it again then scrape it again until I am happy with it. Truth be told, that is on of the reasons why I call this painting"Excavation", because of the technique I used to paint it!
As such, although Pollock does to a certain degree still has control over what the paint forms on the canvas, I would like to think that I still have more control over the paint with my technique making "Excavation" slightly a bit more, how shall I say it, deliberate. This is in no way saying that my painting is better than his; just a point I think may be worth noting.
And that, people, is what I really think about when people compare this work of mine with Jackson Pollock's work! Bless your heart and see you again next time!
________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: This is just one possible interpretation. Other people/website may have a different interpretation. An example of another notable interpretation is that the piece is inspired by the booming construction in New York City during that time and Willem de Kooning is fascinated by it, thus the title "Excavation" as the construction sites were being excavated to create the foundations of buildings.
* I did not make that up, apparently de Kooning did incorporate such elements according to this site: http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/76244
Sources:
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=78699
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jackson_pollock.html
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/76244
Dear Willem de Kooning,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the effort that you have made in analyzing my works and comparing my distinctive painting style with yours. I agree with what you have said on my behalf. I also note an interesting quote which your have mentioned from me, 'my pictures didn't have any beginning or any end'.
I am writing this to comment on your opinion that I have limited control over what I paint. Well, it may seem that I dripped fluid paint over the canvas and do not have control over how my paint lands, however, I still control the flow of the paint. I have controlled movements of my paintbrush (often stick) and actively move around the edges of the canvas to ensure that there is dynamic balance of paint on my canvas.
Besides, I really love the physical connection that you have with the canvas, it amazes me on how you repeatedly scrapped paint and painted over your canvas. that's all I have to say...Stay cool, my friend. Now where's my booze?
Regards,
Pollock