pollock

its Jackson Pollock's birthday, according to google. i thought i would take this opportunity to write about Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?.

A pretty entertaining film, and for anyone who enjoys art, worth watching. There's quite a cast of interesting characters. What i found especially interesting was the tension between science and artistic knowledge.

(note that this picture is upside down, based on the way the painting is displayed in the film)

SPOILER (sort of)

I also was pretty convinced throughout the whole thing that this was not a Pollock. It just didn't look like a Pollock to me (as echoed by a number of "experts" in the film). It didn't have the rhythm, the intricacy, the organic feeling. But in the end, science proved(?) me wrong. But here's the real question. This was likely a painting Pollock discarded. And perhaps this is a stretch, but if he discarded it because he didn't like it, it wasn't up to his standards, he couldn't stand behind it, he wasn't proud of it, etc....is it still a Pollock? Is something a Pollock just because his hand touched it? Or is it a Pollock only when he declared it his finished work of art ready for the public to see?

And secondarily, if something is good enough to argue over whether its a Pollock or not, why does the value increase so significantly if it is proven to be true? I guess this is a matter of use value vs. exchange value here. Use value doesn't change (and really, do paintings have much use value at all?). But fetishization & commodification make that exchange value skyrocket. So I guess this leads me to believe that for the art world, it is his, just because it was made by his hand. But I'm not sure I personally agree with this logic. Maybe its just the Marxist in me.

and just for fun, here's my favorite Pollock, which can be found at the art institute chicago. Greyed Rainbow, 1953. I'm still convinced I can dance to its rhythm.