Talk:Jackson Pollock/Archive 1

Who's Harold Shapinsky

And what is he doing here?

A few biographical corrections

I corrected the name of Springs, Long Island (it is not "The Springs") and the description of his house there (it was and is not a "large country home" but an ordinary shingle style farmer's house). I also corrected the information about the Life (not Time) magazine article in 1949 (not 1951) and added the word "possibly" because the headline was written as a question -- "Is this the greatest living painter in America?" -- And not as a declaration. user:jsandersnyny

Car insurance map?

What is the purpose of the 'car insurance map' link at the bottom of this page?

It was a spam link added by User:195.69.160.4 last night, now history. -- Solipsist 16:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

JacksonPollock-1.jpg

The image in this article (Image:JacksonPollock-1.jpg) does not currently have any source or copyright information - and so it can now be deleted. I've looked around on Google images for the original but can't source it. Does anyone here know where it’s from or have a free replacement image they could upload? Cheers Agnte 18:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Bias

It is difficult to overestimate the influence that Pollock has had on 20th Century Art. His work and persona exemplify and extend the myth of the Creative Genius Artist, and the Individual as a force for breaking new boundaries and unleashing powerful new ideas upon a staid and conservative culture and society. ...sounds pretty biased to me -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.238.186.93 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 10 February 2006.

I tend to agree. It is the sort of thing that would be OK if it were sourced and attributed to someone, but otherwise it is a bit strong for the lead paragraph. -- Solipsist 11:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see I wasn't the only one who had this reaction. I'm going to put {{npov}} on it for now, although I agree that if it's sourced or attributed then it's fine and the tag could then come off. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is unnecessary and redundant given the first sentence of the article. I would just delete it. Catharticflux 21:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This sentence belongs in a bio, not in an encyclopedia.

Balloonsrise 7:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the entire first paragraph, save the first sentence, could be deleted for bias, down to the clause which reads "that the brilliant democratic society and culture of America could give rise to." The first sentence by itself is an appropriate opener for a properly wikified article, with subsections and table of contents. Baeritone 19:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Claiming bias is difficult when talking about an artist like Jackson Pollock. The first sentence in dispute says, "It is difficult to overestimate the influence that Pollock has had on 20th Century Art." I wouldn't say this is bias, whether you like Jackson Pollock or not, his impact on the development of Abstract Expressionism is indisputable. He is one of the most important artists of the 20th century. It is not bias to point this out or point out his influence over the genre of painting. The second sentence does sound more like content from a critic of his day, such as Clement Greenburg or Harold Rosenberg. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, if the sentence came from a knowledgeable source. Any bio of Jackson Pollack must have interpretations of his work and his impact on the world of art. I would like to see the second sentence in the disputed section stricken but replaced with a quote from a genuine interpretation of Jackson Pollack's importance to modern art from a cotemporary critic.-- Missiletest 12.24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned enough?

I agreed with the inherent bias in the first paragraph and removed it. I cleaned up some grammar and added some timeline-based headings. For such a popular artist, this page could definitely be more in-depth...what do you think? user:jtascarella 18:17, 18 April, 2006

Crap

Wow. This guy's work is complete trash. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.130.186.81

Thanks for sharing, guy!

Man, if this guy thinks the work of one of the most innovative artists in the twentieth century is trash, then it must be true!

Mmmmm. "Trash" is in the eye of the beholder. You might like this work by Malevich, though! -- the GREAT Gavini 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, crap :)

Price of Blue Poles — A Sunshade Lust please take note

This page says Blue Poles was sold for $2,000,000, but when you click on the link for the painting, that page says it was sold for "US$967,000 (A$1.3 million)." Which is correct?

It was US$2 million, which at that time was A$1.4 million. The Australian dollar is worth a lot less against the US dollar now - US$2 million would now be about A$2.6 million. Elitism 11:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. The price indicated by the National Gallery of Australia is US$2 million here. Elsewhere, this price is quoted as A$1.3 million. The current exchange rate between USD and AUD is not relevant to the price that was paid in 1973. Slowmover 21:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[comment removed by author -- didnt see it was already addressed in article --Storkk 16:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)]

Criticism section

This section was added by RuthieK on 27 August 2006 [1] and tagged for cleanup from 2 November 2006. The section on criticism of Pollock has been removed – the relevance of this section is not clear as it does not present encyclopedic information regarding the artists work. The section appears to reproduce work from other articles and has several discrepancies in the citations. Although criticism is a necessary part of art, this section should be discussed on this "Talk" page. → friedfish 10:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Example of work

There should be an example of his work on his page. Are there any public-domain paintings of his? Gaterion 20:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't need public domain paintings. Using examples of his work for the purpose of criticism and commentary is pretty black letter fair use, and we do it for numerous other artists (e.g. Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein). john k 16:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Springs" link

In the death section, there is a link for "Springs" that leads to a disambiguation page for "spring." I can't edit this page, so can someone please update it to Springs, New York? 206.169.65.43 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Link

I'm removing the 'Pollock Simulator' link out because it is totally demeaning to his work and serves no purpose. --Uwaisis (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I undid that. Let's discuss. I thought it was fun to play with and does no harm. Could other people weigh in? I'd like to know if people think this link should be removed. --JaGa (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree It has nothing to do with Jackson Pollock. It is un encyclopedic. Anastrophe (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with the other two. It totally fails external linking guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Absolutely agree with Uwaisis, Anastrophe and Haemo. The link has nothing to do with the article's subject, at least not in an encyclopedic sense. AdamSiska (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with the removal of the link...partially because it is both exploitive and demeaning..Modernist (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• I fully agree the link should be removed. While it is 'funny', like the Pollock or bird shit website, it doesn't belong here. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

LEGEND

I saw one of his paintings at MOMA in NY and he actually put nuts, bolts, cig butts into the paint when he mixed his paint for his paintings. Pretty frickin amazing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.211 (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(Per this edit comment): actually, it does violate Wikipedia policies at WP:TALK: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." freshacconci talktalk 18:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an excuse to remove items you dont agree with more than staying on topic. This post does discuss him and his importance and even gives insite from a user who has apparently seen some of his art up close and people like you coming along and PICKING and CHOOSING what you THINK IS HELPFUL is NOT HELPFUL its censorship. This post is in dicussion and posting items like this serves the purpose of sparking DISCUSSION. Get a clue will you?? --199.209.144.211 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Legend" is a bit strong isn't it? All he did was splatter stuff on paper. No effort; like one of the article's sources said, "glorified wallpaper". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.55.168 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Roger Ebert once said something like: "For every person who thinks Jackson Pollock was a genius, there are a thousand who say: My kid in kindergarten can paint better than that." Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

And for every one of those thousand people, zero of their kids in kindergarten paint better than that. El Mariachi (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Introduction

The page currently carries a tag stating that thie introcution is too short. I exanded the introduction to create something of a summary of the article below, but that edit was reverted without comment. Here is what I wrote:

Paul Jackson Pollock (January 28, 1912 – August 11, 1956) was an influential American painter and a major force in the abstract expressionist movement. He is most famous for developimg a new and unique way of applying paint to canvas called action painting. He laid the canvas on the floor rather than upright on an easel, and he dripped the paint onto the canvas rather than brushing it on. He enjoyed considerable fame in the 1950s, but struggled with alchoholism all of his life and died tragically at the age of 44 in a alcohol-related, single-car crash. Pollock and his paintings remain popular. In 2000, Pollock was the subject of an Accademy Award winning film starring Ed Harris. In 2006, Blue Poles was valued at US$15 million and No. 5, 1948 sold for US$14 million.

Why was this reverted. -ErinHowarth (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It was reverted because it is inaccurate, poorly written, covered in depth below, and in essence unfit as a an introduction..It reads as though it was written by someone who is unfamiliar with both Pollock and Abstract expressionism..certainly no expertise there..sorry...Modernist (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific. In what way is it inaccurate. I took the details from the article below. If it is inaccurate, then the article also needs to be revised. Of course it is covered in depth below, that is the definition of an introduction. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break...where did you get this from - "He is most famous for developimg a new and unique way of applying paint to canvas called action painting". - sounds like high school...Just because today is his birthday here it comes....more - No. 5, 1948 sold for US$14 million - actually it sold for ten times that figure - and it should not be in the lead, nor should the Harris film be in the intro..for starters..Modernist (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you need a break, perhaps you should turn off the computer and go take a nap. You seem very grumpy today. I culled the reference to action paintiiong from these sentences: Pollock's technique of pouring and dripping paint is thought to be one of the origins of the term action painting. With this technique, Pollock was able to achieve a more immediate means of creating art, the paint now literally flowing from his chosen tool onto the canvas. By defying the conventional way of painting on an upright surface, he added a new dimension, literally, by being able to view and apply paint to his canvases from all directions. The refernce to the Harris film is given as an example of his continued popularity as are the references to his highest-selling paintings, as suggested by the Wikipedia Style guied: "[The lead section] should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." If I got it wrong, and No. 5, 1948 sold for 140 million instead of 14 million, then is is easily corrected with an edit rather than a revert.-ErinHowarth (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly the article needs a lot of intelligent research and work, not a cosmetic lead in...Modernist (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... for what it's worth, I respect Modernist's non-intransigent attitude, my apologies. Niubrad (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Important Works: "Lucifer?"

I do not see "Lucifer" (1947) listed as one of Jackson Pollock's "important works." Hunk and Moo Anderson may have hung the painting in their daughter's (Mary Patricia "Putter") bedroom for a number of years, but that should not be construed as meaning that they thought the painting was inconsequential. This is a very powerful piece that exhibits several of Pollock's choices in media and technique. Please see commentary by Bill Berkson (art critic) and Will Shank (Conservator) regarding this painting as shown at SFMOMA--http://www.sfmoma.org/multimedia/interactive_features/61#71.198.125.158 (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Doug Herrick