As someone who has little to no artistic experience, I feel as if I am entirely unqualified to critique one of the most famous modern artists of all time. However, I am going to do so anyway. Here is my critique of Jackson Pollock's artwork at the Modern Museum of Art.
With very limited knowledge of Jackson Pollock, I went into the MoMA exhibit with limited expectations. I found that even though my expectations were very low, I was still let down by what I saw. My dislike for the exhibit did not stem from the organization of the paintings, it came from the paintings themselves.
In an overly packed section of the museum, I expected to see something of substance. None of the art I observed by Pollock interested me. The first painting I saw, and the one that completely made me dislike Pollock, was entitled, “Untitled” (featured below). This painting, if you can even call it that, displays absolutely no talent. Even if I were Pollock’s mother, I would not hang that pile of ink on any wall.
Modern art can be cool and fun, like the work of Andy Warhol or even Banksy. Older art that can be considered part of the modern genre can be amazing and beautiful. Claude Monet and Vincent van Gogh have exhibited pure skill with their brush strokes. In my personal opinion, it is an insult to these wonderful artists that they must share a museum with the horrific stylings of Jackson Pollock.
“Untitled” is nothing more than a blotchy piece of paper that has been saved for over sixty years. Pollock’s artwork looks like a finger painting you did for your grandma when you were three that she just discovered in a tupperware container in her attic. It should probably just be thrown away, but for some reason it has been kept from disintegrating underground.
You can see things in some of Pollock’s work, sure. I saw centaurs dancing in a circle when I looked deeply into “Untitled.” But who is to say Pollock wanted me to see that? The problem I discovered with Pollock is that the beauty of his artwork lies in the eye of the beholder. This is a problem because I have limited understanding as to why he deserves credit for my imagination. Pollock’s art may make me question things, but so does a cat piss stain on a crappy sofa.
With “Untitled” only being the first painting I observed, I decided to continue throughout his exhibit. Truly hoping I would see something that would change my mind, I stayed in the museum until closing. Eventually, I was kicked out, and honestly I was not that heartbroken.
I understand that there are people who claim to truly understand Pollock. I am not one of those people. I do not even really believe those people know what they are talking about. I have a hard time understanding how throwing paint at a canvas is art. I believe art comes in displaying emotion through talent in a way that people can understand. I see no talent in splatter paint.
When I look at Pollock’s work, I am the real artist. I get to decide what I want to see. If this was Pollock's intention, he deserves some credit, but nowhere near the amount he has received. If you have not gone to the Pollock exhibit at MoMA, I recommend you do so. Do not take my opinion as fact. Many adore Pollock. Maybe you can find out why.
