Jackson Pollock as Universalist: Response to Chris R.

I would like to respond to Chris's blog on Jackson Pollock.

I think that sometimes we confuse complete abstraction, or the absence of a recognizable form, in artwork for a lack of meaning and purpose. While Pollock's work is definitely abstract, it is most definitely not devoid of meaning or purpose. Chris pointed out that his work was meaningful, but he says only as a side-affect of Pollock's purpose of painting a "whirlwind of nonsense…[and a] more and more random combination of…material." However, I would argue that not only does Pollock's abstract art have meaning, Pollock also intended it to have purpose.

I'm not sure any serious artist creates what they do without purpose. Neither did Jackson Pollock. While he didn't intend a specific meaning, he was part of a movement—Abstract Expressionism—that included Barnett Newman (above), which strived for universality in their works. By taking away recognizable forms that might not be meaningful for some, they purposely tried to make the artwork meaningful for everyone: everyone can relate to color, shape, and form. Yes, whatever the viewer takes out of the painting is largely his or her own interpretation, but that does not mean the painting did not have an original purpose.

The universality theme throughout the Abstract Expressionism movement also often had a spiritual side. The art gallery had in the mid-twentieth century had become a place where one should be quiet, and contemplate the art works: benches were placed in front of artworks so that viewers could sit for a long period of time and stare at artworks. Both Pollock and Newman wanted the viewer to obtain some sense of enlightenment, or at least think, “aha!” I see this as a way of meditation, and, as we learned in class, meditation is often a spiritual experience. So, while Pollock did not intend a specific meaning in his painting, he did intend it to be purposeful, and perhaps even slightly spiritual.