Andy warhol and jackson pollock essay

Possibly the two best rebels in the history of modern day art were Andy Warhol and Knutson Pollock. Largely, they pulled what was regarded traditional artwork for a veritable loop with their new and unique method to what was regarded as “good artistry.  Approved, neither artist was the 1st to rock and roll the traditional method of presenting “Gods and Kings as the centerpiece of the artist’s canvas.

Dadaism, Impressionism and a host of other types of art had been slowly, yet surely breaking away at the traditional mores of fine art for many decades.

But , it was Pollock with abstract expressionism and, to a greater level, Warhol with pop art that truly blew away many of the prevalent conventional styles of the fine art world and attracting widespread public focus as mega star designers.

Right now, some of the more trite experts will look for Pollock’s être and Warhol’s elevation of the mundane while something “Anyone can do or, a whole lot worse, “I can easily do that, but as previously stated these kinds of criticism can be ridiculously trite and based upon a surface value (or non-existent ) understanding of the effort and legacy of these experts.

For Pollock and Jackson, skill was much more than simply placing paint to canvas.

Certainly, their job was aesthetically appealing (again, Warhol’s function was more pleasing, however , on the national level), but this appeal was not limited to only how good the painting looked. No, there was a unique mindset that captured the pulse of community sentiment that drove the popularity of these types of paintings. Quite simply, the works of art touched a raw neural in their viewers because the artist’s had a unique ability to securely place their particular finger within the cultural heartbeat of a contemporary society and it was this that made these people so popular.

Of course , in order to understand how these were able to place their little finger on the pulse of a country it is also crucial to understand the thing that was motivating these people, how they achieved their internal response inside their audience, for what reason the audience was so ready to accept receiving these kinds of a mental response, and what was the dominant cultural themes in society during the time that manufactured their operate so hugely popular. Much of this will end up being examined with this essay and from this a clearer knowledge of the work and influence of Pollock and Warhol can b produced.

About the ways the careers of Pollock and Warhol gone against the normal perceptions of Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art, it could be safe to say that not Pollock neither Warhol was looking to win over an audience of art experts or maintain their recognition in certain social circles just as much as they were seeking to take their work directly to an audience and knock the art globe for a trap.

In other words, they were doing not strive to be members of an proven club of conventional perception or style as much as we were holding looking to completely re-establish the means and methods of how art was perceived and what desired goals art functioned. In Pollock’s case, abstract expressionism was created more because an understanding in the chaotic mother nature of the individual psyche. To get Warhol, put art was an understanding from the consumer and entertainment influenced culture and both rejected the elitism that was so common in skill critic and fan circles.

Relating to consumer tradition, the work of Warhol is significantly easier to decipher on the surface area than Pollock’s work. Because the star goes, once Warhol was asked to paint the things that mattered many to him he colored Campbell Soups cans because he ate Campbell’s soup every single day. Later, this will expand in the painting of any variety of celebs and take cultural icons that were at the heart of commercial entertainment consumerism. To a great level, Warhol was savagely mocking the former notion that the subject of the artist’s brush must be gods and kings coming from antiquity. Rather, Warhol remarked that modern gods and nobleman come from the world of entertainment and they are seated in mercantilism.

To get Pollock, the connection is more refined although his bizarre painting style will assume to be anything but. Upon Pollock’s painting, there is present the images of chaos and a made the decision lack of clearness. (Hence, the painting were abstract) As a result, there is not a lot a direct harm or presentation of consumerism in a great or negative light just as much as it is an “attack on the mind of the individual who may have become a going for walks ball of confusion as a result of media motivated messages of consumerism. Put simply, you can not independent the parts from the complete and in the situation of Pollock you can not separate the baffled mind in the random pictures that perpetually bombard it.

Regarding the relationship among disaster and mass lifestyle, it would seem that Warhol did not really have such an alarmist view of appear culture. In fact , he was even more celebratory and embracing from it. Yes, there might be a negative notion put forth that Warhol may include felt that people were belittling themselves but not living up to their particular full potential by being extremely reliant on the love of consumerism and popular entertainment and this, of course , can lead to a weakening with the mid; but , overall, Warhol did not manage to paint his images like a cautionary adventure although it can be understandable that some might feel it this way. In the end, if a person felt that popular lifestyle and entertainment were the central concentrate of the a decreasing culture then simply Warhol’s art work would be representative of alarm alarms going off.

Concerning how modern-day politics affected the occupations of the two artists this really is somewhat of your difficult problem to answer since neither Warhol nor Pollock were known for being expository in terms of the means and methods through which they developed their artwork. Of course , Warhol had produced paintings of John Farreneheit. Kennedy, although such portrait was much more focused on lauding the celeb nature of Kennedy’s depiction as opposed to a great endorsement of his politics. Pollock was seemingly a humanist in the psychological method of invoking emotion and did not seem to promote any politic motivations. Whether or not this produced them popular with the public is actually a somewhat moot point for the reason that public was more interested in the “hipness of their work as against any sincere attempt to comprehend meaning.

In terms of criticizing pop tradition the answer can be Pollock by default as Warhol celebrated consumerism. Pollock’s material was far more cerebral which would relatively go together with a rejection of trite consumerism although such an ideology was most likely not Pollock’s regulating motivation. Again, it is hard to prescribe motives to visionaries mainly because it is difficult to understand high are caused by since they are the origination point of and ideology but not a tool from it. As such, understanding them assumes a unique standard of difficulty.

1

Tweet