Jackson Pollock

	Do you think I would have painted this ! if I knew how to draw a hand?
	- Jackson Pollock

One reaction that many museum visitors have when visiting the modern art exhibits is they stop and stare and say "Cripes, I can do that!¹"

And that's what some critics of Mr. Paul Jackson Pollock have said. I mean, c'mon. It looks like he just dripped some paint onto a canvas that he had laid out on the floor.

Which is of course what Jackson did. He'd splatter and drip the paint onto the canvas and even pour directly from the cans. Sometimes he'd sprinkle sand on the paint for good measure.

Of course, today Jackson's art is highly praised and an original can run for tens of millions of dollars. And yet some people still wonder why - to quote an early art critic - flinging a pot of paint at a canvas is great art.²

Well, look at it this way. If you want to decorate the walls of your home or office, what are you going to choose? Thomas Eakin's The Swimming Hole where the eye is automatically drawn toward a particular area of one of the model's anatomy? Édouard Manet 's Dejuner sur l'herbe which shows a convivial group having a picnic with the guys in their business suits and the girls in their birthday suits? Or Gustave's Courbet's L'Origine du monde, which is a painting of ...

Well, let's just say there's not many people who would hang that on their living room walls.

Instead you could pick a painting like Jackson's Number 1, Number 2, Number 3, or even Number 34. These would do a lot to brighten up home or office. Sure, the originals might be out of the price range of your average Joe and Josephine Blow. But you can easily find such artwork. Almost anyone can say "Cripes! I know an artist who can do that!"

But the artists didn't say that - at least not in Jackson's day. Instead they looked at his paintings and said "Cripes! Why didn't I think of that?" After all, Jackson's paintings fit in perfectly with the abstract impressionist movement that was then popular. But his art was also unique and stood out from the crowd.

And yes, you'll find artists who now paint in Jackson's style. And as nice as their paintings may be, the point is that if you want to find fame as an innovative artist, then dang it!, you have to be an innovative artist. That is, you have to be first. And Jackson was the first to paint drip art.

Jackson's pictures were not painted the usual sense. Instead he would first spread the canvas on the floor. Then he would load the brush with gloss enamel paints and drip and splatter the paint across the surface. To change the amount of paint, he might use a stick or even a kitchen baster and as we mentioned earlier he would even pour directly from the can. He would paint with vigor (to quote an American president), moving back and forth over the canvas while he applied the paint in quick strokes. So his paintings are not only properly called drip paintings but "action paintings" or "action art".

But Jackson didn't lay down the paint willy-nilly. Instead he would carefully consider which colors to choose, how much to thin the paints down, and where and how to apply them. Because he painted so liberally, the dried paint lines can actually cast shadows. This produced a three dimensionality not common in other paintings with the overall effect depending much on the lighting. Many of them are also large - literally murals - and so Jackson's fans say that to really appreciate his work, you have to stand before the originals, not just look at copies.

And whether you really enjoy his paintings or simply say "Cripes! I can do that!" there's no doubt that Jackson took his art seriously. He was definitely not just trying to foist hack work on a gullible public. By the age of 37, he was being profiled in national magazines.

Jackson was a westerner. He was born in Cody, Wyoming, in 1912, but before he was a year old the family moved to San Diego and then moseyed on to Los Angeles. Not a good student - he got booted out of high school - Jackson moved to New York City when he was eighteen and managed to enroll in the Art Students League where his older brother Charles was studying with the famous Thomas Hart Benton.

A word about Charles who has, of course, been overshadowed by his younger sibling. As a student of Tom, Charles painted what is called social realism. These were paintings of ordinary people, often the underprivileged, working at ordinary tasks. But the style was not realism as we think of it. Often the object and figures were stylized and have similarities to the Renaissance art known as Mannersim. You can certainly see the influence of Tom's style on Charles whose drawings and paintings show considerable skill and are unjustly neglected.

For a while Jackson worked in the same style but we have to admit he was no where as good as Charles. In fact, you might look at Jackson's socially realistically paintings and say "Cripes! I can do that!" On the other hand, Charles's abstract art from his later years doesn't really grab your attention like the paintings of Jackson.

The trouble for both brothers was there was a Depression on - the Great Depression, that is. Fortunately, some artists, writers, and other arsty people were able to find work through the WPA - the Works Progress Administration. Jackson found WPA jobs in the late 1930's, and by the early 40's he had come to the attention of Peggy Guggenheim. Peggy, for those who haven't heard of her, was one of the biggest - and richest - patrons of art.

But it wasn't until 1948 that Jackson's drip paintings had their first show at the Betty Parsons Gallery in New York. The sales were abysmal. Even after an influential critic praised the paintings, negative reviews abounded. It wasn't uncommon to read comments like:

He studied art under Realist Thomas Hart Benton but soon gave up in frustration.

Abstract artists like Jackson Pollock ... may confuse people, but [his art] sometimes make them think they can paint, too.

Recently a formidably high-brow New York critic hailed [Jackson Pollock] ... as a major artist of our time and a fine candidate to become "the greatest American painter of the 20th Century." Others believe that Jackson Pollock produces nothing more than interesting, if inexplicable, decorations. Still others condemn his pictures as degenerate and find them as unpalatable as yesterday's macaroni.

Mr. Pollock is another devil's dupe of so-called art, saturated with the devil - animal magnetism - in which the pagan glorification of the human form is considered smart by the sophisticates, and their dupes, the naive!

Jackson's method and choice of art has caused some difficulties even today since it is true that, cripes, anyone can do that. Or at least anyone can lay a canvas on the floor and drip paint on it. As a result Jackson Pollock forgeries have abounded. And you know that if Vermeer forgeries by one of the worst art forgers in history were once accepted as genuine, then it's understandable that forgeries of Jackson's are even harder to detect³.

Among art specialist opinion, the true key to detecting forgeries is connoisseurship. That is, you must completely saturate yourself with the paintings of the artists so you absorb every nuance of their use of color, technique, and composition and so can immediately recognize if a work was by their hands.

Unfortunately, some criteria that connoisseurs give for rejecting a painting's authenticity are rather vague and to the layman (or owner of the painting) unconvincing. The "fakebuster" may simply say the "style" is wrong. Or the painting lacks the "feel" of the artist. One famous critic said looking at a fake gave him a funny feeling in the stomach.

However, there are tests which don't require connoisseurship. For instance, it's well known what type of paints Jackson used. He liked the "high gloss enamels" like the Dupont brand, Duco (for painting automobiles), or paints from the Davoe or Reynolds companies. Today many enamels are water based acrylic or latex paints. But in the 1950's and 60's, they were "lacquer" based, the lacquer being nitrocellulose⁴ and the pigment was suspended in turpentine⁵. The viscosity was low and they were much cheaper than artists' colors even when correcting for the lower pigment content.

Chemical analysis can identify different types of paint. Sometimes the analysts can even tell what company manufactured the paint and possibly even distinguish batch to batch variations. So individual lots can sometimes be identified. If canvas from the studio is still around, it can also be compared to the support of a questionable painting. So if a - quote - "Jackson Pollock painting" - unquote - shows up and it was from an acrylic paint and a canvas not made until you can be pretty sure Jackson didn't paint it.

Like many artists, Jackson's personality attracts as much interest as his art. His friends told how he had a calm and tranquil demeanor - on his good days. But Jackson went through periods of clinical depression, and he even sought professional help.

Jackson certainly had bad habits. Not only did he smoke (not a good idea) even when he was painting (never a good idea) but from an early age he drank as much as was good for him. When fueled up, he could become rambunctious and difficult and if some tales are to be believed even violent. It got to the point some bartenders wouldn't serve him (he once threw some shoes through a local tavern's windows). And although he married artist Lee Krasner in 1945, he also had a girlfriend and that's not something to further household harmony.

Not surprisingly, when he was regularly hitting the sauce, Jackson's artistic output would drop to almost nothing. And although he was able to stop drinking for extended times, inevitably he'd return to the bottle. Lee was beginning to doubt he'd be able to bounce back.

Part of the problem was that with his depression, drinking, and the adverse reviews, Jackson was beginning to have doubts about his talent. He once told a friend "Do you think I would have painted this ! if I knew how to draw a hand?"

To get him to reset, Lee had made plans for a trip to Europe where his friends told him his work was better appreciated than in America. But then Jackson decided to skip the vacation, and Lee, getting fed up, headed off to Paris on her own.

It's understandable that later events are somewhat muddled and uncertain. But on the night of August 11, 1956, Jackson decided to attend a concert with two young ladies, Ruth Klingman and her friend Edith Metzger. There was also a reception planned afterwards.

Jackson picked the girls up at the train station - he lived on East Long Island - and they all packed into his Oldsmobile convertible. As was too common by then, Jackson had been drinking from the early morning and before noon one of his friends found him belligerent and had even fallen down while they were talking. He was definitely in no condition to drive.

As Jackson drove along, his head would droop forward and soon he pulled off at the side of the road and slumped down. A police officer pulled up and recognizing Jackson, asked him if there was any problem. Jackson was able to put on a show of some sobriety and said, no, they were just talking. So the officer headed off.

Before they drove on another friend stopped his car. He thought Jackson looked terrible and asked if they were going to the concert. Jackson said he didn't feel so hot but finally decided to go.

After the concert Edith wanted to call a cab rather than ride with Jackson who had continued to fortify himself with generous libation. In fact, he soon passed out but again was revived and got into the car.

Immediately Jackson took off at high speed. As they headed north on Springs Fireplace Road, the girls' screams for him to slow down had no effect. In particular Edith kept yelling she wanted out. Instead with what appeared to be a diabolical grin, Jackson sped up.

With less than a mile to go from the house, they passed the intersection with Woodbine Drive. There was a slight curve to the left and also a change in the surface from concrete to asphalt. This produced a significant dip in the road which necessitated the drivers to slow down.

Jackson didn't. When the car bounced onto the asphalt, he lost control of the car and missed the curve.

The Oldsmobile caroomed across the road onto the unpaved shoulder and ran against a line of trees. It then spun around, plowed backwards, and then flipped over. It smashed down on top of Edith. Rita was thrown from the car alive but seriously injured.

The horn was blowing and wouldn't stop, and people showed up almost immediately. The lights of the car were still on and shone up to the trees. Some of the people recognized the car as Jackson's and called the police. They tried to calm Rita, but they couldn't find Jackson.

Finally someone yanked the wires from the horn. The police arrived and a search began for Jackson. Finally they found him.

Jackson had been thrown for fifty feet and about ten feet above the ground. The coroner had concluded he had been fully conscious when he hit the tree⁶.

You'll hear that artists never become famous until after they're dead. That's not really true, of course. By the 1950's Jackson was known to the public. He wasn't poor by any means, although he sometimes had cash flow problems.

On the other hand, you can argue the artist's estates never become rich until then. That was certainly true for Jackson.

Today, though, you'll see his art for sale in big auction houses and prices of twenty to thirty million aren't rare. That's the suggested price and they often get sold for more.

Of course, if you don't have 30 really big ones to spend, you might find some of his drawings and signed prints or silk screens at lesser and even affordable prices - that is in the thousands rather than millions. But be careful! In a description you might find qualifying adjectives like "attributed to", "in the style", or "made from".

And Charles? The other Pollock? Well, he lived a long and reasonably successful life. His art is held in many museums including the Smithsonian. But when he died in 1988, age 87, the news stories just had to mention he was Jackson Pollock's brother.

References

Jackson Pollock: A Biography, Deborah Solomon, Cooper Square Press, 1987.

To a Violent Grave: An Oral History of Jackson Pollock, Jeffery Potter, Putnam, 1985.

"Jackson Pollock (1912-1956)", Biography, April 27, 2017 - January 4, 2021.

"Charles Pollock", Smithsonian American Art Museum.

"Was Jackson Pollock Overrated? Behind Every Artist There's an Art Critic, and Behind Pollock There Was Clement Greenberg", Open Culture, October 5th, 2018.

"Pollock: Genius or Charlatan?", Rob Woodard, The Guardian, February 19, 2008.

"Paint-Pot Skirts", [Washington] Evening Star, July 20, 1952, Page 24.

"Best Kethcups", The Chapel Hill Weekly, November 14, 1960, Page 4-5.

"Pollock's Art Wows London East Enders", [Washington] Evening Star, November 27, 1958.

"Number 1 (Lavender Mist)", National Gallery of Art.

"The Devil in Art Takes 25 Years!", The Detroit Tribune, September 1, 1956, Page 12.

"Foundation Uncovers Jackson Pollock Forgery Scam", Art Foundation, August 24, 2017.

"Jackson Pollock Paintings Sold as Fakes by Non-existent Dealer in Forgery Scam", Daniel Kraemer, i, August 24, 2017.

"The Final Days of Jackson Pollock", Phaidon.

"The Science Behind Jackson Pollock's Painting Technique", Ashley Strickland, CNN, October 30, 2019.

"Jackson Pollock's Materials and Techniques", Marion Boddy-Evans", Live About, December 5, 2018.

"Pollock Died 60 Years Ago", NYC Time Travel, August 19, 2016.

"Jackson Pollock - Is He The Greatest Living Artist in the United States?", Life Magazine, August 8, 1949, pp. 42-45.

False Impressions: The Hunt for Big Time Art Fakes, Thomas Hoving, Simon and Schuster, 1996.

"Jackson Pollock Is Perhaps the Most-Forged Postwar Artist. This Man Wants to Identify the Fakes", Eileen Kinsella, ArtNet News, January 17, 2019.

"Anatomy of a Fake: Forgery Experts Reveal 5 Ways To Spot a Fake Painting by Jackson Pollock (or Any Other Artist)", Open Culture, December 3, 2018.

Who the $&% Is Jackson Pollock?, Internet Movie Data Base, 2006.

"Enamel Paint vs. Lacquer Paint", Purva Bhandari, April 23, 2029, Reviewed: Charles Ramos, Jr., Do It Yourself, October 11, 2019.

"Once Upon a Time, Exploding Billiard Balls Were An Everyday Thing", Kat Eschner, Smithsonian, April 6, 2017.

United States Patent US 1744699A, Edward C. Haines (Inventor), E. I. Du Pont De Ne Mours & Company (Assignee), January 21, 1930.

"Charles Pollock, Abstract Painter And Brother of Jackson", Michael Brenson, The New York Times, May 10, 1988.