The following is my response to Jackson Pollock’s Guggenheim application/interview.
While I find Pollock’s ideas innovative and interesting, I don’t necessarily agree with all of them. I think there are different types of artist, and art certainly has a different meaning for everyone.
I do agree with Pollock’s idea of modern art. I think that it can be said for his generation, and for today’s, that modern art is the “expression of contemporary aims”. Artist today have found new means of creating work that artist of the 50’s wouldn’t have imagined. People enjoy seeing new forms of art and many artist strive to find and create these forms.
One thing I disgree with Pollock on however is the idea that “modern” artist work from within. I realize that many artist at the time did freely express emotion without subject matter, but I think there were also artist from other cultures who did this. I think it’s a bit egotistical to suggest that other cultures only worked with “subject matter outside themselves”.
I like Pollock’s idea of “new needs needing new techniques” in art form, but I also think that older art forms are still quite beautiful, and should not be thrown away by newer generations. I think good artist draw from all art forms, not just necessarily the ones currently in style.
Pollock was an innovative and extremely creative artist. I think his style of painting is beautiful. The way he uses paint so freely makes the work even more interesting, and his work has always caught my eye. However, I don’t think that work that is thought upon, or that has outside inspiration is any less beautiful. I myself prefer work that has a deeper meaning, and is influenced by means besides oneself.
Although I don’t ever see myself doing work like Pollock’s, I think his ideas and artwork were refreshing and creative for his generation. I think that is what keeps art alive in culture – the continuous change and adaptation that we as artist go through in the creative process, while still preserving great ideas of the past.