Photo of No.5,1948 of Jackson Pollock (left) and Woman 3 of William de Kooning (right) courtesy of
www.wikipedia.comThe Twister veered to a topic towards the last hour of the show - Which is the Most Expensive Painting in the World? The Pollock painting to the left fetched $149,700,000 while the William de Kooning painting cost $147,000,000!!!
Mo mentioned that when he saw the painting at his computer, I could see the Mohandas almost gagging, and he said that it was a work of art that could be done by anyone.
Although the Twister saw it in the Internet, my guess it, it will be a totally different experience when he sees the painting in person. That's when I think he'll feel his hair standing up and experiencing a transcendental experience.
I couldn't understand before why a Van Gogh fetched such insane prices at auction until I saw one before my eyes at the Met Museum in New York a few years ago. My eyes literally watered. Van Gogh painted in a small canvas a simple arrangement of onions and beets, nothing spectacular, but he painted it with such passion, every stroke felt like a carving of his own soul. I could not really explain, but it was a metaphysical experience. One has to see it, to believe it.
In this case, the Pollock painting is entirely different. According to Harley Hahn in his website
www.harley.com:
"The name "action painting" was coined to describe the techniques used by Pollock. He would fasten large canvases to the floor of his studio, and then drip, fling, and spill paint on them. He often used regular house paint, because he preferred the way it flowed. .
Although the idea of abstraction had been around for some time, the Abstract Expressionists went a lot further. They began to emphasize, not only the finished product, but the actual process of painting. They experimented in how they interacted with the paint, the canvas, and their tools; and they paid attention to the physical qualities of the paint itself, its texture, color and shape."
Harley narrates a similar experience I did when I saw a Van Gogh painting. But this time, he saw his first Pollock painting entitled "Lavender Mist".
" A few years ago, I decided to visit Washington, D.C. by myself. It was the middle of winter, and the city had been hit by a huge snowstorm. I was all alone, so I decided to walk to the National Gallery of Art. The streets were virtually empty, and as I entered the museum, I could see that it too was empty.
I asked the information person if they had anything by Jackson Pollock. She said yes, and gave me directions to the room in which his paintings and drawings were hung. I had heard of Pollock and seen photographs of his work, but I had never seen any of the paintings in person.
I still remember the feeling I had when I descended the stairs, turned the corner, and looked at the wall. I was alone in a large room and, there on the far wall, was "Lavender Mist". The effect it had on me was completely unexpected. It was the only time in my life when I can remember a painting, literally, taking my breath away. I know this will sound a bit sappy, but seeing that painting changed me forever.
How could this be the case? You just looked at a picture of the same painting, and I doubt you felt as if you had been changed forever.
First, I should explain that the actual canvas is large, nearly 10 feet (3 meters) long. It is quite imposing when you see it in person, especially in a large empty room, where the painting seems to reach out, grab you and pull you towards it.
Second, what you see in the picture above is nothing like the real thing. Not only is the picture on your screen much smaller than the actual painting, but the colors you see on a computer monitor are muted and inexact. Moreover, on a computer screen, you do not get a sense of the texture of the paint and the canvas.
All of this you understand, I am sure. Everyone knows that viewing a real painting is a lot different from looking at a picture of the painting on a computer monitor (or on a projection screen in an art history class, for that matter).
However, there is another reason why I was so moved by "Lavender Mist", and it has to do with the very purpose of art. To discuss this, we have to consider the question, Why do we create art?
There are a number of straightforward reasons why human beings create art: to make a decoration, to tell a story, to capture or preserve an image, or to illustrate an idea. However, there is another, more subtle, but far more important reason why art is important to us.
The need to reach inside ourselves and manipulate our unconscious feelings is universal. We all do it to some degree, although most of the time we are blind to what we are doing.
That is where art comes in. As I explained earlier, one of the purposes of art is to allow us indirect access to our inner psyche. Great art affords a way to get in touch with the unconscious part of our existence, even if we don't realize what we are doing. In this sense, the role of the artist is to create something that, when viewed by an observer, evokes unconscious feelings and emotions."
