Jackson Pollock

In the current art historical literature, Jackson Pollock is perceived as a dominant, if not pivotal, figure in postwar art. If his radical technique of pouring paint first shocked the public, and earned the artist the derisive title of "Jack the Dripper," his works have since become highly visible and widely respected icons of American painting. In recent years scholars have recognized the seriousness of Pollock's artistic aims, the originality of his stylistic solutions, and his crucial role in the general development of contemporary art.

The reader should know at the outset, however, that the intention here is not to trace Pollock's life or his relationship to his family with the detail and thoroughness of a biography. For this reason, the reader is referred to B. H. Friedman Jackson Pollock: Energy Made Visible, to Jeffrey Potter To a Violent Grave: An Oral Biography of Jackson Pollock, and to Deborah Solomon Jackson Pollock: A Biography. It is, furthermore, impossible to cover his oeuvre with the thoroughness either of a painting-by-painting chronological survey or of a detailed study of a single period. The intention, rather, is a more global account of Pollock's work and of the critical issues it raises.

When reviewing the development of (and interrelationships between) an artist's life and work, particularly those of an important artist, it is tempting, with the hindsight of history, to see early experiences and experiments as anticipations of later achievements. But Pollock's beginnings were modest. He was born Paul Jackson Pollock on January 28, 1912, on a sheep ranch in Cody, Wyoming-the fifth and youngest son of a Presbyterian couple of Scotch-Irish descent. His father, LeRoy Pollock, never led a financially secure existence. Shortly after Jackson 's birth, he left Cody with his family, never to return. Looking for opportunity, they moved six times in ten years: from Cody to San Diego ( California ) to Phoenix ( Arizona ) to Chico ( California ) to Janesville ( California ) to Orland ( California ) and finally to Los Angeles . Jackson never saw his birthplace again.

Although the expressive quality Jackson Pollock wished to invest in his work was not immediately apparent to most critics, its revolutionary quality was; indeed, the critical responses to the new paintings were predominantly negative. The Italian critic Bruno Alfieri, for example, in a piece entitled "Piccolo discorso sui quadri di Jackson Pollock," wrote: " Jackson Pollock's paintings represent absolutely nothing: no facts, no ideas, no geometrical forms. Do not therefore be deceived by suggestive titles. . . . [They] are phony titles, invented merely to distinguish the canvases and identify them rapidly." Further in the article, Alfieri enumerated what he considered the major characteristics of Jackson Pollock's art:

- chaos

- absolute lack of harmony

- complete lack of structural organization

- total absence of technique, however rudimentary

- once again, chaos

In their general antipathy to Jackson Pollock's work, hostile critics normally focused on the poured technique, which earned Pollock the nickname "Jack the Dripper," and on the device of allover composition, which earned derogatory comparison with impersonal and mechanically reproduced wallpaper patterns.

But critical responses were not all negative. Even if Pollock was somewhat isolated by living in Long Island, a particular bond and solidarity, as well as rivalry, was strengthening among Abstract Expressionist artists.