Jackson Pollock: A True Dionysian

I will admit that initially, I thought Pollock’s art was not anything spectacular. Now I think some of them are actually enjoyable, but I still prefer less cluttered ones. A number of things contributed to this change of opinion. One of them was seeing other works Pollock did before he came up with his drip method, because these works show that he did think about what he was putting on canvas, and did have a background in art. If Paul from Faking It! had stumbled upon this same method of art and utilized it, I do not think the paintings would have the same level of validation. Also, viewing Who the #$&& is Jackson Pollock? made me realize that his works are actually similar and not random blobs of paint. Personally, I think that Teri’s painting is a real Pollock, but is one that he threw out or gave away because he was not happy with the final result. There is no way that he could have become such an amazing artist, and so perfect with this new technique, without going through multiple bad drafts. For the art critics to claim that every Pollock is known is complete rubbish.

I would actually say that Pollock’s art fits very well with Nietzsche’s concept of the Dionysian, whereby the conservative Apollonian gives way to impulse and chaos, creating true art that is in tune with something greater than humanity. Nietzsche saw this is a letting go of the self, and letting the art dominate the artist. From what we saw of Pollock’s work environment, he certainly let it take over his life. He was an alcoholic but a visionary, and he needed an outlet to express his overwhelming emotions: that outlet became his canvas. While some order is present in his work, the sense of controlled chaos strikes a balance between the Apollonian and Dionysian that I think is essential in making art transcend both worlds. If a piece is created entirely with Dionysian concerns, it could never be appreciated by the controlled individual ascribing to Apollonian art theories. Pollock easily flitted between these two systems, bringing a Dionysian work to the Apollonian world.

Nietzsche and Tolstoy: Letting Art Consume the Artist

While Nietzsche and Tolstoy take very different approaches to explaining their art theories (and I don’t think anyone needs me to tell them which approach is easier to understand and therefore preferable), I think they are both getting at the same concept at the core. I did not realize this until I went back and reviewed the principium individuationis and the infection because I had been more focused on the larger picture, but these two terms seem essentially the same to me.

Nietzsche is saying that people are usually cautious in their dreams/art, but when they let the impulsive Dionysian aspect of their personalities take over, they achieve “the blissful ecstasy that wells from the innermost depths of man, indeed of nature” (164). To me, that sounds suspiciously similar to when “a man is infected by the author’s condition of soul, if he feels this emotion and this union with others” (179) as described by Tolstoy.

So if we step back from the philosophy itself, both of these men are essentially saying that an artist has to let their work take over in order to produce something that will be valued by outsiders. Whether one views this “taking over” as a chaotic breakdown of order and harmony, or as an infection that is potentially contagious to viewers, does not really matter because both of these definitions explain the same concept. I am glad that I see this now, because when I first read these tracts I saw absolutely no overlapping between the two and was very frustrated, especially in trying to find a way to ground Nietzsche’s art theory in something that made a little bit more sense.

Seeing Through the Facade

In considering Paul in “Faking It!” and how to approach this week’s blog, I had thought that I would write about how a person cannot become an artist in four weeks. During our viewing of this show, I was skeptical about this. On reflection, however, I realized that this reality show is no different than shows like America’s Next Top Model, American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, and Project Runway, which ask viewers to accept that normal people can become supermodels, professional singers, perfect ballroom dancers, and fashion designers in a similar space of time. Are these skills less valued than art? Do they require less intense training? Not necessarily. They could all be seen as branches of art, and they all require their participants to “understand” the language and critical approaches to their specific topic, just like Paul is being asked to understand about art.

All of these shows feature “experts” in the field, who are supposed to train and mentor the normal people on their journey to becoming artistic people. Yet I noticed some interesting elements of these mentors. For Paul, one of his three mentors is entirely devoted to marketing him as a product. Considering our recent discussions of the monetary aspect of art, this says a lot. The only one of the above shows not focused on placing its participants in the “real world” trying to find a job with their new-found skills is Dancing with the Stars, and all of the other reality shows also showcase “experts” to tell the participants how to market themselves and their skills. Also, these mentors seem to have an equal function in the shows of letting the audience know when the participants are getting better at their art skills, because the audience members are certainly not expected to be able to tell on their own. I personally did not think Paul’s art was “getting better,” he just seemed to have fallen in some elementary art tricks that he couldn’t get out of. Yet the critics on the show were raving about the meaning in his work, which I guess was supposed to change my mind.

One other thing that bothers me about Paul’s experience as an artist is that he seems to have latched on to painful memories in his past, and the critics are loving this. But what if they had chosen a participant with no traumatic childhood experiences, would they still have something “valuable” to say that the critics would want to listen to? And shouldn’t art speak on its own, without needing the artist to explain what the art means to him? That really bothered me about the supposedly scary critic, who said that Paul’s art became more interesting to him when he understood Paul’s background. I am guessing that Paul will succeed in “Faking It” at the art gallery, partly because this is reality tv about an average guy, and the network knows that audience members at home want to see one of their own succeed in the seemingly-bewildering snobbish art world. Probably one of the critics will dislike his work (see through the façade, if you will), and the other two will buy into it.