Previous story: At the VA, Arts Programs Offer Engagement and Release to Veterans
Next story: Burn After Reading
Next story: Burn After Reading
Framed
Where the #$&!% is Jackson Pollock's Convergence?
by Dean Brownrout
One of the most well known and important paintings in the Albright-Knox Art Gallery collection is Jackson Pollock’s Convergence (1952). And gallery visitors with that awareness may have noticed recently that the painting is nowhere to be seen.
WHAT! Has the museum deaccessioned something else? Let the Wall Street Journal commentary and blogging begin.
Jackson Pollock, Convergence. 1952, oil on canvas. Albright-Knox Art Gallery. Gift of Seymor H. Knox, Jr., 1956.
Well, actually, the piece has been loaned out to the first major US exhibition in 20 years to address the Abstract Expressionist movement. Convergence, from our very own museum, is the centerpiece of this show.
Action/Abstraction: Pollock, de Kooning, and American Art, 1940-1976 is currently on view at the Jewish Museum in New York City, and travels next to the Saint Louis Art Museum. The Albright-Knox Art Gallery—and all of Western New York—will have the privilege of its presence from February 13 to May 31, 2009.
In reviewing the show, the New York Times’ Roberta Smith wrote “‘Convergence’ virtually explodes off the back wall…”
The exhibition contextualizes the artwork through the eyes of rival leading art critics of the period, Harold Rosenberg and Clement Greenberg. Greenberg’s support is widely acknowledged to have been the catalyst that turned Pollock into a household name.
The critics’ rivalry was in part based on their opposing ideas about Abstract Expressionism itself. Greenberg felt the movement was an extension of Modernism, while Rosenberg believed that it was a new and distinct form.
Convergence and de Kooning’s 1955 Gotham News (which is also owned by the Albright-Knox) are both featured on the cover of the accompanying 344-page catalogue. In addition, the book includes an essay by Douglas Dreishpoon, chief curator of the Albright-Knox and a curatorial consultant to the show.
Also included in the show from the Albright-Knox collection, are Arshile Gorky’s “The Liver is the Cock’s Comb,” 1944; and Jasper Johns’ “Numbers in Color,” 1958-59.
It is easy to take for granted the depth and importance of the Abstract Expressionist works at the heart of the Albright-Knox Art Gallery collection. Art-appreciating crowds in New York City are flocking to this show right now. When the show arrives here, and these works return to their home, it will serve to remind us of how lucky we are to have such a significant collection in our own backyard.
Reader Comments (posting new comments is closed!)
|
bflofirst 11 Sep 2008, 13:57
I was almost happy there for a minute to think that the walls of the museum could be once again available for art as opposed to paint splashes. come on! How is this different than anything our kids have done with their Spin Art kits. Spin Art with drugs and an odd personality thrown in and suddenly it is art?
lana 11 Sep 2008, 20:51
bflofirst is unfortunately representative of the type of rube that decorates their walls with sad-clown paintings and velvet elvis tapestries. not that there's anything wrong with sad-clown paintings. certainly they're easier to understand than abstract expressionism. here's a hint: read a book. better yet, read wikipedia! it's watered down enough for someone with the limited understanding of painting in context and history. you might learn something! fun! here's a sample. oops, now you have to look up 'Clement Greenberg'. tricky. "Clement Greenberg supported Pollock's work on formalistic grounds. It fit well with Greenberg's view of art history as being about the progressive purification in form and elimination of historical content. He therefore saw Pollock's work as the best painting of its day and the culmination of the Western tradition going back via Cubism and Cézanne to Monet."
Todd 16 Sep 2008, 17:38
all I know is that I miss the piece, as well as the other pieces mentioned, when I visit the gallery. Its worth taking the time to enjoy
De 10 Nov 2008, 13:27
In response to bflofirst: It may be similar to a child's piece of work, it still plays a role in art. In fact anything can be art if one is willing to accept it. The movement gave another meaning in art because art comes from the heart or from the minds of humans that expresses their feelings or even their ideas. Art doesn't really have a meaning but the most common one is expressions of feelings brought to life in makings. Take an art appreciation class and you get a better understanding of the meaning of "art".
Deb 29 May 2009, 16:46
I AM taking an Art Appreciation in college.. and we happen to be studying this piece. I really don't get Art Appreciation, I can look at a painting, sculpture, photo, building (or whatever) and go "oooo pretty!!" I can see how this is just a bunch of paint thrown around on a canvas, and I have said the same thing "dang I wish I could throw paint and call it art and make a bunch of money!" ... Truth is tho.. Pollock wasn't even all that popular till after he died.. wasnt even rich... I agree with De.. "anything can be art if one is willing to accept it"!!
Joseph Vaughn 10 Mar 2010, 01:22
I believe this guy was sick when he painted such childish messes. Anytime someone can make a mess like this, he has to be sick in the head. It made me want to vomit. Were do people find thises idiots at.
rissa 10 Jul 2010, 14:27
I think that is is a beautiful piece of work to be perfectly honest. You have to see this painting many different times to understnad its concept. To help you view this painting, first look at al lthe black work....see all the images behind your so called 'childish plashing'. Then explore a single color, like yellow or red...maybe even pick the white. Let your imagination take over. What do you see? How you feel about it? Will you get over it if you dont like it ....prolly. But if u dont like it.... look at it again some other time. Or check out a different time period like 18th and 19th century ary. They give better senses of art....through construction...like this piece. :)
Joseph 11 Jul 2010, 02:18
I have looked at it again for the 3 time. It still looks like crap. I hate it and will never look at it again. Why do I even come back to this site.. well, never again. I banned it this time...
Sara Guzman 11 Jul 2010, 04:10
Rissa: Before I read your post, this painting gave me a headache to even look at... and I am taking an art appreciation class. Our project is on this piece and I didn't even want to start it... so I took your advice and looked at it color by color... layer by layer... and this is what I've come up with so far... Looking at this piece of work color by color, layer by layer... I see a monster in the black background... next, I see the yellow and red... these colors highlight the different faces that make up this monster... maybe people in his life or expressions of mistakes he has made... the blues in this painting highlight faces that seem to be reaching out or looking for something... quite possibly the battle that was going on inside his head or heart... a battle between right and wrong being shown as a looking or reaching for a way to escape the monster or the evil... and finally, the white... every piece of white in this painting-to me- looks like something that can fly... an eagle, an owl, a bad, a dragon, a dove... this, to me, seems like he is saying if he can't fight the wrong (black) even though he recognizes (yellow and red) it, and he can't find a logical way out (blue) that he wants to run away from it (white). A great thing about art, especially in this style, is that it is open to interpretation... it could be that I see it this way as a reflection of my own life circumstances, or it could be that the artist really did intend for it to be this way... either way; thanks.
Joseph (aiu) 11 Jul 2010, 17:05
Trust me. this guy was on L.S.D. He saw an elephant doodeling and he wanted to do the same thing. There is nothing to this, and this is what i told the person trying to teach art at aiu. I can make the same design with toliet paper and a half of a water mellon. LOL. Lets just say, to whom ever bought this ugly junk. Thank God, they had the money to waste on it.. Joseph Vaughn Arkansas
John 24 Jul 2010, 23:16
What I love about "Convergence" is that while it is absolute chaos--even maddening chaos--due to Pollock's layering, one can imagine every color on the canvass separately in and of itself. For example the blue. Despite the chaos of many colors gone haywire overlapping one another, one can imagine a blank canvass with just the spots of blue on it. The same for the yellow, the white, etc. It is a chaotic work of art literally converged from numerous single works of imaginary art consisting of blank canvasses with nothing but singular chaotic colors on each. When overlapped the imaginary art becomes a brilliant piece of art we call "Convergence." If I ever become wealthier than God, I will find a way to purchase the piece and donate it back to its its museum, comforted in the knowledge that I owned not only the greatest abstract expressionist painting ever created, but one of the greatest paintings in human history. And much more importantly, one of the few pieces of art that I have ever seen that spoke to me personally and with which I feel an emotional bond.
Simon R 13 Sep 2010, 06:32
Sigh. It's fine for anyone to be unmoved by a piece of art compared to another - surely that's part of the fascination, it's such a question of personal taste. But to be so blatantly critical of pieces like Convergence, like it's a child's work....much like your language then, Joseph 'LOL' Vaughan. Bflorist is not much more impressive, but Joseph you've made her look like Ernest Hemingway compared to your studentish scribbles. But before you leave this site for good, do please share with us your favourite piece of art....?
J35t3r 25 Sep 2010, 23:13
bflofirst, if Jackson Pollock is nothing but a a spin art painter, then consider yourself a simpleton being out-witted by a piece of string! The mere fact of your opposing someone history remembers as the creator of a movement is utter stupidity! Jackson Pollock is known for something, what are you known for? So consider this a harsher tone of life, mind your mouth if your opinion isn't worth the pennies its spitting out!
DeckardBR 14 Dec 2010, 15:17
"Convergence", like the other works of Jackson Pollock, is passed from the soul to the mind. Vision is scarcely needed to appreciate the inner beauty of the painting. Pollock painted not what he saw, but what he felt. Nothing is more honest or worthwhile than the depiction of our feelings for all to praise or criticize.
Joseph Vaughn 14 Dec 2010, 22:56
Again. You say this is only because I don't have taste when it comes to art?. Ok well, is something looks like puke, feels like puke I am sure it is puke, I am sure you looked up the rearend of this mans butt to see it from his point of view, but I, having been in college for sometime on my way out going all the way through can honestly say. This is just a nasty mess and should be banned from the puplic eye. I would rather see stuff like the MonaLisa. At least she is cracking a smile as to say, "your such an idiot to look at me" I am sure the only place were Jackson Pollock got any idea from pukeing paint was after he licked a toad. Stop sucking the toad and look at real works of art and stop wasteing your time. I can tell you don't have a life.
mhlonishwa 04 Apr 2011, 08:02
what like about this painting,is that: it is not very easy to read it,and i also read the book about him (Pollock),it wasn`t easy for him to reach this level of painting,it took him ages. so i congrajulate him at least he had his own voice. and what about us?
|
|
Issue Navigation> Issue Index > v7n37: In The Aftermath (9/11/08) > Where the #$&!% is Jackson Pollock's Convergence? This Week's Issue • Artvoice Daily • Artvoice TV • Events Calendar • Classifieds |