I'm not entirely sure what how I'm supposed to go about doing this but I'll give it a shot....
Jackson Pollock, Galaxy 1947
Jackson Pollock embodies the modernist slogan "Art for arts sake". From a modernist perspective, This painting has it all; an abstract mode of expression, pure aesthetic value and literally no subject matter. Postmodernists, however, would say that this painting is lacking in in every aspect. Postmodern artist Sherrie Levine claimed that artists like Pollock were simply "grasping for individual recognition in a world that is evermore needful of the opposite". Postmodernists believe that art should provoke thought, or at the very least refer to things outside of its own form. Postmodernists are not challenged by searching for individual innovations, but instead strive to put old information into a new context. According to postmodern theory, this piece falls flat, It ignores the sole purpose of art - to communicate something. Instead It is uninviting, uninspired and somewhat ostentatious.
Interesting choice. Jackson Pollock is, of course, the archetypal modernist artist - a lone tormented genius pursuing personal expression through abstraction, etc. This does not make him immune to a postmodern critique. The Levine quote undermines the value of the lone genius well - pointing out that our world needs more connection and community, not more separation.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am sure Pollock and his defenders would argue that his work *does* communicate something - perhaps a universal concept of beauty or the sublime, perhaps the artist's own unconscious mind - a postmodernist might be looking for more specific social or political messages, and might go on to critique the very assumptions that led an artist like Pollock (moody and inscrutable alcoholic white male, etc...) to be seen as possessed by genius.