via ARTnews
It is really strange that I found this today. Recently I was talking to one of my co-workers about how I dislike Jackson Pollock’s paintings. How is throwing splashes of paint on a canvas considered art? How did it possibly make as much money as it did? He disagreed with me saying that Pollock had a method to his paintings, you have to really get lost in the painting to see what it is all about. Anyway… Here are some more examples of his work, but not the paintings. I can see the resemblance.
Click the link to read the article.
Untitled, 1956, plaster, sand, gauze, and wire. Before the current Matthew Marks show, the sculpture had never been exhibited.
©THE POLLOCK-KRASNER FOUNDATION / ARTISTS RIGHTS SOCIETY (ARS), NEW YORK / COURTESY MATTHEW MARKS GALLERY.
Untitled, ca. 1943, a carved bone (possibly left over from a steak dinner), will be at Jason McCoy.
THE MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, HOUSTON, GIFT OF LOUISA STUDE SAROFIM IN MEMORY OF ALICE PRATT BROWN. / ©2012 THE POLLOCK-KRASNER FOUNDATION / ARTISTS RIGHTS SOCIETY (ARS), NEW YORK.
Untitled, 1930-33, a basalt face that’s being offered by Leila Heller.
PRIVATE COLLECTION. COURTESY OF LEILA HELLER GALLERY.
Untitled, ca. 1949, plaster and paint on wire, is the sculpture that looks most like a “Pollock.”
THE MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, HOUSTON, GIFT OF LOUISA STUDE SAROFIM IN MEMORY OF ALICE PRATT BROWN. / ©2012 THE POLLOCK-KRASNER FOUNDATION / ARTISTS RIGHTS SOCIETY (ARS), NEW YORK.
He was depressed. I think it is apparent.