Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollock Essay

Perhaps the two hugeest rebels in the history of youthful art were Andy Warhol and Jackson pollock. To a great extent, they knocked what was considered traditional art for a veritable loop with their new and peculiar approach to what was considered good arts. Granted, neither artist was the first to rock the traditional method of presenting Gods and Kings as the centrepiece of the artists tushvas.Dadaism, Impressionism and a host of a nonher(prenominal) styles of art had been slowly, unless surely chipping away at the traditional more thans of art for more decades. But, it was pol leave out with abstract expressionism and, to a greater degree, Warhol with initiate art that very blew away many of the vulgar conventional themes of the art humans and attracting far-flung public attention as mega star artists. Now, some of the more tired critics will look at pollacks abstractions and Warhols ski tow of the mundane as something Anyone can do or, worse, I can do that, scar cely as previously stated such criticism is laughably timeworn and based on a surface value (or non-existent) sagaciousness of the turn tail and legacy of these masters. For Pollock and Jackson, art was far more than evidently putting blusher to canvas.Yes, their give out was visually appealing (again, Warhols work was more appealing, however, on a national aim), but this appeal was non limited to merely how good the painting looked. No, there was a unique psychology that captured the pulse of public sentiment that drove the prevalentity of these paintings. In other words, the paintings touched a raw nerve in their audience because the artists had a unique ability to firmly place their leaf on the cultural pulse of a companionship and it was this that made them so soda waterular. Of course, in order to understand how they were able to place their finger on the pulse of a nation it is also critical to understand what was do them, how they achieved their psychological re sponse in their audience, why the audience was so turn out to receiving such a psychological response, and what was the dominant cultural themes in society at the time that made their work so wildly popular. frequently of this will be examined in this essay and from this a cle ber rationality of the work and influence of Pollock and Warhol will b derived. Regarding the ways the careers of Pollock and Warhol went against the modular perceptions of Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art, it would be safe to say that neither Pollock nor Warhol was looking to impress an audience of art critics or maintain their popularity in certain social circles as much as they were looking to record their work directly to an audience and knock the art world for a loop.In other words, they did not seek to be members of an established society of conventional wisdom or taste as much as they were looking to completely re-establish the means and methods of how art was perceived and what goals art functio ned. In Pollocks case, abstract expressionism was designed more as an understanding of the chaotic nature of the human psyche. For Warhol, pop art was an understanding of the consumer and delight driven finale and both rejected the elitism that was so very common in art critic and fan circles. Regarding consumer culture, the work of Warhol is much easier to draw on the surface than Pollocks work. As the legend goes, when Warhol was asked to paint the things that mattered most to him he painted Campbell Soup cans because he ate Campbells soup every day. Later, this would expand into the painting of a variety of celebrities and pop cultural icons that were at the heart of commercial entertainment consumerism. To a great degree, Warhol was savagely mocking the former notion that the subject of the artists brush need to be gods and kings from antiquity. Instead, Warhol headinged out that modern gods and kings come from the world of entertainment and that they are rooted in commercia lism. For Pollock, the connection is more acute although his bizarre painting style would assume to be anything but. On Pollocks canvas, there is present the images of chaos and a decided lack of clarity. (Hence, the painting were abstract) As such, there is not so much a direct fight or presentation of consumerism in a verificatory or negative light as much as it is an attack on the psyche of the individual who has become a walking bollock of confusion thanks to media inspired messages of consumerism. In other words, you can not separate the parts from the whole and in the case of Pollock you can not separate the confused mind from the random images that perpetually bombardon it. Regarding the relationship between disaster and mass culture, it would seem that Warhol did not rightfully have such an alarmist view of pop culture. In fact, he was more celebratory and embracing of it. Yes, there can be a misanthropical notion put forth that Warhol may have felt that masses were belittling themselves and not living up to their full potential by being overly reliant on a love of consumerism and popular entertainment and this, of course, can lead to a weakening of the mid but, overall, Warhol did not seem to paint his images as a cautionary tale although it is graspable that some may feel it this way. After all, if a person felt that popular culture and entertainment were the central focus of a declining culture then Warhols painting would be representative of alarm bells pass off. Regarding how contemporary politics affected the careers of both artists this is somewhat of a unvoiced question to answer because neither Warhol nor Pollock were known for being informative in terms of the means and methods in which they developed their art. Of course, Warhol had produced paintings of John F. Kennedy, but such painting was far more focused on lauding the renown nature of Kennedys depiction as contend to an endorsement of his politics. Pollock was seemingly a humanist in his psychological approach to invoking feeling and did not seem to endorse any politic motivations. Whether or not this made them popular with the public is a somewhat moot point because the public was more interested in the hipness of their work as opposed to any sincere attempt to decipher meaning. In terms of criticizing pop culture the answer would be Pollock by default as Warhol celebrated consumerism. Pollocks material was far more cerebral and this would seemingly go hand in hand with a rejection of trite consumerism although such an ideology was probably not Pollocks presidency motivation. Again, it is hard to prescribe motives to visionaries mainly because it is difficult to understand where there are coming from since they are the origination point of and ideology and not a tool of it. As such, understanding them takes on a unique level of difficulty.