Jackson Pollock - Skill or Unique Talent?

Abstract Artwork after Jackson Pollock

Jackson Pollock’s paintings gained popularity through his revolutionary drip technique and pioneering role in Abstract Expressionism. Featured in the Film "The Accountant" with Matt Damon playing the lead, which I watched for the second time recently, it made me think.

Pollock's innovative approach transformed art in the post-WWII era, making American painting compete with European modernism.

Was it skill or just raw talent that makes his artwork so valuable?

The image shown is not a Pollock its an AI Construction so is this valuable? I don't think so but it has the potential to create a view that there is no talent in producing a formalist artwork like it. Let me declare straight away that is not my opinion.

What makes a Pollock Valuable?

Jackson Pollock’s paintings command high values due to their revolutionary impact on modern art. We are told that his innovative techniques and historical significance drive collector demand. In addition, he died young so his total output was therefore quite low. Following Keynes Law that “demand creates its own supply,” the lack of available supply has certainly created an upward pressure on the prices of his works.

Did his Innovative Technique stem from Skill or Talent?

There is no doubt that Pollock's approach to art, which he called “action painting” created, and still does, debate. Does laying canvases on the floor and dripping or flinging paint on to the canvas class as an artistic skill? As I write this essay I am undecided.

Artists like Paul Cézanne and Jackson Pollock embodied formalist ideals by exploring composition rather than the traditional values of line, depth and perspective.

Critics judge success by an artwork’s overal impact where elements unify into a cohesive aesthetic and emotional experience. I should perhaps at this point declare myself to be a formalist. As a person who followed a scientific path I enjoy unpicking how the artist has created the finished product which links closely to my long held views that copying the masters can only add knowledge and benefit to any aspiring artist.

Pollock would have argued, I'm sure, that creating dynamic, full canvas compositions, without traditional brushes or focal points is no different to producing any new form of artistic expression. Was he justifying his skill or, did he have a creative talent that transcended traditional artistic values of his time? It was Michael Fried who, from his essay “Three American Painters” wrote that Pollock’s wholesome approach was “freed at last from the job of describing contours and bounding shapes,” and described Pollock’s approach as no longer creating figure/ground distinctions. A prominent American art critic, art historian, and literary critic, Fried was born in 1939. He became a leading voice in modernist art theory, particularly known for championing Formalism and critiquing Minimalism. As a blunt Yorkshireman I ask myself why didnt he just say I like it or I hate it. In some way that's what Pollock would have wanted. No pretensionism just an emotional response.

What troubles me is I like Pollock's work and I don't understand why? I'm sure that's likely the same conundrum that writers like Fried when critiquing his early works also struggled with. Is that because it's an emotional response only?

So the question I would pose is :- Was that just the critics and audiences alike justifying their views and critiques or, was there a skill in his creativity that spawned the debate and, no doubt, conflict? Pollock, afterall ,was going completely against conventional artistic method and doctrine at the time.

Perhaps it was his informal training and exposure to Mexican muralists like David Alfaro Siqueiros in 1936 and José Clemente Orozco, which shaped his techniques more enduringly than his structured early schooling which was riddled with expulsion and transiency.

What troubles me is I like Pollock's work and I don't understand why? I'm sure that's likely the same conundrum that writers like Fried when critiquing his early works also struggled with. For me its a straight forward emotional response. I just like it. For the writers perhaps that was the dilema they had to explain and justify why !

The Opposite of Formalism

The opposite of formalism in art is generally contextualism or anti-formalism, which evaluates artworks based on their content, narrative, historical context, social implications, or emotional resonance rather than purely formal elements like line, colour, and composition. Surely then Pollock was a contectualist where his works were based on emotional resonance? No, Pollock’s drip paintings, like Number 1A, 1948, exemplify formalism through their emphasis on abstract form—rhythmic lines, layered textures, colour interactions, and all-over composition. They are void of narrative, representation, or external symbolism. In other words missing the reference points that allowed traditional critique.

The Abstract Conundrum was Jackson Pollock's work skill or a unique talent?

 If you have ever tried to produce an abstract artwork and thought they were easy and that anyone could produce one, try it. We all know that artists strive in every medium to create an emotion Jackson Polock's skill was I believe a unique talent. Viewers experience an artists creations in different ways. Taking a purely formalist approach, your starting point is therefore to consider creativity. Now that's a word that also creates debate.

What is creativity ? The dictionary defines it as :-

Creativity is the ability to generate novel and valuable ideas or works through the exercise of imagination. The products of creativity may be classified as either intangible or physical. Intangible products of creativity include ideas, scientific theories, literary works, musical compositions and even jokes. Physical products of creativity include inventions, dishes or meals, pieces of jewelry, costumes, and paintings. Creativity may also describe the ability to find new solutions to problems.

His "Blue Poles"painting and the bold use of drips in vivid colours, we are told, is designed to draw viewers into its rhythmic energy. Really ?!! I think he just by chance got it right on the day. I would be surprised to learn that he did nothing other than turn up at his studio and start. Emotionally driven perhaps because of what was going on in his personal life he just let rip. Is that what we see? Is that what drives our emotional response to his work? For me that I think is the answer. His skill and creative talent creates an emotional response that relies on an instinctive almost animal response to colour and symbols. These neuro-dynamic limbic systems, which generate raw feelings and drive actions like fight, flight, or bonding are what Pollock and his works I think tap into. Afterall in the animal world there are no boundaries and very basic rules to follow. Response is instinctive and immediate and in many ways driven by nothing but raw feelings.

The Cultural Impact and unique talent of Jackson Pollock boosted his fame and the value of his creations

As a leader in Abstract Expressionism, Pollock’s work symbolized American freedom and post-war vitality, influencing generations and earning him peer status with European masters during his lifetime. Media features like Life Magazine in 1949 boosted his fame, while his tortured persona - marked by alcoholism and a tragic 1956 car crash death -added mythical allure.

Market Value

His paintings command enormous prices due to rarity after his early death, with Number 17A selling for $200 million in 2016 and Number 5, 1948 for $140 million in 2006. Institutional demand from museums like MoMA and the Met, plus cultural icon status, sustains high auction records. This scarcity and legacy make authentic works highly desirable investments.

Number 1A, 1948 one of his early works that started the debate about skill or talent.

One of his early masterpieces Number 1A . This early masterpiece shown above exemplifies Pollock’s drip method with layered black, white, and silver enamel creating an all-over web of energy without a central focus. Held at MoMA, it captures the raw physicality of action painting and his break from tradition.

Convergence by Jackson Pollock 1952 ( Allbright Knox Gallery, Buffalo USA)

One of Pollock’s largest and most ambitious works at 93.5 x 155 inches, it blends oranges, yellows, blues, and blacks in a visually brilliant explosion evoking deep emotions. At the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, its complexity and $200 million+ value make it a constant draw.

What do you think? Give us your thoughts below. If you are a member of an art club then set yourselves the challenge of producing your own abstract version in the style of Pollock. There are no boundaries when producing an abstract and "Formalism" allows you to just let rip.

So what do you think Jackson Pollock Skill, Unique Talent or have we lost our emotions?

Marco