If you have "no place to go," come here!

Did Jackson Pollock hide his signature in one of his paintings?


Fun to think about, though! Anyone remember making "Jackson Pollocks" back in the 70s?

No votes yet


Valley Girl's picture
Submitted by Valley Girl on

I followed the link, and have to say that when I highlighted "show letters" (or whatever) I was not entirely convinced. But, that's just me.

No, I didn't remember making a "Jackson Pollock" or any thing like back then.

I just wasn't that into Jackson Pollock. So, I dunno about Pollack, but there is a certain plausibility.

Instead, I'd like to defend another artist of the time, whose work might also have seemed to some equally without painterly technique and forethought- Mark Rothko, who was equally dissed for lack of technique, at least based on opinions of those looking for a cheap shot about modern art, who at best looked at copies of copies of his "color squares", or looked at his canvasses in the flesh, and thought they really "looked", but just weren't attuned to his work.

A long time back, I went to a Rothko retrospective at the National Museum of Art in DC. I was simply blown away by the emotional impact of the "just painting squares and stuff". A spiritual experience. And, I gotta tell you, when I overheard some guy say to his wifey "I could have painted that", I was thinking of decking him.

Uh, so, is this off topic? I just have certain opinions about modern art. ;)

Zolodoco's picture
Submitted by Zolodoco on

At least as an academic subject.

You can put the work into whatever context you want and come up with a new interpretation. It may be an interesting exercise, but does it really have any value outside of self-indulgence?