Slate's Bizbox
culturebox: Arts, entertainment, and more.

The Artist as CriticWill Pollock help you understand the artist's drip paintings?

By Michael Brus
Posted Friday, March 23, 2001, at 3:00 AM ET
Movie still

Ed Harris' Pollock, the art biopic nominated for two Oscars, has received a mildly favorable reception by the critics. Except for two, that is. The Chicago Sun-Times' Roger Ebert awarded it four stars, his highest rating, and called it a "confident, insightful" narrative about an artist's life. And while the New Republic's Stanley Kauffmann acknowledges the film as "creditable" and "generally intelligent," he pronounces the entire genre of art biopics worthless. "Pollock," he says, "for all its dedication, is just—yes, just—one more film about that perennially obdurate subject, an artist."

What Ebert and Kauffmann are disputing is the very possibility of dramatizing the creative process. Ebert, who sees the artist as an everyman, takes that possibility for granted; in fact, the art is only interesting as it relates to the life of the artist who creates it. "A man is miserable but he is given a gift," he writes, "[which] creates space he can hide in." The art is an emotional outlet, and he describes Pollock's angst in clinical terms: "He was an alcoholic and manic-depressive."

To Kauffmann, art transcends life. "To become firstclass artists," Kauffmann writes, "people needed moral courage beyond our own needs or possibilities." An artist "follows other lights, obeys other signals, responds to other hungers than most of us do." These differences between the artist and the rest of us "are only superficially dramatizable, and the real point of it all—the art itself—can only be glossed." Pollock's tantrums, he writes, weren't caused by a "swollen ego," but by "a fierce solipsistic impatience with the mortal conditions that most of us accept." To Kauffmann, art is a sublime expression of an almost spiritual vision, and the film—indeed, film itself—is insufficient to the task of interpreting that vision for the viewer.

It's no wonder, then, that Ebert and Kauffmann disagree on the merits of the film's key moment of artistic inspiration: Pollock's discovery of the drip technique. As Kauffmann describes it:

One day, while [Pollock] is preparing paints for a canvas, he accidentally drips a little on the floor. He stares at it. This is the worst moment in the film. … I almost saw a comic-strip lightbulb go off over Pollock's head. It was the epitome of what film can not do about an artist.

To Ebert, of course, Pollock's "accidental" discovery of drip is a "virtuoso scene" precisely because it shows the artist lost in his own creative process (a "space he can hide in"). "This is not a movie about art but about work," he concludes. "It is about the physical labor of making paintings, and about the additional labor of everyday life, which is a burden for Pollock because of his tortured mind and hung-over body."

Ultimately, Pollock is no more about painting than Raging Bull is about boxing. The boxing scenes in Raging Bull are stylized, but they are merely an extension of Jake LaMotta's brutish life, not the subject of the film. The same holds true for the paintings in Pollock—they represent the painter's chaotic inner life; their visionary meaning is almost beside the point. These are the terms on which Ed Harris made his film, and these are the terms that Stanley Kauffmann refuses to accept.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Michael Brus, a former Slate assistant editor, is a writer and social worker in Seattle.
Still by Demmie Todd © 2000 Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:


Michael Brus's statement that "Pollock is no more about painting than Raging Bull is about boxing" rings false somehow. Martin Scorsese might have the talent to make a rather tedious brute the subject of an entire film, but I don't think that was Ed Harris's aim. Harris seems genuinely to have been trying to convey the creative process in Pollock, devoting a fair amount of screen time to studio discussions and even offering a cinematic "interpretation" of the artist's work. I'm referring to the montage of "nature shots" that precedes Pollock's discovery of the drip technique: images of clouds and vegetation in diffuse, "all-over" arrangements, similar in composition to the artist's monumental canvases. The statement "I am nature" wasn't made by a psychotic drunk to his therapist (and it wasn't made to Lee Krasner either, but that's another issue); it was a statement of artistic purpose, which the movie tries in its own limited way to address. Personally I don't think it's a "four star" film, because Harris portrays Pollock as a near-basket-case throughout, mistaking his inarticulateness for a lack of intellect. But there are a million ways to make a movie about an "alcoholic manic depressive" in a dysfunctional relationship--why include all the art talk, and shots of paintings being moved around the studio, if it's not also about art?

--Tom Moody

(To reply, click here.)


 After reading about Stanley Kauffman's critique of the film, Pollock, I can't help wondering--what was his assessment of Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ? Did he ridicule Scorsese for trying to depict the experience of deity in a mere biopic? Or is it only when Kauffman's god (the Artist) is dragged down to earthliness by the leveling gaze of the filmmaker's camera that he dismisses such efforts as futile?

--Dan Simon

(To reply, click here.)


 So Pollock drops some paint on the floor and goes "Eureka"? I don't think so. Pollock wasn't the first artist to introduce drips and spatters into his work, and in fact some of his earlier work had included dripped elements. What really happened was that as his brushwork became freer, more rhythmic and abstract, pouring became a logical extension of this technique, finally allowing him to achieve the big all-over arabesques that he'd been working towards for years. Rather than being a bolt from the blue, his drip technique was the outgrowth of years of hard work and development, which is of course, much less dramatic and tougher to film.

--Rick

(To reply, click here.)

 (3/23)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Let the Oil Deals Flow
Raad Alkadiri | Congress should not interfere in the oil industry's contract negotiations with the Iraqi government.