'Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollock Essay\r'

' whitethornbe the two gre consumest rebels in the memorial of modern stratagem were Andy Warhol and Jackson pollack. To a great extent, they knocked what was considered traditional craft for a veritable loop with their new and erratic approach to what was considered â€Å"good guiles.” Granted, incomplete creative person was the first to rock the traditional regularity of presenting â€Å"Gods and Kings” as the centerpiece of the machinationist’s tail assemblyvas.\r\nDadaism, Impressionism and a host of separate styles of art had been slowly, still surely chipping apart at the traditional more(prenominal)(prenominal) thans of art for virtually(prenominal) decades. But, it was pollock with abstract expressionism and, to a great degree, Warhol with break through art that truly blew absent m whatever of the putting surface conventional themes of the art world and attracting widespread man attending as mega star artists.\r\n Now, some of the more trite critics will look at pollack’s abstractions and Warhol’s prime of the mundane as something â€Å"Anyone cease do” or, worse, â€Å"I can do that”, tho as previously stated oft(prenominal) criticism is ridiculously trite and base on a surface think of (or non-existent) gaining of the playact and legacy of these masters. For Pollock and Jackson, art was outlying(prenominal) more than barely putting paint to canvas.\r\nYes, their work was visually appealing (again, Warhol’s work was more appealing, however, on a national level), but this appeal was non limited to hardly how good the movie looked. No, at that place was a unique psychology that captured the pulse of existence sentiment that drove the popularity of these paintings. In separate words, the paintings touched a raw poise in their earreach because the artist’s had a unique ability to unwaveringly place their finger on the heathen pulse of a so ciety and it was this that make them so popular.\r\n Of course, in order to understand how they were able to place their finger on the pulse of a nation it is withal critical to understand what was motivating them, how they achieved their mental response in their hearing, why the audience was so open to receiving such(prenominal) a psychological response, and what was the dominant cultural themes in society at the time that make their work so wildly popular. practically of this will be examined in this quiz and from this a clearer accord of the work and mold of Pollock and Warhol will b derived.\r\n Regarding the shipway the careers of Pollock and Warhol went against the standard perceptions of Abstract Expressionism and emerge 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 a lot as they were looking to take their work directly to an audience and knock the art world for a loop.\r\nIn other words, they did not seek to be members of an formal club 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 functioned. In Pollock’s case, abstract expressionism was designed more as an understanding of the chaotic disposition of the human psyche. For Warhol, pop art was an understanding of the consumer and entertainment driven refinement and two rejected the elitism that was so very common in art critic and savorr circles.\r\n Regarding consumer culture, the work of Warhol is much easier to decipher on the surface than Pollock’s 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 Campbell’s soup every day. Later, this would open into the painting of a variety of celebrities and pop cultural icons t hat were at the heart of moneymaking(prenominal) entertainment consumerism. To a great degree, Warhol was viciously mocking the former notion that the event of the artist’s brush rent to be gods and kings from antiquity. Instead, Warhol blameed out that modern gods and kings dissolving agent from the world of entertainment and that they are root in commercialism.\r\n For Pollock, the connection is more elusive although his bizarre painting style would suck to be anything but. On Pollock’s canvas, at that place 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 attack or presentation of consumerism in a autocratic or negative light as much as it is an â€Å"attack” on the psyche of the individual who has become a walking ball of confusion thank to media inspired messages of consumerism. In other words, you can not separate the parts from the entirely and in the case of Pollock you can not separate the confused reason from the random images that perpetually bombard it.\r\n Regarding the kind between disaster and mass culture, it would wait that Warhol did not really have such an alarmist view of pop culture. In fact, he was more celebratory and embracing of it. Yes, there can be a cynical notion put forth that Warhol may have felt that people were deprecative themselves and not living up to their dear potential by being overly reliant on a love of consumerism and popular entertainment and this, of course, can lead story to a weakening of the mid; but, overall, Warhol did not reckon to paint his images as a cautionary tale although it is understandable 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 Warhol’s painting would be representative of alarm bells going off.\r\n Regarding how contemporary po litics affected the careers of some(prenominal) artists this is somewhat of a difficult head word to answer because neither Warhol nor Pollock were know for being expository in term of the means and methods in which they developed their art. Of course, Warhol had produced paintings of rear end F. Kennedy, but such painting was far more focused on lauding the notoriety nature of Kennedy’s depiction as opposed to an endorsement of his politics. Pollock was apparently a humanist in his psychological approach to invoking emotion 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 â€Å"hipness” of their work as opposed to any sincere attempt to decipher meaning.\r\n In terms of criticizing pop culture the answer would be Pollock by slight as Warhol celebrated consumerism. Pollock’s material was far more rational and this wo uld seemingly go hand in hand with a rejection of trite consumerism although such an ideology was probably not Pollock’s governing motivation. Again, it is hard to impose motives to visionaries mainly because it is difficult to understand where there are coming from since they are the introduction point of and ideology and not a tool of it. As such, understanding them takes on a unique level of difficulty.\r\n'