In my dissertation I briefly touch upon the process of traditional western art that do not so much include the processes of making as representation or evoking of temporal experiences of more than pending duration in the content of the outcome. Traditional ‘history painting,’ which is designed to tell a narrative through expression, gesture and motion, comes into this division, perhaps even more conclusively than in generally realized. (Cole, I (1999) pp. 31-38)
When I was writing this for my essay I thought that it had nothing to do with my work and how I was creating it because I was thinking more about the process and how that effects the composition as a whole. But now that I look at the writing more carefully I can see that my artwork does actually fit in the this process pretty well. My artwork is expressive and has motion throughout it. As well as my work Jackson Pollock’s artwork also fits into this process. Pollock would apply layered pigment in the most irregular ways, the paint would either be poured, dribbled, flickered or splattered across the canvas, Pollock would not use the traditional method of using a paint brush to apply pigments, he would use sticks, trowels, and anything he could get his hands on. The one thing that Pollock does well is that there is no central point to the painting, every inch of the canvas is covered equally, the reason for this is because Pollock would constantly move around the canvas which was on the floor always. (www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/57.95/, (no date)
Thinking about the processes in this way makes me realize that no matter how much I want to get away from Jackson Pollock and the styles that he uses, there is a correlation between my artwork and Pollock’s.
Cole, I (1999) Gustav Metzger: Retrospective, Art as Process: A Baker’s Dozen. Oxford. Museum of Modern Art, Oxford. pp. 31-38
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/57.92
