Nature vs Rebellion

 The 1940’s, a period of massive economic growth and streamlined productivity gave birth to Abstract Expressionism, an art movement that challenged the decade’s uniformity. Following World War II, the United States saw a massive boom in corporate capitalism that many came to call “logical modernity.”  Abstract Expressionism sought to counter the widespread conservatism and uniformity that came to define the decade.  Michael Schreyach’s article in Apollo Journal, argues that Pollock, though an abstract expressionist, was more influenced by nature than countering the homogeneity of the 1940’s

Schreyach’s piece begins by examining Pollock’s famous drip technique that has iconized his paintings.  He explains that Pollock, unlike most artists during this time period did not paint with a standard canvas orientation.  Instead of standing the painting on one side and keeping in place from start to finish, Pollock would lay the painting on the ground and continually turn it  he poured his paint onto the canvas. Schreyach argues that in this technique, Pollock was following not the structure of technique, but the most natural progression for himself. He compares Pollock to a child that follows what comes easy and natural to him instead of what he has been taught. Like the movement of the earth and seasons, Pollock followed a natural progression instead of a rigid and taught articulation.

After explaining how Pollock’s developmental stages of painting mimic nature, Schreyach goes on to examine the movement and style of his works. As Schreyach explains, Pollock’s paintings cause their viewers’ eyes to move continuously around the canvas. The lines in all of Pollock’s works sprawl in almost every direction. They appear to dance and twist without any set pattern. Schreyach compares this undefined movement to the movements of nature. He explains that much like Pollock’s paintings, the natural world is not rigid or specifically defined. Its lines are organic and in constant motion. He explains that both Pollock’s works and nature, though organic, have a cohesive motion. It isn’t difficult to detect the pattern and feel of Pollock’s painting. Like nature, his works seamlessly blend together color and form to create an organic body.

Schreyach also brings up the display orientation of Pollock’s paintings and how their patterned horizontality draws the concept of a landscape to the painting. As Schreyach explains, a large number of Pollock’s pieces are elongated horizontal canvases.  The length and detail of his paintings call to mind the vastness of a massive landscape vista. A viewer of one of Pollock’s large pieces like No. 5 or No. 30, cannot take the entirety of the piece in from just one location; they must move and walk from one end to another. This vastness and required movement mimic how one would view a valley from an elevated outcropping.  Viewers must scan the entirety of the horizon, or canvas, and move around in order to take it all in.

Schreyach argues that this correlation between vast horizontality and nature are no coincidence. Pollock was trying to call to his readers mind the innate complexity and originality of nature.  He explains that though many argue Pollock was focused on countering 1940’s homogeneity, he work was more influenced by nature. 

I thought Schreyach’s article was extremely interesting. I had seen several of Pollock’s paintings before, but I definitely did not understand them or realize their ties to nature. Overall, Schreyach makes a solid case defending the influence of nature on Pollock’s paintings, but I felt like his explanation of the 1940’s culture at the beginning detracted from his message. After describing that time period in such detail, it left a lingering impact on his counter arguments and weakened his article. 

Schreyach, Michael. “'I am Nature’: Science and Jackson Pollock.” Apollo, Vol. 16. Pp. 35-53. Web. August 2007.