How to paint like Jackson Pollock – One: Number 31, 1950 – with Corey D’Augustine | IN THE STUDIO


Voiceover: Three years
prior to the making of this painting, Pollock was working
on a small easel painting. He had struggled on it for a
while, and he decided to take that painting off the easel,
place it on the floor, and then pour some paint on the
surface to finish it.>From this deceptively simple
decision, an entire set of creative possibilities
opened up to Pollock, and he spent the next five years of
his career exploring them. Now, in the studio, let’s see
exactly how Pollock worked. Placing the canvas on the floor,
Pollock no longer remained in physical contact with
the canvas while painting. Instead of using conventional
artist brushes to push or smear liquid paint across
the surface of the painting, Pollock now used things
like sticks, even turkey basters or dried paint
brushes, hard as a rock, that he variously
dripped, drizzled, poured, or splashed paint onto
the canvas below him from. Pollock used very fluid
alkyd enamel paints, the kind of paint you
could paint your car with, the kind of paint you could
paint your radiator with. Because the paint was so
fluid, Pollock essentially drew in space, so that
drawing elements would happen quite literally in
the air, before falling down to the canvas below, sometimes
thick, sometimes thin. A rhythm of poured paint would develop across the surface of the painting. Now, if you know that
the painting was painted on the floor, if you
know that the paint has a very low viscosity, you
can very easily imagine the kind of physical
activities that would go into the making of this type of painting. Art historians, at the
time, coined this kind of painting, action painting,
because of this very idea that you could
imagine quite viscerally the actions that went into
the making of the painting. Now, specifically, we’re talking about the actions of almost a dancer. You can imagine Pollock’s feet shuffling around the painting. You can imagine rotations of the elbow and of the shoulder, variously launching or slowly drizzling paint
onto the canvas below. For Pollock, the drama
of making this painting on the floor meant that
not only physically but emotionally he could be
in the painting, stepping into the canvas, but also
losing himself in almost this trance-like or zone-like
type of painting process. Looking at the paint
below you on the surface of the canvas, reacting
to it, and adjusting whatever gestures you have
to create this painting. Now, traditionally in
painting, people would compose one shape
according to another one. A little bit of red here,
according to a little bit of blue there, according to
a lot of yellow over here. Well, for Pollock, he threw that out the window, as he did so many things. Rather, Pollock is composing
one line in juxtaposition with another one, and
not in any haphazard way, but rather in an all over
way, and this all-overness, if you will, becomes key for Pollock. Since looking at this painting, there’s no one spot for your eye to rest. Traditionally, line had
been used quite literally to delineate forms, to draw the outlines of forms, which would be filled in. You can imagine landscape paintings. The lines define the
mountains, clouds, and so on. Well, here the line is
not defining anything. Line becomes here autonomous,
and for the first time is liberated from its historical role in painting of describing other shapes. In 1950, the drama of
making this painting was actually captured by a
photographer and film maker, so that the performance
of making this painting captured the public’s
imagination as never before. Not only that, but other
artists were profoundly influenced by this radically
new way of working, not only painters, but,
well, performance artists can be traced back to
this very very formative moment, very important moment
in American art history.

100 comments

  • KarlAmade

    This is so fantastic… ah…The art by Jackson Pollock has always touched me, as said in the film – the sequence of images you make in your head concerning the creation of the art, whilst investigating it, is absolutely one way to feel the thrill.

    Reply
  • Claude Seymour

    "Alkyd enamel" paints hadn't been invented when Pollock painted. He used nitrocellulose paints. What other untruths is MOMA spreading?

    Reply
  • JJI6881

    Wow so wonderful to hear people say nice, intelligent things about Pollock's work!! I myself have worked in Pollock's style I can also attest to the need for balance and technique–Its not just throwing paint around!!!

    Reply
  • Acquavallo

    I like the presenter. He's really good

    Reply
  • Life Simply Rocks

    I despised Pollock for a very long time and I always thought he was over rated. I could be extremely wrong in my opinion but I sincerely have some questions because I want to embrace these paintings.
    1. How do u know when a such a painting is done?
    2.Out of 1000s of artists why did only Pollock become so famous?
    3.Since the art is thought provoking, what thoughts did the artist wanted his viewers to have? I can only think of chicken scratching on the floor!!!

    Reply
  • biodegradablepsycho

    Despised pollock, really ? what are your feelings on someone like pol pot ? in answer to your questions, i guess the painting is done when its creator decides so. is pollock the only famous painter ? is the art thought provoking , or has someone told you it should be thought provoking ? what is wrong with a chicken scratching the floor in many respects then chickens have something in common with painters, they are both only making marks.

    Reply
  • Jeffrey Adamsky

    Same as Oil paints,thinned down. they just call it alkyd.

    Reply
  • Alex Labarda

    1. only the artist themselves can know that answer
    2. right place, right time, right technique never seen before
    3. i really don't think he gave two shits about what his audience thought, it's what he thinks thats important, and "chicken scratching on the floor???" why don't you buy a live chicken and see if it can do what pollock can do, maybe then you can appreciate a legend

    Reply
  • Learner-Learns

    This video is one of (if not THE) best brief explanations of Pollack's work.

    It is relative thorough but impressively concise.

    MoMA curators obviously know their business.

    Reply
  • Wenceslao Futanki

    i like how pollock painted, but NOT what he painted.

    Reply
  • Wenceslao Futanki

    yep, their parasitism business right.

    Reply
  • Wenceslao Futanki

    pollock and mostly postmodern art establishment is almost on par with pol pot or bush.

    Reply
  • Wenceslao Futanki

    is all a conspiracy, is a very long and complex story, but has nothing to do with the talent of the artist.

    Reply
  • easyizzy21aj

    hi kaitlyn

    Reply
  • TIMEtoRIDE900

    Thought provoking – – "Blue Poles" sold for $150,000,000 !! the highest price ever!
    I have 3 colors down right now on my latest "Pollock", waiting for them to dry.

    Reply
  • BC Stevens

    Rofl… exactly

    Reply
  • Yzyxdolorza

    Very nice! I have often equated Pollack with Gene Kelly (dance), but had never considered that the distance between the tool and the canvas caused the mark to form in the air and then drop to the support. Thx.

    Reply
  • Sara Fridley

    I appreciate fine art, I really do….but I'm sorry, this is not all that difficult to master. I just made a piece that I honestly believe is better than this, and in no way do I consider myself an artist. Granted, mine is not on this scale, but being huge doesnt make it that profound to me. Sounds to me like the narrator is just grasping any some idealism to make it seem special.

    Reply
  • Sandra Gilmore

    Nice!

    Reply
  • Hammond B3 Organ

    Thank you for the fine demonstration!

    Reply
  • no man

    watching this makes me never again want to buy art i can just make it lol

    Reply
  • staberind

    There are those who are interested in the "worth" of an art work, and there are those who only see the eventual price. I think this series is more for the former than the latter.

    Reply
  • redhatgnome

    Does anyone have a good example of what a "haphazard" way would look like/be? (If this Pollock has procured an "all over" way.)

    Reply
  • Layla CR

    Hello, could somebody write me the text down, what the man is saying so i can let it get translated into my language?

    Reply
  • Bob Laughlin

    There’s one thing you can say for Jackson Pollock. He never licensed a Paint-By-Number kit.

    Reply
  • chopsbox

    amazing painting

    Reply
  • Felix Peaul

    which canvas did you use? and where could I find such a canvas? I can not really see if you chose a white canvas or a little brown canvas an where could i find such a big one

    Reply
  • Hidser De Jong

    i love pollocks work

    Reply
  • Lucy Godwin Art

    Thanks for all you do Corey. Love ya and brilliant video as always.

    Reply
  • Mr CJA

    All I see is just scribbles. I don't get it!

    Reply
  • PointyTailofSatan

    Like the music of Bach, there is a tremendous amount of math in Pollock's drip paintings. Scientists have used computers to analyse Pollock's paintings, and found he actually subconsciously incorporated fractal theory in them. And it's no fluke. The fractal complexity of each new drip painting would increase. And he destroyed a number of drip paintings he didn't like. It's suspected that he thought the fractal component in those paintings was somehow defective, and he could sense it.

    Reply
  • JustSketchIt

    The older I get, the more I appreciate these kind of art but a blank red canvas considered to be a "painting" is still unacceptable in my opinion.

    Reply
  • Mad Hatter

    I love how they can make a painting sound like a million bucks. Pollock was a dancer with a paint brush😂. He didn't even prime the canvas! Plus I see craze(cracking) from the fluid paints. He achieved some cells happening, with the denser white paint trying to sink below the less dense black paint. All in all its just fun cool paintings. I will make one for myself and copy his color choices. He may be the first 'non objective' (not abstract)-fluid artist. Pretty cool stuff.

    Reply
  • The Museum of Modern Art

    Hey everyone, tune in this Wednesday, May 17 at 3:30 p.m. EDT for a LIVE Q&A with IN THE STUDIO instructor Corey D'Augustine. Corey will answer questions from previous videos, as well as from the live comments section. Watch live: https://youtu.be/3Q2GDI673lo

    Reply
  • Frederick Röders

    While I respect art, artists and I respect pollock. His technique was probably just a specific way of dripping paint. He never told anyone exactly what he did, so somehow its a complete mystery as to how he did it, though it couldve been as easy as just holding or pinching the brush in a certain way and stacking colours in a certain order.

    Reply
  • hersheystaste4life

    The Sistine Chapel would look better if this was on their ceiling.

    Reply
  • Angel Reading

    Art goes way beyond the paintbrush,mind,eyes,application in whatever way is all acceptable methods of placing marks onto a surface is not really important,it can be said that every drip of colour is the artists mind at work just as a subtle bit of colour from a pointed paintbrush on a photo perfect copy with tiny dots,pouring is sheer genius there is control and above all plenty of happy accidents along the way,it is impossible to make comparisons with other types of more conventional painting because this is extreme art with many surprises like when the colours pickle or semi oxidise,the artist is pushing the boundaries of colour to the limits like ways that paint is never used for conventional painting,by looking into the painting the artist is immersing themselves into a world of new ways to create with dripping flowing trodden paint,manipulation of the paint is the artists bold method of expression.

    Reply
  • Gurveen Kaur

    Thanks for explaining it so well, I can now understand the significance and importance of Pollock and appreciate his work as well.

    Reply
  • Peter Kerr

    when Jackson Pollock began a piece, did he envision the end result? was he expressing an idea or sharing a view of something in a new way? or was he showing that he could convince you that a house painters dropsheet could be a thing of beauty?

    Reply
  • Aaron Hart

    It is so weird, but Pollock creates very conceptual patterns in something that seems totally random. While dripping paint on the floor is technically simple, the end result is beyond astounding.

    Reply
  • Plant Planet Earth

    Pollack first to create camouflage or 80s fashion clothes for Full House.

    Reply
  • george eskiadis

    I am more of a fan of his earlier work before he started dripping paint on the canvas..his pre-action painting work is amazing. I think very few American painters have influenced world painting the way European painters did. for example if it wasn't for Kandinsky's contribution to the world of painting, we wouldnt be talking about abstract art today.

    Reply
  • Cliff DaRiff

    Thanks.. standing in front of a JP is what really will make one decide to love it or not. I love his repertoire.

    Reply
  • Shawn McNulty

    You can imagine the disks in his neck deteriorating. I've started using prism glasses to keep my head upright and challenge my control.

    Reply
  • Wounded Ego

    If you stare at his painting for like 5 minutes, all of a sudden you see Mother Theresa or the Eiffel Tower or something. Way cool. They have them at the mall.

    Reply
  • Nunayoor Bidnez

    It's easy to paint like Pollock. Just spill paint on the floor. Pollock's work and all the bruhaha around it is an insult to truly talented artists. Please bring back objective standards to art.

    Reply
  • NELSON X

    Do one on how to paint like Rembrandt.

    Reply
  • Mandy Khoo

    Everyone could do this but nobody did: genius

    Reply
  • John Bouttell

    Wonderful

    Reply
  • Anthony Daniel

    Worst Purchases
    1. Pet Rock
    2. Pollock Paintings

    Reply
  • The Museum of Modern Art

    Tune in for a live Q&A with Corey on Wednesday, February 7 at 3:00 p.m. EST! He’ll be answering any questions you might have on artists, materials, and techniques. https://youtu.be/OxS8X_V6TCU

    Reply
  • David Lopez

    from Pollock I took that you shouldn't always have to go for the most expensive paints available

    Reply
  • Phuong Le

    No one can paint like Pollock.

    Reply
  • Christian Egon Bärnthaler

    super 1

    Reply
  • manifestgtr

    I’m kind of divided on Jackson Pollock.

    On one hand, I understand the excitement of it. The motion that it preserves. The fact that patterns exist on a deeper level. The celebration of texture and emotion.

    On the other hand, his work proves that visual art, like any other form of “entertainment”, rests purely in the hands of the tastemakers. His vision was his own but his work isn’t uniquely outstanding when you stack it up honestly against many of his peers’. So why is it that we remember his name? Exactly…It’s not an indictment of his work. It’s just how we operate as a species

    Reply
  • xoxoxo Yozz

    1:53 drake move

    Reply
  • Stephen Stone

    Pollack made lines. He, Rothko, Barnett, Motherwell, and a few others were seminal in creating an acceptance of non-figurative art as " fine art". Kandinsky was pretty much the catalyst in my opinion. The forerunner. Abstract Expressionism ( stupid term ) changed everything but that doesn't mean that we should all splatter or do simple color-field paintings and expect to be nothing more than a cheap copy. It was a jumping off point. No need to go there again. But, now where? That's the question. That's our job as artists. To ask questions. Not answer them. Just saying. ✌
    (Btw, I'm more of a DeKooning guy myself. He grew on me. )

    Reply
  • Wan Zariff

    Im here because of guardian of galaxy 😂

    Reply
  • Mark Steve

    Stop wasting paint xd

    Reply
  • will crow

    Pollock was amazing. It's hard to balance what you see here with the real man, and his portrayal by Ed Harris. Artists almost always look like total assholes in their biographies. Picasso becomes a jackass and a clown when portrayed by Hopkins.

    Reply
  • Jeff Vader

    paint like pollock, just drip paint easy, any one literally could paint like him

    Reply
  • T Schrade97

    it's not haphazard? then haphazard has no meaning.

    Reply
  • osnat shemtov

    What’s the difference between a Pollack and an apron of another painter ?
    I showed an 8 year old kid the paintings and she said I can do it ….
    I don’t like modern art

    Reply
  • Joyful Noise

    Who else saw a face in the painting?

    Reply
  • carmcb

    These type of paintings are done by people not artist that have no talent, they can't paint landscapes, still life …. so they did this type of crap.

    Reply
  • soundorg

    My favorite space that I have visited ever.

    Reply
  • Reg Munday

    Saying "oh I could do that" is beside the point; Pollock created his own STYLE and a new GENRE. Saying you could paint like him is like saying you could copy his signature – so what?? Don't be a copier, be an innovator: Try creating your OWN trademark style, that's the great challenge for any artist.

    Reply
  • shayaan mannan

    Corey D’augustine,
    The copy ninja of MoMA

    Reply
  • brodamerons

    Jfc so many haters in the comments. Have any of you guys actually gone and seen some of pollock’s pieces? They’re quite moving and emotional. You can feel the motion of his hands and his feet, feel the charged emotions he must have had throwing the paint on the canvas. The sheer size of the piece feels like it’s going to swallow you whole in raw feeling. Saying your child could have done it is an immature way of seeing the piece. Understanding the story behind it can go a long way in appreciating abstract and modern art. Instead of shitting on someone who is undoubtedly one of the most prolific modern artists, consider for a minute why someone would view his art as something majestic and something to be preserved. Then rethink your tired and inane comments of, “my kids could do this” and “this is just paint splatters” and “this art doesn’t mean anything”.

    Reply
  • Etienne 777

    Make a video on Gerhard Richter and please tell me where he bought his big jars of paint. No one on the internet knows, it seems.

    Reply
  • Ilham Magribi

    If Pollock never start this kind of art, you can never imagine painting could be like this before, dear genius out there.

    Reply
  • adam tettran

    How to paint like Jackson Pollock ,I don't want to paint like Jackson Pollock so don't tell me what to do stupid

    Reply
  • Stephanie Mathews

    excited by this……… to be free from form…

    Reply
  • Joseph Charles Colin - The New Face of Art

    i make paintings with my face

    Reply
  • Christopher Farrell

    Good luck conservation team – those paints were designed for use on a rigid surface. Pollock was amazing, with an original process…..anyone who replicates this style is a low-level cliched artist

    Reply
  • Atanu Bhowmick

    Nice

    Reply
  • Josie Nicholson

    My granddaughter's cookies were decorated in his style and I'm pretty sure she captured his spirit in her.

    Reply
  • jan angevine

    It helps to see his early works to understand how he got here.

    Reply
  • Jacob Matthes

    I wish this was a longer episode.

    Reply
  • Dennis Moore

    I'm a British hotelier. I create Pollock-style art for my premises. It's important to make the canvas BIG. Small Pollock-style paintings are rubbish, but a big canvas always impresses. If necessary, create a diptych or a triptych, that's two three pieces which are mounted immediately side-by-side. It helps when transporting the thing on a car roof rack or up the stairs. I use paint with the same colours as the room and its furniture. Very easy to create a canvas: Make a cheap rectangular frame with scrap wood. Fit a bedsheet to it with drawing pins. Stiffen the canvas by applying PVA glue with a roller or brush. Paint the canvas with the same emulsion you've got on your ceiling. Then dribble and splatter. Pale pastel colours, are less intrusive than dark shades. Above all, and you'll know what I mean when you do it: KEEP IT BIG!

    Reply
  • Lony Banegas

    what´s that paint?

    Reply
  • Micheal Currie

    Jack the dripper……..

    Reply
  • Arturo Apilado

    imagine going to art school and they teach you how paint this and dance while painting

    Reply
  • Lou Hawk

    You can find many images in this..

    Reply
  • Brian Feis

    Would you ever see a 4 minute video titled "How to paint like Leonardo da Vinci"?

    Reply
  • David Schlessinger

    Let's face reality – it was an original idea, but required no talent. A tad bit of creativity, but it was merely a simple, novel idea that captured attention. Don't make more of it than it is.

    Reply
  • Ana Sánchez

    This is awesome

    Reply
  • yes_im_pedro

    Does anyone know what type of paint he uses

    Reply
  • sabbottart

    Now let’s see you paint in his early style.

    Reply
  • Ori Grek

    I didn't know you can work on an unprimed canvas like that. Interesting. It is an unprimed canvas is it?

    Reply
  • CasperYaBoi

    yo yo yo wait up brother, you need a cigarette in your mouth while you’re doing it

    Reply
  • ART PAINTING DRAWING

    amazing

    Reply
  • Etienne 777

    How do you prime an unstretched canvas roll?

    Reply
  • Baris Gundogdu

    I want to understand why people like this?

    Reply
  • Gamer 14

    Gracias por la enseñanza de l arte abstracto

    Reply
  • Mark Thompson

    I love this type of Pollockism, and am planning on giving it a try myself.

    Reply
  • Mark Thompson

    There are a BUNCH of eBay listings for what they call "Pollock-type paintings," and I consider it pretty tacky to use his name on things he never even saw, let alone endorsed. However, there are also some listings claiming to be genuine Pollocks. Naturally, since his authentic pieces sell for many millions and those on eBay are somewhere around $1,700.00, they're rip-offs. I don't know how eBay can condone such a practice, but apparently, they do. Laissez faire.

    Reply
  • mister prelux

    "first i liked, then I watched " Corey D' …

    Reply
  • ImaGood Cactus

    I dont get how that is art it's just a bunch of scribble lines of paints

    Reply
  • Daniel Thompson

    What a load of pollocks

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *