100 comments

  • Sir Oliver

    This is just bad art..

    Reply
  • Johann Brandstatter

    He ought to come toy the North of England.( In a manner of speaking). They'd correct his name to the proper spelling – Jackson f….Bollocks ! The bottom of a bird cage looks more attractive than his works !

    Reply
  • LEaVe.Me.aLoNe • 189 years ago

    Is it art? I guess
    Did it require any talent…. No anyone could do it so it shouldn't be millions of dollars

    Reply
  • andybaldman

    Good god, please cut down on the vocal fry. Your voice makes this almost unlistenable.

    Reply
  • David Gonzalez

    I read somewhere tha tPollock was paid by the CIA to create this type of Art

    Reply
  • Al Green - Light Through Glass

    'free form but not random' – 'energy made visible' – yes

    Reply
  • spellbound111

    Pollock was not original in this type of painting like so many people claim. One of the reasons they give for admiring Pollock is that he was the first person to produce this kind of work.  Janet Sobel and others were doing this before Pollock and when he saw their work he tried it out for himself because he knew he had no artistic talent for anything better.
    He became prominent, not because his work was artistic but because he had excellent connections in the art and business world that could launch him to fame.
    It is called the emperor's new clothes syndrome.

    Reply
  • Mario P

    7:57 question, are you implying that being white male artist back then was a bad thing?

    Reply
  • Prasad Malgaonkar

    oh god I am not understanding these paintings

    Reply
  • QNetX

    Thank you for such a wonderfully scripted, illustrated, and narrated video. I increased my knowledge and was thoroughly entertained.

    Reply
  • najihishamkv

    Or call it artistic diarrhea… Whatever

    Reply
  • mueez adam

    I had no idea he was driving drunk that night. I just lost a huge amount of respect for Pollock. RIP that poor friend.

    Reply
  • Laura Aole

    Wow! Really good job! Thank you.

    Reply
  • NathMainA99

    dont be brainwashed this is not art, this is not 50 million

    Reply
  • Michael Boylan

    Sorry there is no case for Pollock, You ask ,,,,what does it mean now? What is IT? The furore the scandal the notoriety the publicity? Nothing to do with art, We all know now the CIA promoted Pollock and others as past of a Cultural Cold War,

    Reply
  • Maxwell Bergen

    They're crap, its just American's desperately trying to have a master painter of their own. Any 4 year old could paint a Jackson Pollock.

    Reply
  • Filippo P

    Anyone knows what's the name of the books that showed at about 0:16?

    Reply
  • davidorama amarodivad

    Love the work of Jackson Pollock.

    Reply
  • Pat W

    thanks for explaining his paint splatters

    Reply
  • Ha Nhuan Dong

    Does anyone know where to find the mindmap of art movements at 7:18?

    Reply
  • Mehrdad Mohajer

    JP and MJ( Michael Jackson) for example, one GENIUS as the other but, IN DIFFERENT FIELDS. That means : you´re born to be an Artist. As a matter of fact : Receiving ART, MAKES YOUR VISION CLEAR THERE AFTER. So if you get my point, Our comprehension of Worlds around us is : Explosion of Knowledge , better said : The Borns of StarS.

    Reply
  • Mark E.

    He started off doing good stuff…then came the b.s. dribbling..he got lazy and convinced them flinging paint on a canvas with nothing But that technique was a new art direction…from 1947 til his death….junk.

    The whole reason why painting is highly regarded as a skill of an artist is partly that not just ANYONE can do it. Twirling , splattering and blobbing paint onto any surface isn't technique that shows a high degree of skill..and isn't meant to be ONLY for its own sake…its to be used in combination with other techniques inconjuction with a subject for the artwork…otherwise a throw rug from painting a house with different colors is "art"….thats b.s.

    Reply
  • Ricardo Montanez

    So much words. You can simply say they super cool.

    Reply
  • Mike Hubbard

    I think Pollack's inspiration could have been illustrated ; "Let's give them something to talk about". LOL

    Reply
  • Mario Oldani

    Cas

    Reply
  • Jade Zee

    trying to describe art…which you are doing here…will never satisfy….either you accept the viewers interpretation……or there is no art.

    Reply
  • adel makram

    This is not even art, it is just missing with colors in near random and he called it the art of subconsciousness. You can not fool the true human perception of the art and beauty.

    Reply
  • Gerry

    Andy Goldsworthy is my idea of a true artist. His work is often of a very temporary nature and cannot be owned and sold for millions of dollars. http://www.morning-earth.org/ARTISTNATURALISTS/AN_Goldsworthy.html

    Reply
  • Isaiah Edwin

    Thank God for this channel ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

    Reply
  • James anonymous

    how do you suppose Pollock knew when to stop pouring the paint, when the can was empty ?

    Reply
  • Tubal Cain

    Maybe his work looks dated because he used auto and industrial paints, the color palettes for which are agreed periodically by manufacturers, e.g. Avocado and Harvest Gold for appliances.

    Reply
  • Thomas Sommerfeld

    Pollock … most overrated artist ever. wait. He was no artist at all. And do not come up with the oh he put his heart into his art shit. Still everybody else can paint better.

    Reply
  • Tamonduando

    "these pictures are not easy to read" well maybe he did his job right, huh?

    Reply
  • pjc1954

    This is such an enjoyable series of films. Thanks for them.

    Reply
  • Fernando Garcia

    Trash

    Reply
  • peanut12345

    Get a 5 year wild, call a blah bah in NYC, make MIllions.

    Reply
  • Bethanie Petitpas

    I've always thought they should show Pollock paintings on the floors. Like they were painted.

    Reply
  • John Romero

    where can i find that chart at 7:20

    Reply
  • Abhilash Kesav

    I didn't know who did that our understood what the scribbler had in mind, when I first saw his painting. It was breathtaking.

    Reply
  • asdabir

    To be honest I love the colorful drips of paint. I don’t even care about the explanation or the backstory of the artist. Certain colors coming together with that paint-y texture gives me a lot of joy and I cannot explain it any further than that.

    Reply
  • Chiba City Blues

    I’m still not a fan of Pollocks work, but I can appreciate it more. Though I still personally believe that Lee Krasner was the more talented of the two. Either way a great video as always!

    Reply
  • Vladislav Overchuk

    does anyone know where this scheme at 7:18 comes from? is it a reliable source?

    Reply
  • Saoirse O'Reilly

    My 3 year old insisted that Jackson Pollock is her boyfriend…

    Reply
  • Mister E.

    I'm sorry, its garbage. It's the kind of thing that could only come with civilizational decline, after exhaustion of the higher things. It's no surprise he was a degenerate who died young and why Jews, the agents of chaos /rootless modernism, promoted abstract expressionism. You, narrator, are a silly childlike person.

    Reply
  • Wintergust

    Pollock is a legend

    Reply
  • Katarzyna Szyffer

    An off topic question, but it is nagging me: why does she force her throat so much at the end of each sentence??? Is it a Californian accent or something? If so, why did it evolve in such way? Is it a new phenomenon or it had been there long before? Isnt it straining your larynx/throat? Isnt it a teenage accent or something? So mamy questions! So few answers!
    Thanks!

    Reply
  • Tsetsi

    There is no way you could buy a Bob Ross painting, but these cost millions

    Reply
  • Daniel Johnson

    I heard all this before. And common sense. Gee.

    Reply
  • Forest Pepper

    If you want to spend $5000000 for a Pollock "painting", that's fine by me. Perhaps in another 10 years, its price will be up to $6000000, so it might be a great investment. But if you just want it as pure "Art", I would suggest spending $20 on a few cans of paint, which you can then "drip" onto your own canvas, and achieve about the same effect, with the added bonus of saving yourself about $5000000. I'm pretty sure the result will be every bit as "visually engaging" as an actual Pollock "painting".

    Reply
  • JW Pev

    An artist could look at Pollock's painting and connect immediately. The average person might struggle to understand.

    Reply
  • Vaclav Haval

    The purpose of Pollock's "paintings" are totally not for illegal payoffs, blackmail, bribes, etc. and totally not used to scam the nouveau riche.

    Reply
  • notnek202

    Jackson Pollock is a fraud and the idiots who buy his art have been duped.

    Reply
  • Cynewulf Scrivener

    the earliest pollacks look awesome but I cannot escape the impression that the latter half is entirely cynical

    Reply
  • rishikesh jadhav

    I would sae Bob ross is highly skilled an highly understated artist and better than pollock !

    Reply
  • Old Man from Scene Twenty Four

    I've heard all the explanations regarding Pollock and other Abstract artists. They spew all kinds of social-psycho babble (man's interaction with …, humanity's struggle against …, etc.), it's all bullshit. Pollock and the rest simply had nothing to say. They sold the Patrons and the Public a bag of shit and no one is willing to admit it.

    Reply
  • BearPapa1990

    The way her sentences end with a gravely tone is quit annoying

    Reply
  • T Jacobs

    I firmly believe that many of Pollock's admirers don't appreciate his work quite as much as they appreciate the IDEA of appreciating it.

    Reply
  • SuperMich66

    call it what you want, looks like crap to me….BOB ROSS RULES !!!!!!

    Reply
  • nunya biznez

    Here is my sole experience with Jackson Pollock and my rebuttal for this video.When I was in high school I went on a class trip to a widely known art museum.   While there I explored a room devoted to modern artists and tried to fathom what made them popular.   I was a fan of the works of Rembrandt and Rockwell and da Vinci.  I did not then nor do I now like most modern art.    I came upon a painting by Jackson Pollock.  It was not of impressive size.  I think it was maybe around 16 inches tall and a bit more than twice that wide.   It was of course covered in paint splatters.   I stood there for several minutes attempting to understand why this was art and not a waste of perfectly good canvas.   Then it hit me.  Not the truth.  I had to sneeze and could not hold it in.  Before I was able to turn away, I sneezed a rather large and nasty booger right onto the upper left quadrant of the painting which had been hung so that the average man would view the upper half directly and the average woman would view the lower half directly.   Bashfully I backed away hoping nobody would notice that I had sneezed on a painting worthy of a famous museum and as stealthily as I could left the room.  No security guard confronted me on my way out so I breathed a sigh of relief and rejoined my class.   The entire incident had been forgotten by me over the years.   Then, thirty seven years later, a friend invited me to accompany her to that same museum.  I had not been back since high school and was curious how it might have changed.  I had still completely forgotten about the Jackson Pollack and the sneeze right up until my friend and I entered a room and there it was still hanging there in about the same spot I suppose.  I looked at it and recognized it immediately as the one I had sneezed on though it looked different than I remembered and that when I realized that it was now upside down or perhaps it was upside down before and now it was right side up.  In any case I remembered my sneeze and looked around and then realized, they never cleaned it.   For there, on the lower right quadrant of the painting, was a 37 year old dried up bugger exactly where I'd left it that day long ago.   I burst out laughing and told my companion what I was laughing at.  She didn't believe me at first knowing my distain for modern art and then examined it closely (not too closely since they have now installed security measures) and she looked at me and burst out laughing as well.  We later visited the gift shop which had a book for sale including an image of that Jackson Pollack and if you look at the image carefully you will see my booger.  In fact I have since found that image on the internet several places also depicting my more or less intact booger on the Jackson Pollack.  I do not wish to divulge which Jackson Pollack sports my booger or what museum it hangs in.   I would rather not be sued or worse yet arrested for vandalism though most likely the statute of limitation's has long run out on such things.   In case the point of my story is lost, I shall merely say that one has to wonder the legitimacy of a work of "art" when one cannot tell the difference between it and a booger.

    Reply
  • ramjam25

    I declare pollocks art bullocks

    Reply
  • Yousip Toma

    It was a piece of shit and it will be, every thing above that is in our mind happening not in that childish doodling.

    Reply
  • DEAD GRATEFUL

    the jack kerouac of painting

    Reply
  • John Blyth - Composer, writer

    Excellent presentation. Thank you.

    Reply
  • Roy K.

    I believe that the closer art comes to representing the unconscious the further it gets from ownership. How can you claim to have created something you weren't even aware of while creating it.
    That's why the more expressionist and automated Pollock's work became the less responsible he became of creating it. So saying: "I could have done that", in this case at least, is irrelevant because what we see isn't so much the creation of an individual but of a collective subconscious.
    This video has taught me a lot, I've learned to appreciate this artform as a raw form of expression.

    Reply
  • The Southern Lady

    That is not art. That is a mess and an experiment with people's acceptance of what they're told.

    Reply
  • Wally Jaik

    Cartoon is better

    Reply
  • JiveDadson

    Just move along. Nothing to see here, folks. Keep moving.

    Reply
  • GAME TV

    I’ve did me this art at school

    Reply
  • Vodkahouse 666

    i love pollock

    Reply
  • Fe Simco

    I really don't see it, I tried. I'll try again in a couple years.

    Reply
  • Juan Rodriguez

    His work sound like Japanoise…

    Reply
  • Etienne 777

    And today he is in hell because he died drunk without Jesus……and we sell his work for millions of $'s…..view bill wiese.

    Reply
  • Hunter Terrell

    Where's John green

    Reply
  • Hunter Terrell

    It's upside down

    Reply
  • Seta-San

    That's not art.

    Reply
  • Derick Van Dusen

    Pollock's pieces are alive even after death. His imaginings inspire the machinations of the novice. They are gently and often callously pushed beyond their comfort and lead to grow in amazing ways. I sat with a Pollock at Crystal Bridges in Bentonville Arkansas and was so taken with it that was temporarily absorbed by it.

    Reply
  • Trev's Life

    https://youtu.be/nk5BW-E6xuw

    Reply
  • James anonymous

    how did he decide his drip drops were finished & the work completed ? Look at one of them and describe it to yourself aloud.
    see if you can verbalize what your eyes see. My 6 yr old grandson did a pollock, & it's better than an original, but ! how could I
    actually know that ??????

    Reply
  • Jonathan Quach

    5:30 be~*low*~

    Reply
  • james dolph

    really? Pollock =art … no I think not

    Reply
  • John Mc Clafferty

    Did you try a case for Julian Schnabel and fail, just wondering?

    Reply
  • Mozart

    What this video tells is that you are not purchasing the painting but rather you are purchasing the "story of it", which makes things even more confusing for people like me who thinks that I can easily sell someone a fake "Pollock" painting. (not a replica or imitation but an entirely different, unique painting that I somehow manipulate you to believing it's Pollock's) This indicates the worthlessness of the particular piece of visual art by itself, which is extremely weird, considering the visual art should have some initial value to it as it's a display of a unique & a rare combination of skills such as drawing, storytelling and imagination.
    I am convinced that modern art is just a kind of a "everyone should win" type of approach to art.

    Reply
  • sham sublic

    Hilarious bollox … I can't wait for the sheep to tell me I'm wrong…

    Reply
  • Antivlog

    I've seen several of his large format works in real life and they really are spectacular. Very moving. So much emotion that does not translate through a photo or a video.

    Reply
  • Gregor Clegane

    "Pollock's painting isn't art. It's a theme park."
    ~Scorcese, probably

    Reply
  • Lucian David

    I could do that, but he did it first!

    Reply
  • Lucian David

    Thank you for Art Assignment. It’s wonderful!

    Reply
  • CHARLIEM1010

    I’m sure that this garbage would have made Leonardo daVinci cringe. Pollack was nothing more than a glorified preschool art teacher

    Reply
  • Butch Buttery

    Whoever edited this video needs to be kicked up the arse. By taking out the natural pauses between sentences it has been rendered unwatchable.

    Reply
  • freen

    A case for suprematism. How about that

    Reply
  • THE GEEK CLUB

    “A child's contour drawing of the battle of Gettysburg.” That actually sounds like a really profound statement on the nature of war.

    Reply
  • James Chan

    I wish the word ejaculate wasn't used so I could share this with my G6 students….

    Reply
  • Raj iv

    Science has given an explanation of Pollock's work. A fractal analysis shows similarities in these patterns with those found in nature. A little more research by the makers of the film could have highlighted this. Read more about " fractal expressionism" here:

    https://blogs.uoregon.edu/richardtaylor/2016/02/08/fractal-analysis-of-jackson-pollocks-poured-paintings/

    Reply
  • Povilas Šėporaitis

    Does anyone have the source of the modern art history timeline at 7:21?

    Reply
  • View Film

    You explain everything and nothing

    Reply
  • SandyRiverBlue

    This is really well written. Kudos.

    Reply
  • Russell Alami

    Art for the ignorant…..

    Reply
  • Derek Talbott

    Thank God someone finally mentions Orozco and Siquieros, from whom he learned dripping!!

    Reply
  • Spotted Bullet

    I have no imagination, too many car accidents I suppose. I enjoy copying old masters paintings, I use their imagination for my painting since I possess none. They're usually obscure old masters and I post the painting on Twitter and inform people of the person that originally painted it. I keep obscure old masters alive.

    Reply
  • Yonatan Cohen

    Works like these are why art has a pretentious shitty name, this is not art, a child can do better than this…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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