This is obviously a much more hierarchical, (we might say "hilly", as opposed to flat) piece, than the Pollock. As our eyes move towards the center of the face, or towards the pears, the density of detail intensifies greatly. Our eyes are guided and directed to these spots. Thus there are, in a sense, "climaxes," there is a hierarchy of importance to the objects in the picture, one visible at some distance from it.
As I speak about these different approaches, it is important to note that it is not my goal to make any quality judgements here: both of these formal ways of working are valid, and both have their disadvantages and advantages. With the Pollock, we are free to find interesting detail anywhere we look, but it's up to us to zoom in somewhere; with our freedom comes responsibility and effort. With the Picasso, our task is easier, but less free: Picasso guides us to the most detailed parts of the picture, but he tells us where they are; he tells us what to contemplate.
On the other hand, the Pollock cannot be reduced into a catalog, and therefore cannot be distributed widely, beyond the museum, as successfully as the Picasso. I feel that most of what Woman with Pears "is" can be seen in a color reproduction. Although I appreciate the chance to see the real painting, I am quite happy looking at reproductions.[2] The same is not as true of Pollock pictures.
We might imagine that these two pieces are on a line or a continuity, measuring many different possibilities between extreme flatness, and extreme "hilliness", on which one could locate works of art. There are many works by Willem De Kooning, for example, that are teeming with detail, but are not completely flat in their overall structure. We could probably say or feel some interesting things about the "whole structure" of the following reduced De Kooning picture; there are interesting local areas worth exploring as well:
No comments:
Post a Comment