Tribute to Jackson Pollock

            Jackson Pollock was the leader of the Abstract Expressionist movement that came to be during the mid 1940s in New York City. He was born January 28, 1912 in Cody, Wyoming; however, he grew up primarily in Arizona and California. He attended Manual Arts High School in Los Angeles, and then went on to study with Thomas Hart Benson at the Art Students League in New York with his brother Charles in 1930. There he was influenced greatly by experimental styles and large scale painting. Here he was also exposed to (and therefore greatly influenced by) painters José Clemente Orozco and David Alfaro Siqueiros (Shatz pp. 1-2).

            In 1945 Pollock married artist Lee Krasner. A few days after their wedding the couple moved away from the hustle and hype of New York City to a converted farmhouse in The Springs. The Springs is a village that is part of East Hampton at the tip of Long Island, and it is there they found a very different lifestyle, that of simplicity. They had no electricity and no running water within their home, and their toilet was in the yard. Repairs were definitely on their list of things to do after moving in, however, that this atmosphere is why they moved away from the big city. It was here that Pollock’s working methods began to shift. In the summer of 1946 he would paint his first piece on the floor (The Key from his Accabonac Creek series). His studio was their renovated barn and his main source of light was from a top light he had cut into the roof. He wanted no other windows put into the building so that he would not be distracted, and in turn his inspiration would no longer be from the outside world. One can visit this studio today and see the remnants of his famous method, which consisted of dripping, pouring, and throwing paint on a large canvas placed on the floor. He often would explain that this way of painting allowed him to be in the painting, to be a part of it (Kuster pp. 12-13).





            Pollock’s work was very influential. His “drip” technique as discussed above introduced the idea of Action Painting, in which the canvas was no longer just something to place paint on, but a place in which the artist could actively engage (Kuster pp.13-14). He further enhanced this modern sense of portraying personality in your work, for his pieces were very self-expressive. Pollock opened one of the many doors in regards to what can be termed art, and how said art is to be made. Of course, because of the nature of what he did there were many critics. Many see his work and believe that a child could do the same. Even those that do see the aesthetic qualities of it argue about the true meaning/feeling behind his work. This is, however, to be expected for any piece of abstract art. He was also a proponent of the idea of “formless” painting, but many argued that even that which is “formless” has a “form” of some sort. There are also those that say that while his way of doing things is liberating, it does has limitations due to the means available to the artist, and is therefore still bound.

            There were many reasons I chose to do a tribute to Jackson Pollock. One reason is because he is so self-expressive. I read this quote where he states that, “Painting is a state of being...Painting is a self-discovery. Every good artist paints what he is,” and I wanted to be a part of this phenomenon. I love drawing and sculpture, but I haven’t had much experience with painting, and to be honest it sounded fun, so I thought I’d give it a try. After making my pieces (I ended up doing two because my first kind of ended up a soupy mess), I had a greater appreciate for Pollock. For one, there is definitely skill involved. I tried to imitate some of the shapes I saw in his piece, Autumn Rhythm, while creating a sense of unity of my own, and doing so was very difficult. There is a technique in placing the paint on the canvas that requires skill and practice. It is also kind of exciting because while there is definitely skill there is also an element of luck (or at least there was for me). I watched a video about him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrVE-WQBcYQ&list=QL&playnext=1), and in it he explains how his paintings have a life of their own, and after attempting it myself, I have a better grasp of what he means. There is something about this process that allows you to go beyond yourself and get in this state that is partially out of your control, if that makes sense. I love Pollock’s work, and I am excited to experiment more with his style, and maybe even, on a smaller scale, create my own.

Works Cited

Pollock, J., & Fondation Beyeler. (2008). Action painting. Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz.  

Schatz, Jean Ershler. “Jackson Pollock.” Ask Art Academic. <http://www.askart.com/AskART/artists/biography.aspx?searchtype=BIO&artist=3009>

Little Richard

            

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFq5O2kabQo

Whenever we have studied music in this class I have been enthralled, but none caught my attention more so than our study of rock and roll. One of the founders (some say he single handedly laid the foundation for this form) of this movement is Little Richard. Who hasn’t heard songs by Little Richard? Songs like “Tutti Frutti,” “Good Golly Miss Molly,” “Ready Teddy,” and “Rip It Up” are classics that can be heard in many settings throughout the media today. While many of us have heard his music, not everyone knows his story. I know I never realized how influential he has been in regards to the history of the music.

 Little Richard, who’s legal name is Richard Wayne Penniman, grew up in the home of a preacher, along with his 11 siblings. His family was one that was very heavily involved in music. He was always singing, even as a kid. His first experience in front of an audience was with a gospel group called, “the Tiny Tots,” which consisted of him, his brother Marquette (tenor), his brother Walter (baritone), and a friend named Bobby Moore (bass). They would travel to different churches all around Georgia, where Richard was born and raised, and people would shower them with treats. These were not Gospel situations similar to what is seen in Mormon culture. They technically sang a capella, but their voices were always accompanied by the stomping of their audience’s feet. People would worship, praying to God during their performances, but they were loud. I can’t imagine the energy that would accompany these shows. I can almost picture the faces of the enthralled church goers (White 13).

Because of the time and place in which Richard lived, racial issues were very prevalent in his career. As we discussed in class his record label gave his song, “Tutti Frutti” to Pat Boone, simply because he was a more acceptable to their audience, in other words, he was white and sang the song in a more reserved manner. While this would have been a blow at first to Little Richard’s career, in the long run it brought him more exposure then he could have ever dreamed. As I did more research I found a lot of sources saying that Little Richard, “brought the races together in a common admiration for his music” (White xi). Because a white man sang his song, many white listeners soon came to know who the artist Little Richard was, and in doing so, essentially, the blacks and whites found a bond. That is something that I find so amazing about the arts: it leads to understanding one and other. It allows us to find these connections that are deeply rooted between each of us as human beings. It allows us to really see one another, and in turn leads to tolerance. One of my favorite quotes is, “You can’t hate someone whose story you know,” and it is the arts that help us get to know one another’s stories. While the rest of Little Richard’s career had its ups and downs, he will always been a participant in bringing people together with his gift of music.

Work Cited
White, Charles. “The Life and Times of Little Richard.” New York: DA Capo Press, 1994.                                                                                                          

Selections from NPR Top 100

"I Wanna be Sedated"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMD7Ezp3gWc

As a kid (elementary school age), I would often sing the Ramones. Songs like "I Wanna Be Sedated," "Sheena Is a Punk Rocker," "Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment" ”I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend," "Surfin Bird," "Rock 'n' Roll High School," etc. were some of my favorites. I never knew that they were from the 70s. I didn't even know what punk rock was, my mom just played them, and so I listened. I thought they were so fun. I love the sounds they made, like "the mae mae mae papa papa, " and "ba ba bamp ba ba ba ba bamp ba ba." I danced to my little heart's content whenever I heard them, but, obviously, I didn't understand half the stuff they were saying. I continued listening to them growing up, and the Ramones are still one of my favorite bands so when I saw "I Wanna Be Sedated" I automatically clicked on their link.

Listening to the MPR clip was really interesting. Like I mentioned, I didn't know anything about the band, just that I liked their stuff. Come to find out, they were pretty revolutionary. Boilin is very adamant in his opinion that they rescued rock 'n roll. He contrasts the Ramones with Kansas, Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, and Yes. This was more my dad's style of music, so I kind of grew up listening to these as well. I am not sure I agree with the light he places them in, yes they may have gotten a little too showy, but they still have some good stuff (in my opinion), and the Ramones don't really seem to even be in the same category of music as they do. However, I do feel that we would be at a loss if the spirit of the Ramones was not revived like it was. Their style of "fast, loud, fun, no solos, keeping it short, and playing to the audience" brings music that makes life more enjoyable.

Boilin also mentioned that they have a "post modern humor" which caught my ear since that is a concept we've been discussing in class. I went back and looked at the lyrics of "I Wanna Be Sedated" and the way they treat the subject matter is very postmodern. They are making very light of a serious situation. It's super fun, upbeat music about wanting to be put under because of pain. It is kind of ironic that I danced around to this as a child, singing that I wanted to be sedated too. Overall I do not think that rock bands like Kansas, Emerson, Lake, Palmer, and Yes are bad musicians, but as I look at what I listen to now, the Ramones, and others that follow their style (The Sex Pistols, The Clash, etc.), are much more prominent. Maybe there really is something to their music that sets them apart. Perhaps it's their upbeat tempo, the feeling of living that they bring, their postmodern irony, or their overall style, but whatever it is, it's working. s

"Smells like Teen Spirit"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTWKbfoikeg

Nirvana was another band that I was heavily exposed to in my childhood and has continued to be one of my favorites today. This one was a little different from my exposure to the Ramones because this is a band that I heard a lot on the radio--well some of their stuff anyway. The rest my mom had on CD, which we played often. I found it amusing that the clip talked about how this was a band that parents wouldn’t like because you couldn’t understand the lyrics and the chorus (of this song) sounded like screaming. That was not my experience. I imagine that was very true for the majority though. This is a very well known song, but it is definitely one that reminds me of my generation. It came out a year after I was born, so perhaps it was barely my generation, but nonetheless, I hear it and I think of being driven around as a kid screaming my interpretation of what was being said. It’s funny that until now I hadn’t looked up the lyrics. I never realized that was what they were saying. I don’t know what it is exactly about Nirvana that I love. I know part of it is his slightly husky voice. Maybe the other is the contrast of the tone in their songs. In “Smells like Teen Spirit” it really does go in and out between this very beautiful chordal sound, and one that is loud, and almost harsh.

Listening to the clip definitely changed my perspective. I had never fully understood the message of the song, the fact that I couldn’t comprehend the words probably contributed to this. Of course there is definitely a general tone to the song that can be understood without knowing the actual lyrics. It calls for a change, or perhaps it is more of a wake up call, and something is obviously wrong (screaming is usually an indicator of that). After listening to the clip, I now see this criticizing of the “slacker generation” that the broadcaster explains. Maybe the popularity of this song has continued because this said “slacker” generation can still be seen today. The idea of just expecting to be entertained, the automatic sense of “OK, I’m ready to be happy without any sort of work on my part,” is definitely not dead. The “anti-rock star” idea of Nirvana was also touched upon.  I agree that Nirvana was inline with this, but the proposal is just so ironic. How can one who is a rock star be an anti-rock star? Yes, I see that they could be against the elitist sense that comes with the term, but Nirvana was seen as better than the rest (an elitist ideal) whether they wanted it that way or not. I could agree that they are proponents of this, but I am positive they weren’t against making mass amounts of money from their work (something the “rock star” was after). Then again, I guess there’s nothing wrong at any attempt to get away from Hollywood label producing work, and I love Nirvana so no harm done in my opinion.

“Singin’ in the Rain”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ZYhVpdXbQ

“Singin’ in the Rain” was probably my favorite movie in High School and is still one of my top ten today. I would sing those songs all the time and I have to admit I had a little bit of a crush on Gene Kelly (and still do). I love the dance numbers, the upbeat feeling of the whole movie, and I love the outfits of Debbie Reynolds. The scene with Jean Kelly singing “Singin’ in the Rain” is particularly memorable. That pure giddiness that comes with new love is perfectly portrayed in the lyrics, acting, and dancing seen in the scene. I love it, and watching it just makes me smile. So this clip from NPR was an obvious choice.

This excerpt was definitely not what I expected—they didn’t even mention the movie/musical “Singin’ in the Rain” until the end of the second half! This was a shock for me because I always thought that the song “Singin’ in the Rain” was written for the movie “Singin’ in the Rain.” That, however, is not the case at all. I could not believe that the song was written in 1928/29 (the movie didn’t come out until 1952), and has appeared in 7 MGM movies. It was really interesting to hear the few clips they had from some of the different versions. It kind of opened my eyes to how much music is really up to the interpretation of the player/user of said music. Each one had a different use of the song, and the overall tune and general feel, while similar, was quite different, for instance, Cliff Edward’s version, with his Ukulele and dancers compared with Judy Garland’s more jazzy version. I looked up a few of the different versions and some were so different that at first, I thought I had the wrong song but in the end, they were all very enjoyable.

I do wish that they would have gone at this broadcast a little differently, or at the very least, had made it a little longer. They spent so much time talking about how the date of creation and purpose of this song was kind of ambiguous that there was not much time left to discuss all the different ways and settings in which the song was used. It was interesting to hear Doris Eaton Travis’ explanation of her experience with the song, but I would have liked to hear some different views. For instance, it mentioned (as I have mentioned above) that this song has been used in 7 MGM movies, but I could only pick out two that were mentioned in the excerpt. They did go into the movie “Singin’ in the Rain” a little towards the end and it gave some really interesting incite. Hearing that the song had been used in so many other movies kind of delegitimized the use of it in the movie “Singin’ in the Rain” for me, but their discussion removed that feeling. They explained how the song was really made into a classic through Jean Kelly’s version of it, and for some reason this idea changed the song from being overused to being honored. But after this clarification they ended the broadcast. I wish they would have expounded on this idea a bit more, but overall my view of “Singin’ in the Rain” was enriched and in turn, my appreciation of this beloved song and musical was increased.

To view the rest of NPR's top 100 visit:

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/vote/list100.html