Realism Does Not Detract from the Imagination; Being too Abstract Reduces Merit
by Kara Livingston

When I look at a Jackson Pollock painting, I think about how I may have been able to create such a masterpiece in kindergarten, but I would’ve created such an image without even thinking about what I was doing. I can picture myself, paintbrush in hand, as an excited five-year old, flinging different colored paint all across a sheet of paper. As a five-year old, I wouldn’t have put any thought into this process that Jackson Pollock calls a true “art.” However, how am I, or art critics alike, allowed to infer that Jackson Pollock hasn’t put true ability, artistic talent and craftsmanship behind his unique creations? In truth, I really don’t think I can. In retrospect, this does not stop art critics, like Fred Ross, from eliminating abstract art from the realm of artistic ability because he claims that it does not communicate a certain message regarding the world of humans and their emotions and reactions to events.
Within Fred Ross’ article, “Abstract Art is Not Abstract and Definitely Not Art,” he begins by defining what the goals of art are. He begins by saying, “The greatest works explore beauty or tragedy in life. The most profound and universal of human emotions that are timeless, and could have occurred in the ancient past and will be experienced again in the distant future” (Ross). Basically, Ross believes that the greatest artists of all time paint, draw, or illustrate scenes that will elicit human response and emotion. He believes that the drawings should be portrayals of real-life events and interactions between people, so that viewers can relate to these scenes and inquire farther about the piece of art.
Secondly, Ross believes that art needs to be a precise craft that is practiced over hundreds of years, that developed from various versions of talent. Ross does not believe that artists like Jackson Pollock have taken the crafts of past artists. He thinks that Pollock makes his artwork extremely ambiguous, and that there is nothing that you could possibly derive from a page full of inkblots and splattered paint. Ross believes that no emotion could possibly be derived from such a piece. He also introduces the theory that abstract painting is usually defined by modern artists as, “a painting about paint itself,” but completely dismisses this theory by explaining that there is so much more to art because artists use paint to represent what is happening in the picture, not to use it as the main subject (Ross).
On the other hand, within the chapter, “Towards a Newer Laocoon,” from Clement Greenberg’s essay regarding abstract art, artists like Jackson Pollock have the ability to truly intrigue others because their artwork is so abstract and out-there. Greenberg constantly focuses on the fact that certain art critics are too concerned with the fate of art, and are too apprehensive to let abstract art become a dominant form of art. Greenberg also focuses on the importance of certain mediums. The medium and one of the subjects for an abstract artist is the actual canvas because like in Jackson Pollock’s paintings, paint is splattered across it. On the other hand, a realist artist’s medium is the scene within the actual painting. It is also the realist artist’s subject. Greenberg argues the fact that although abstract painters have a more direct medium and subject, it doesn’t make their work less valuable.
In my opinion, I agree almost one hundred percent with Ross. I do not get any actual value out of looking at Jackson Pollock’s paintings besides the fact that I like the physical look of it. However, if I look at a painting by an artist that put particular details into a subject’s clothing or even in the background scenery, I will question what is going on within the scene he or she painted, and could even relate to the scene. I’m not saying that abstract art isn’t “art,” but I agree with Ross in the fact that art needs to elicit human emotion and establish a deep connection between the artist and the viewer.