I have analyzed Pollock's paintings from the perspective of art history in the art philosophy class before. Of course, what I know is nothing more than conceptual things. What created the drip painting method and opened up a new situation in painting. drink wine? With branches? Dripping on the canvas? Doesn't even color flowers bloom? Canned food directly? These inevitably make people embarrassed. In the face of the vast sea of paintings, it is not necessary to mention the painters of the classical period, even the Munch of the modernist and so on. This is too easy and casual. I thought to myself at the time, ha, that's the case, then anyone can be a painter. Intellectually, I know that art has been organized to break the tradition during this period, but I still can't help thinking that this kind of breaking is very meaningless, just a kind of nonsense. Or it can be said that knowing that I watched this film and knew Pollock's story, I realized that Pollock is indeed amazing.
Pollock is great, he is irreplaceable. Not everyone can become Jackson Pollock, because to become him requires too much to give up and too much to sacrifice. Not everyone has such a pure and unwilling heart. Before he became famous, Pollock's friends repeatedly persecuted him, until the end, the buddy said, this is the meaning, you don't be moved by others, stick to your own. This is your characteristic. Yes, this is the characteristic of Pollock. He kept breaking, breaking, and breaking with art as his mission throughout his life. This breaking was fun. He created amazing paintings time and time again, until the drip painting "Pollock No. 1" series gave him unprecedented praise. But the things that the secular society needs to deal with are like chains that make him feel tired every time he breaks.