How to paint like Jackson Pollock – One: Number 31, 1950 – with Corey D’Augustine | IN THE STUDIO

How to paint like Jackson Pollock – One: Number 31, 1950 – with Corey D’Augustine | IN THE STUDIO


Voiceover: Three years
prior to the making of this painting, Pollock was working
on a small easel painting. He had struggled on it for a
while, and he decided to take that painting off the easel,
place it on the floor, and then pour some paint on the
surface to finish it.>From this deceptively simple
decision, an entire set of creative possibilities
opened up to Pollock, and he spent the next five years of
his career exploring them. Now, in the studio, let’s see
exactly how Pollock worked. Placing the canvas on the floor,
Pollock no longer remained in physical contact with
the canvas while painting. Instead of using conventional
artist brushes to push or smear liquid paint across
the surface of the painting, Pollock now used things
like sticks, even turkey basters or dried paint
brushes, hard as a rock, that he variously
dripped, drizzled, poured, or splashed paint onto
the canvas below him from. Pollock used very fluid
alkyd enamel paints, the kind of paint you
could paint your car with, the kind of paint you could
paint your radiator with. Because the paint was so
fluid, Pollock essentially drew in space, so that
drawing elements would happen quite literally in
the air, before falling down to the canvas below, sometimes
thick, sometimes thin. A rhythm of poured paint would develop across the surface of the painting. Now, if you know that
the painting was painted on the floor, if you
know that the paint has a very low viscosity, you
can very easily imagine the kind of physical
activities that would go into the making of this type of painting. Art historians, at the
time, coined this kind of painting, action painting,
because of this very idea that you could
imagine quite viscerally the actions that went into
the making of the painting. Now, specifically, we’re talking about the actions of almost a dancer. You can imagine Pollock’s feet shuffling around the painting. You can imagine rotations of the elbow and of the shoulder, variously launching or slowly drizzling paint
onto the canvas below. For Pollock, the drama
of making this painting on the floor meant that
not only physically but emotionally he could be
in the painting, stepping into the canvas, but also
losing himself in almost this trance-like or zone-like
type of painting process. Looking at the paint
below you on the surface of the canvas, reacting
to it, and adjusting whatever gestures you have
to create this painting. Now, traditionally in
painting, people would compose one shape
according to another one. A little bit of red here,
according to a little bit of blue there, according to
a lot of yellow over here. Well, for Pollock, he threw that out the window, as he did so many things. Rather, Pollock is composing
one line in juxtaposition with another one, and
not in any haphazard way, but rather in an all over
way, and this all-overness, if you will, becomes key for Pollock. Since looking at this painting, there’s no one spot for your eye to rest. Traditionally, line had
been used quite literally to delineate forms, to draw the outlines of forms, which would be filled in. You can imagine landscape paintings. The lines define the
mountains, clouds, and so on. Well, here the line is
not defining anything. Line becomes here autonomous,
and for the first time is liberated from its historical role in painting of describing other shapes. In 1950, the drama of
making this painting was actually captured by a
photographer and film maker, so that the performance
of making this painting captured the public’s
imagination as never before. Not only that, but other
artists were profoundly influenced by this radically
new way of working, not only painters, but,
well, performance artists can be traced back to
this very very formative moment, very important moment
in American art history.

92 thoughts on “How to paint like Jackson Pollock – One: Number 31, 1950 – with Corey D’Augustine | IN THE STUDIO

  1. This is so fantastic… ah…The art by Jackson Pollock has always touched me, as said in the film – the sequence of images you make in your head concerning the creation of the art, whilst investigating it, is absolutely one way to feel the thrill.

  2. "Alkyd enamel" paints hadn't been invented when Pollock painted. He used nitrocellulose paints. What other untruths is MOMA spreading?

  3. Wow so wonderful to hear people say nice, intelligent things about Pollock's work!! I myself have worked in Pollock's style I can also attest to the need for balance and technique–Its not just throwing paint around!!!

  4. I despised Pollock for a very long time and I always thought he was over rated. I could be extremely wrong in my opinion but I sincerely have some questions because I want to embrace these paintings.
    1. How do u know when a such a painting is done?
    2.Out of 1000s of artists why did only Pollock become so famous?
    3.Since the art is thought provoking, what thoughts did the artist wanted his viewers to have? I can only think of chicken scratching on the floor!!!

  5. Despised pollock, really ? what are your feelings on someone like pol pot ? in answer to your questions, i guess the painting is done when its creator decides so. is pollock the only famous painter ? is the art thought provoking , or has someone told you it should be thought provoking ? what is wrong with a chicken scratching the floor in many respects then chickens have something in common with painters, they are both only making marks.

  6. 1. only the artist themselves can know that answer
    2. right place, right time, right technique never seen before
    3. i really don't think he gave two shits about what his audience thought, it's what he thinks thats important, and "chicken scratching on the floor???" why don't you buy a live chicken and see if it can do what pollock can do, maybe then you can appreciate a legend

  7. This video is one of (if not THE) best brief explanations of Pollack's work.

    It is relative thorough but impressively concise.

    MoMA curators obviously know their business.

  8. Thought provoking – – "Blue Poles" sold for $150,000,000 !! the highest price ever!
    I have 3 colors down right now on my latest "Pollock", waiting for them to dry.

  9. Very nice! I have often equated Pollack with Gene Kelly (dance), but had never considered that the distance between the tool and the canvas caused the mark to form in the air and then drop to the support. Thx.

  10. I appreciate fine art, I really do….but I'm sorry, this is not all that difficult to master. I just made a piece that I honestly believe is better than this, and in no way do I consider myself an artist. Granted, mine is not on this scale, but being huge doesnt make it that profound to me. Sounds to me like the narrator is just grasping any some idealism to make it seem special.

  11. There are those who are interested in the "worth" of an art work, and there are those who only see the eventual price. I think this series is more for the former than the latter.

  12. Does anyone have a good example of what a "haphazard" way would look like/be? (If this Pollock has procured an "all over" way.)

  13. which canvas did you use? and where could I find such a canvas? I can not really see if you chose a white canvas or a little brown canvas an where could i find such a big one

  14. Like the music of Bach, there is a tremendous amount of math in Pollock's drip paintings. Scientists have used computers to analyse Pollock's paintings, and found he actually subconsciously incorporated fractal theory in them. And it's no fluke. The fractal complexity of each new drip painting would increase. And he destroyed a number of drip paintings he didn't like. It's suspected that he thought the fractal component in those paintings was somehow defective, and he could sense it.

  15. The older I get, the more I appreciate these kind of art but a blank red canvas considered to be a "painting" is still unacceptable in my opinion.

  16. I love how they can make a painting sound like a million bucks. Pollock was a dancer with a paint brush😂. He didn't even prime the canvas! Plus I see craze(cracking) from the fluid paints. He achieved some cells happening, with the denser white paint trying to sink below the less dense black paint. All in all its just fun cool paintings. I will make one for myself and copy his color choices. He may be the first 'non objective' (not abstract)-fluid artist. Pretty cool stuff.

  17. Hey everyone, tune in this Wednesday, May 17 at 3:30 p.m. EDT for a LIVE Q&A with IN THE STUDIO instructor Corey D'Augustine. Corey will answer questions from previous videos, as well as from the live comments section. Watch live: https://youtu.be/3Q2GDI673lo

  18. While I respect art, artists and I respect pollock. His technique was probably just a specific way of dripping paint. He never told anyone exactly what he did, so somehow its a complete mystery as to how he did it, though it couldve been as easy as just holding or pinching the brush in a certain way and stacking colours in a certain order.

  19. Art goes way beyond the paintbrush,mind,eyes,application in whatever way is all acceptable methods of placing marks onto a surface is not really important,it can be said that every drip of colour is the artists mind at work just as a subtle bit of colour from a pointed paintbrush on a photo perfect copy with tiny dots,pouring is sheer genius there is control and above all plenty of happy accidents along the way,it is impossible to make comparisons with other types of more conventional painting because this is extreme art with many surprises like when the colours pickle or semi oxidise,the artist is pushing the boundaries of colour to the limits like ways that paint is never used for conventional painting,by looking into the painting the artist is immersing themselves into a world of new ways to create with dripping flowing trodden paint,manipulation of the paint is the artists bold method of expression.

  20. Thanks for explaining it so well, I can now understand the significance and importance of Pollock and appreciate his work as well.

  21. when Jackson Pollock began a piece, did he envision the end result? was he expressing an idea or sharing a view of something in a new way? or was he showing that he could convince you that a house painters dropsheet could be a thing of beauty?

  22. It is so weird, but Pollock creates very conceptual patterns in something that seems totally random. While dripping paint on the floor is technically simple, the end result is beyond astounding.

  23. I am more of a fan of his earlier work before he started dripping paint on the canvas..his pre-action painting work is amazing. I think very few American painters have influenced world painting the way European painters did. for example if it wasn't for Kandinsky's contribution to the world of painting, we wouldnt be talking about abstract art today.

  24. You can imagine the disks in his neck deteriorating. I've started using prism glasses to keep my head upright and challenge my control.

  25. If you stare at his painting for like 5 minutes, all of a sudden you see Mother Theresa or the Eiffel Tower or something. Way cool. They have them at the mall.

  26. It's easy to paint like Pollock. Just spill paint on the floor. Pollock's work and all the bruhaha around it is an insult to truly talented artists. Please bring back objective standards to art.

  27. Tune in for a live Q&A with Corey on Wednesday, February 7 at 3:00 p.m. EST! He’ll be answering any questions you might have on artists, materials, and techniques. https://youtu.be/OxS8X_V6TCU

  28. I’m kind of divided on Jackson Pollock.

    On one hand, I understand the excitement of it. The motion that it preserves. The fact that patterns exist on a deeper level. The celebration of texture and emotion.

    On the other hand, his work proves that visual art, like any other form of “entertainment”, rests purely in the hands of the tastemakers. His vision was his own but his work isn’t uniquely outstanding when you stack it up honestly against many of his peers’. So why is it that we remember his name? Exactly…It’s not an indictment of his work. It’s just how we operate as a species

  29. Pollack made lines. He, Rothko, Barnett, Motherwell, and a few others were seminal in creating an acceptance of non-figurative art as " fine art". Kandinsky was pretty much the catalyst in my opinion. The forerunner. Abstract Expressionism ( stupid term ) changed everything but that doesn't mean that we should all splatter or do simple color-field paintings and expect to be nothing more than a cheap copy. It was a jumping off point. No need to go there again. But, now where? That's the question. That's our job as artists. To ask questions. Not answer them. Just saying. ✌
    (Btw, I'm more of a DeKooning guy myself. He grew on me. )

  30. Pollock was amazing. It's hard to balance what you see here with the real man, and his portrayal by Ed Harris. Artists almost always look like total assholes in their biographies. Picasso becomes a jackass and a clown when portrayed by Hopkins.

  31. What’s the difference between a Pollack and an apron of another painter ?
    I showed an 8 year old kid the paintings and she said I can do it ….
    I don’t like modern art

  32. These type of paintings are done by people not artist that have no talent, they can't paint landscapes, still life …. so they did this type of crap.

  33. Saying "oh I could do that" is beside the point; Pollock created his own STYLE and a new GENRE. Saying you could paint like him is like saying you could copy his signature – so what?? Don't be a copier, be an innovator: Try creating your OWN trademark style, that's the great challenge for any artist.

  34. Jfc so many haters in the comments. Have any of you guys actually gone and seen some of pollock’s pieces? They’re quite moving and emotional. You can feel the motion of his hands and his feet, feel the charged emotions he must have had throwing the paint on the canvas. The sheer size of the piece feels like it’s going to swallow you whole in raw feeling. Saying your child could have done it is an immature way of seeing the piece. Understanding the story behind it can go a long way in appreciating abstract and modern art. Instead of shitting on someone who is undoubtedly one of the most prolific modern artists, consider for a minute why someone would view his art as something majestic and something to be preserved. Then rethink your tired and inane comments of, “my kids could do this” and “this is just paint splatters” and “this art doesn’t mean anything”.

  35. Make a video on Gerhard Richter and please tell me where he bought his big jars of paint. No one on the internet knows, it seems.

  36. How to paint like Jackson Pollock ,I don't want to paint like Jackson Pollock so don't tell me what to do stupid

  37. Good luck conservation team – those paints were designed for use on a rigid surface. Pollock was amazing, with an original process…..anyone who replicates this style is a low-level cliched artist

  38. I'm a British hotelier. I create Pollock-style art for my premises. It's important to make the canvas BIG. Small Pollock-style paintings are rubbish, but a big canvas always impresses. If necessary, create a diptych or a triptych, that's two three pieces which are mounted immediately side-by-side. It helps when transporting the thing on a car roof rack or up the stairs. I use paint with the same colours as the room and its furniture. Very easy to create a canvas: Make a cheap rectangular frame with scrap wood. Fit a bedsheet to it with drawing pins. Stiffen the canvas by applying PVA glue with a roller or brush. Paint the canvas with the same emulsion you've got on your ceiling. Then dribble and splatter. Pale pastel colours, are less intrusive than dark shades. Above all, and you'll know what I mean when you do it: KEEP IT BIG!

  39. Let's face reality – it was an original idea, but required no talent. A tad bit of creativity, but it was merely a simple, novel idea that captured attention. Don't make more of it than it is.

Leave a Reply

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