During the winter the drafty farm house at Springs got fiercely cold. For the first few years the only heat came from a small stove. Coal was hard to get, and wood burned up like paper; as it evaporated in the flames one could feel the descending chill. The winter of 1945–46 was particularly harsh. There was no indoor plumbing, and when there was a blizzard a trip to the outhouse became a kind of arctic adventure. “I opened the door this morning,” Jackson wrote, “and never touched ground until I hit the side of the barn five hundred yards away—such winds.”
By the next winter they had installed plumbing, but when it dropped below zero there was often ice in the toilet: Jackson sometimes had to melt it out with a blowtorch. When Peggy Guggenheim bravely came to visit, Lee gave her an oil stove she carried around with her, but it never seemed to create any real warmth. One morning when she came down to the living room in her negligee, clutching the heater, she remarked that she had never known such cold, aside from some drafty castles in En gland.
Such severe conditions often made it difficult to work. During the first winter making paintings in the barn was out of the question. Too cold, and also no window and no light. Instead, Jackson painted in a small bedroom upstairs. In January he started a few small canvases, but when the weather warmed he set his art aside and took a break to plant a vegetable garden and to roam around the property with a mongrel collie he had adopted, which he called Gyp after the dog he had had when he was a boy. In June, with some help from local fishermen, he set about turning the barn into a usable studio. First he moved it from its original site, which blocked the view to the harbor, to a position closer to the house but out of the line of view. Then, after it was in place, he added a window high up in the north wall, like the one he cut into Jack’s Shack when he lived on Martha’s Vineyard with his teacher Tom Benton—resisting Lee’s suggestion to put it lower down, since he didn’t want to be distracted by an outside view. He wanted a studio that was completely closed off, that became an inner world of its own.
In retrospect, it’s clear that during this break from actual work Jackson Pollock was going through some process of gestation. As summer and fall progressed, he began making paintings, slowly gathering a sort of momentum. Modest in scale, they are cheerful in feeling compared to most of his works. Playful, wiggly outlines trace biomorphic shapes reminiscent of a child’s drawing. The color is rather Matisse-like, surely reflecting the influence of Lee Krasner, who admired Matisse’s work. While modestly inventive, when compared to Pollock’s best earlier work, such as Male and Female, Guardians of the Secret, or The She-Wolf, they seem like a falling off. They lack the brooding quality, the strange sense of emotional intensity. One would hardly guess that Pollock was on the threshold of his greatest period.
Curiously, we know very little about the process by which he moved from these relatively minor canvases to producing his masterworks. Clearly something odd was going on, something a little bit weird, for while Pollock usually worked in fits and starts and seems to have been vulnerable to seasonal mood swings, on this occasion, as the weather grew worse, as the temperature dropped, as even going into the cold barn became a task that required a certain power of will, Pollock did not cut off his painting activity but accelerated. Remarkably, the climactic moment came about when the season had shifted to wintry cold, with only a few hours of icy daylight—with Jackson bundled against the cold, with only a cigarette for warmth. We don’t know which drip painting came first, or the order of those that followed, nor the exact time when the dripping started, although it was probably at some time in December 1946 or January 1947. Around this point Pollock entered the phase of his major achievements, the longest sustained period of creativity of his career, the period of paintings that have become landmarks of American art, such as Cathedral, Lavender Mist, Autumn Rhythm, and Blue Poles.
In his works of this period, he made two radical decisions. One was to put the painting on the floor. This was partly a matter
of necessity, since paintings such as The Key, attached to a stretcher, were too big to stand upright in his upstairs bedroom. Once he moved to the barn he continued to
place paintings on the floor. The result was a new kind of composition, which fragmented the image, as he worked on it from
all sides. It also produced a new kind of physical relationship with the canvas, which was more emotionally intense. In 1947
Jackson wrote a statement for the premier issue of Possibilities, edited by Harold Rosenberg and Robert Motherwell:
My painting does not come from the easel. I hardly ever stretch my canvas before painting. I prefer to tack the unstretched
canvas to the hard wall or the floor. I need the resistance of a hard surface. On the floor I am more at ease. I feel nearer,
more a part of the painting, since this way I can walk around it, work from the four sides, and literally be in the painting.
This is akin to the method of the Indian sand painters of the West.
The other decision was to start dripping paint. And dripping and spattering paint soon spawned a collection of additional artistic tricks. Pollock experimented with adding materials such as gravel, nails, tacks, buttons, keys, combs, cigarettes, and matches to provide texture and mystery, as well as with using aluminum paint, as his teacher Benton had years before in America Today. He dripped, dribbled, and flung the paint. He created puddles, pools, and lines. He made grand, solid lines by slowly sweeping his arm and spattery lines by quickly flicking his wrist. He used a wide, stiff brush, which holds more paint but produces a clumsy mark, as well as a stick, which crafts a line that is finer and more consistent but requires more reloadings. He used paint that was thick and viscous and paint that he thinned, and by controlling the viscosity of paint he was able to achieve some quite peculiar effects, such as something known as “coiling,” when the pigment falls in a wiggly line, somewhat similar to a vibrating string, even when the paint is poured with a steady hand. Sometimes he looped the lines, as in Vortex, sometimes laid them straight, as in Phosphorescence. As he wrote:
In the winter of 1946–47 Jackson Pollock began dripping and splattering paint onto canvas laid on the floor. One of these
drip paintings recently fetched the highest price ever paid for a work of art: $142 million. (Photo by Hans Namuth, 1950.
Estate of Hans Namuth, courtesy of the Center for Creative Photography, Tucson, Arizona.)
I continue to get further away from the usual painter’s tools such as easel, palette, brushes, etc. I prefer sticks, trowels, knives and dripping fluid paint, or a heavy impasto with sand, broken glass and other foreign matter added.
When I am in my painting, I’m not aware of what I’m doing. It is only after a sort of “get acquainted period” that I see what
I have been about. I have no fears about making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its
own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there
is a pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well.
One of these paintings, Number 5, 1948—described by one writer as “a nest-like drizzle of yellows and browns on fiberboard”—recently sold for $142 million, not only setting a record for a piece of American art but making it the world’s most expensive art object, the most costly painting ever sold. How can we set this in perspective? Let’s consider, for example, that an individual making $100,000 a year, far more than the annual income of most Americans, would need to work for nearly fifteen hundred years before she or he could afford a Pollock drip painting, assuming that the person’s entire income was set aside for this purchase, with nothing left over for living expenses. Moreover, that is assuming that the price of a Pollock would hold steady. In fact, Pollock’s work seems to double in value about every seven years, meaning that in fifteen hundred years the price would be even more out of reach than it is now. Not bad for five or six hours of work.*
Of course, I don’t wish to suggest that the value of Pollock’s work can be assessed in purely monetary terms. Clearly what his paintings offer is more complex, something rather akin to the spiritual, which is not easily translated into dollars and cents. But prices like this do suggest that even those who do not like Pollock’s work should stop a moment to reflect on his achievement and its enormous, almost unbelievable cultural impact.
How can some drips of paint be worth such an incredible sum? This book will grapple with this mystery. While at times it may inject a note of skepticism, it is based on the belief that there is value in Pollock’s paintings that is real, that they do in fact reflect remarkable ability of some sort and contain meaning that is significant. Like the Mona Lisa, the Parthenon, the Pyramids of Egypt, and Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, Pollock’s paintings have become a fundamental cultural reference point—a benchmark of some sort against which we measure our accomplishments and who we are.
Money is one crude way of measuring this impact, but there are certainly many others, though any one of them, like money, if taken in isolation, is mildly ludicrous. For example, it’s remarkable how many articles have been written about Pollock (well over a million), or how often his name appears in the comics section of the newspaper, or that newspaper stories about him are picked up not only in America but in Bulgaria as well. And of course all these things ultimately depend on what happens when we simply stand in front of a painting by Pollock, experience its visual impact, and try to make sense of its wildness, power, and mystery—its strange mix of chaos and control.
In fact, while at first such humongous sums of money for something seemingly crude and simple may sound bizarre, the case of Pollock has many interesting parallels in our culture. At the risk of sounding irreverent, it’s useful to compare the phenomenon of Pollock to that of hundreds of basic consumer products, such as Heinz Ketchup or Hellman’s Mayonnaise or Coca-Cola—products whose financial value makes that of a Pollock painting seem like chump change. Nothing sounds simpler than cooking down tomatoes to make ketchup or mixing eggs with vinegar to make mayonnaise or mixing caffeine and sugar to make Coke. But for year after year, decade after decade, these products have earned billions of dollars annually and have enjoyed dominance in the marketplace, despite fierce, well-funded, savagely waged campaigns to dislodge them.
In part the success of such brand names can be explained by efficiency of production and well-organized publicity campaigns, but in addition there seems to be something about the products themselves that is a little different, that is not easy to duplicate or imitate. Urban folklore often maintains that there is some secret ingredient, whose formula is carefully guarded in a bank vault. But from what has been reported with reasonable credibility on the subject, it appears that the actual ingredients in Coke or Heinz Ketchup are fairly simple and that most of them can be found in a typical home kitchen. The trick is not some secret ingredient but using simple ingredients in a highly creative way. More specifically, the trick seems to lie in the phenomenon known as “blending,” that is, mixing things together so that the flavors “blend” into something new, in which the individual ingredients are no longer easy to identify but coalesce into one flavor. With Pollock as well, the secret seems to have something to do with “blending” a lot of different styles and ideas into what seems like a simple unity. The key to understanding Pollock lies in grasping the nature of this mix.
The most notable feature of Pollock’s paintings is that he made them by dripping paint, and there are many wonderful and dubious stories about how he came to the discovery. He is said to have had a leaky pen, or to have accidentally kicked over a pot of paint on one of Lee Krasner’s pictures. A widely circulated bit of popular humor is an image of Jackson Pollock as a child spilling spaghetti on his mother’s apron to create his first Abstract Expressionist masterpiece. Many people have claimed credit for Jackson’s paint-dripping, including Whitey Hustek, the local housepainter, who believed that Pollock was inspired by the board on which he cleaned his brushes.
A number of art historians have investigated the matter very thoroughly, and what they have discovered is that quite a few artists dripped paint before Pollock did, including several individuals whom he knew. The Surrealist Max Ernst (who was married to Pollock’s dealer, Peggy Guggenheim) poked holes in the bottom of a paint-filled bucket and then swung the bucket back and forth over a canvas. André Masson dribbled glue. William Baziotes seems to have preceded Pollock in making paintings based on drips, as also did Wolfgang Paalen, Gordon On-slow Ford, Francis Picabia, and Joan Miró. Hans Hofmann claimed to have made a drip painting in the 1920s and accused Pollock of stealing the idea from him. One can trace the idea of flinging paint as a gesture of rebellion against authority back to the earliest years of modern art. As early as 1877 the conservative English critic John Ruskin accused Whistler, the first artist to make paintings that are arguably abstract, of “flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.”
Well before 1946 Pollock himself experimented with making compositions from drips. In high school he dripped paint onto a plate of glass covered with water. In 1934 he worked with Benton’s wife, Rita, creating ceramic bowls on which he dripped and dribbled ceramic glazes. In 1938 he worked closely with the Mexican muralist David Alfaro Siqueiros, who encouraged his associates to throw and splatter pigment, so that it landed in coagulated blobs. Several of Pollock’s paintings of the early 1940s, such as Male and Female of 1943, have extensive passages created with dripped paint. And while Pollock’s great phase of drip painting seems to have started in 1946, he produced a remarkable canvas that is mostly done with poured pigment, Composition with Pouring II, as early as 1943.
In short, what was new about Pollock’s work of late 1946 and early 1947 is not simply that he dripped and splattered paint
but that he did so with a new vision. If we set earlier drip paintings beside those that Pollock began making around 1946,
they feel tentative and unsure; they look compositionally unresolved and weak. While initially Pollock’s famous paintings
may appear chaotic, if we set them beside the work of other figures, we sense that something about them is different, that
they are grander in design and more emotionally powerful. Essentially, this book proposes that writers on Pollock have missed
a key ingredient—the influence of Thomas Hart Benton, Pollock’s teacher and father figure.
“All I Taught Jack”
When the columnist Leonard Lyons asked Thomas Hart Benton about his relationship with Jackson Pollock, Benton deflected the question with a sarcasm. “It was obvious from the first,” Benton said, “that Pol-lock was a born artist. All I taught Jack was how to drink a fifth a day.”
Benton clearly intended this statement to be funny, as well as to bolster his own tough-guy persona. But as Freud has revealed to us, jokes touch on forbidden, repressed feelings. In fact, there’s a good deal of evasion and concealment to Benton’s quip, for Benton knew very well that his relationship with Pollock went deeper than casual drinking. Pollock received his only formal artistic training from Benton, learned to paint like Benton, and lived for six years virtually as a member of the Benton family. Indeed, for Pollock, Benton became a surrogate father—a substitute for the weak, absent father that nature had given him—just as for Benton, Pollock became a substitute son.
The pull between the two figures was so strong that it is curious that it has been systematically passed over by most writers on Pollock. One reason, of course, is that Benton has generally been dismissed as a “conservative” artist—which in fact was very far from the case. While Pollock has come to be viewed as the exemplar of all that is most exciting about modern art, Benton has been equated with all that is most wrongheaded and reactionary.
“I am a very fortunate artist,” Benton once commented. “A lot of people have disliked my art intensely enough to keep it under continuous attention. This has stimulated public interest and made me successful.” Benton was not exaggerating about the extent of the dislike, which is still very much alive in some quarters.
Some years ago, when I had just started working with the filmmaker Ken Burns on a documentary about Benton, he expressed concern that it might be difficult to create enough clash of divergent opinions to make the movie interesting. He had just finished a film on the southern demagogue Huey Long, and he feared that Benton would not stir up as much emotion. “People wanted to kill Huey Long,” he commented to me. “No one wanted to kill Thomas Hart Benton.”
As it happened, our first interview was with Hilton Kramer, the former art critic for the New York Times, and it quickly became apparent that Kramer might well have been happy to kill Benton; in fact he referred to his art as a “corpse.” After that interview, Ken never again expressed concern about any lack of dramatic conflict.
The vehemence of Kramer’s contempt is difficult to convey through a brief excerpt; throughout the interview his tone of disparagement
never softened, even for a moment. He repeatedly insisted that there was absolutely nothing whatsoever in Benton’s work worth
looking at or taking seriously. In a typical outburst, he declared:
Twenty-five years ago, one never dreamed there would be a revival of Benton. The whole attitude towards art that’s embodied
in his work, embodied in his writing, embodied in his career, seemed safely dead . . . His work, to me, is a sort of corpse
that’s been disinterred . . . To me it doesn’t really exist as an aesthetic object.
Kramer’s stance was one that became widespread in the American art world in the second half of the 1940s. Before that period, while Benton stirred up controversy, mostly for the alleged vulgarity of his subject matter, he also had vigorous defenders. After World War II, however, with the emergence of the Museum of Modern Art as a major force in American culture, and the widespread enthusiasm for painters such as Matisse and Picasso, Benton came to be seen as an intransigent foe of modern art, and as a sort of embodiment of reactionary beliefs of every sort.
In May 1946, for example, the noted art historian H. W. Janson, author of what for decades was the standard textbook on the history of art, published an attack on Benton in the Magazine of Art. The vitriol of this piece is unlike anything else in Janson’s writings, which tend to be rather dry. After opening with the declaration that Benton’s work was “essentially anti-artistic in its aims and character,” he went on to maintain that it was nourished by “the same ills that, in more virulent form, produced National Socialism in Germany.” Not content with this, he wrapped up his diatribe with an ad hominem dig. “He seems to go through life in constant fear of being called, ‘Shorty,’ ” Janson concluded, “a condition not unfamiliar to psychologists.”
No one came to Benton’s defense. Within a few years, in a remarkable cultural shift, Benton, who had been arguably the most famous American painter of the 1930s, was pushed off the stage. In 1948, for example, when Look magazine asked a group of American art experts to list “the ten best painters in America today,” Benton did not even make the list.
It would take a psychologist to explain why Benton was particularly singled out for such attacks, over any other painter, and became a sort of bogeyman to the East Coast cultural establishment. At some level, I suspect criticism of Benton and his art provided a screen for the expression of prejudices that would have been socially unacceptable in other arenas. Benton’s delight in presenting himself as a midwestern hillbilly surely played on many easterners’ perception that those from the hinterlands are uncultured political reactionaries and bigots. Indeed, much of the criticism of Benton, even today, contains an undercurrent of social and regional bias.
Even today, in many artistic circles, Benton’s name seems to trigger some strange sort of cultural taboo, which makes it not only impermissible to admire his work, but somehow dangerous even to look at it. This sense of Benton’s pictures as taboo—something that should not be touched or looked at—was explicit in Hilton Kramer’s remarks, but an even more striking expression of it came from John Russell, another New York Times art critic, who visited Kansas City to view a large group of Henry Moore sculptures that had just been donated to the Nelson-Atkins Museum. The Benton retrospective was running at the same time, but when asked whether he wanted to go through it Russell replied, with a shudder, “No.”
Much of the commentary on the show ranged from condescending to outright vituperative. Robert Hughes in Time magazine wrote: “Benton was a dreadful artist most of the time . . . He was flat out lapel-grabbing vulgar, incapable of touching a pictorial sensation without pumping and tarting it up to the point where the eye wants to cry uncle.” The art critic for the Kansas City Star, not to be outdone in disdain by his New York counterparts, called it “the worst exhibition I have seen in forty years.”
Over the last decade or two attitudes toward Benton have somewhat softened, and he has even been mentioned at times in writing on Pollock as a possible influence. But this sort of investigation never seems to extend very far, and one of the tropes of such analysis seems to be that no mention of Benton can be made unless one wraps up the discussion with a deprecating remark. Many of these criticisms of Benton do not hold up if one takes the trouble to actually look at Benton’s paintings. In recent years, for example, a good many writers have criticized Benton for presenting a falsely idealized view of the 1930s. In actual fact Benton’s paintings of the 1930s are filled with social commentary and social criticism. Somehow these writers have confused his work with that of a very different midwestern painter, Grant Wood.
Needless to say, if one is not willing even to look at Benton’s work, this rules out the possibility that one will appreciate his influence on Pol-lock. And John Russell’s reaction was certainly not unique, as we will see.
I will not attempt to go into all the reasons for this hostility against Benton here, but to follow my argument you will need to set such prejudices aside. I will ask you to keep your eyes open when you look at Benton’s work, so that you can see the very obvious ways in which it was influenced by French modern art, and the equally obvious ways in which Pollock’s work—particularly the famous drip paintings—were dependent on Benton’s teachings.
The other reason why the relationship between Benton and Pollock has not been explored is perhaps more excusable. It is that Pollock’s relationship with Benton was not a smooth or straightforward one. Instead, it was a turbulent, oedipal affair, filled with anger, rebellion, and misunderstanding—a relationship between a loving but difficult father and his rebellious son.
In short, Pollock’s art is great because it achieves a “blend” of a very special sort. He did in fact learn from Picasso, the Surrealists, and all the various figures on display in the newly opened Museum of Modern Art. But he also absorbed artistic ideas through a different channel, that of Thomas Hart Benton. Through Benton he absorbed a different interpretation of Eu rope an modern painting, as well as a number of bold ideas about how an artist could achieve greatness as an American.
Notably, the influence of Benton was not simply formal—that is to say, it did not simply affect Pollock’s handling of shape,
color, and composition. It went deeper. Benton influenced Pollock’s ideas about the role of the artist, about how to promote
oneself, about how to stand out from the pack, about how to take Eu rope an ideas and convert them into something distinctively
American. Indeed, one of the most notable lessons was that Benton taught Pollock something about how to harness the power
of myth and national identity. It was the blend of these two traditions, that of conventional modernism and that of Benton’s
renegade American modernism, that created a figure who was unique and not easy to imitate. This book is the story of that
mix, as well as of the explosive relationship between the two men.
* In fact, the average income of a working-age American is a mere $27,412 with the result that under the terms and conditions already described it would take 5,376 years, or roughly 135 generations, to save up enough for a Pollock painting. If we suppose that a continuous line of fathers and sons began saving their entire income for a Pollock painting about 500 years before the construction of the Great Pyramid of Egypt, they would finally be able to acquire it today.