This is a wonderful post in more ways than I can name, though I will offer up at least a few:
>Your personal story of how you came to engage with Abstract Expressionism is a marvelous entry point: giving us all permission to try it out without having to commit, and knowing it is OK to decide some works do not connect, while leaving plenty of room to find others that do.
>the comparison of the Kline sketch with the finished painting, along with your observations on how he worked, were illuminating. The final seems to me more balanced and carries itself more lightly, none of which would have been apparent if each were viewed separately.
>I only recently ran across Max Ernest’s Fishbone Forest. I liked it immediately (and I’m aware that its accessibility to me may well have had to do with its representational aspect), but how interesting to learn of the techniques he used and their relationship to Abstract Expressionism.
>I appreciated very much your observations that Pollock, valued both intuition and accident, but also that “the artist also depended on his long experience with and knowledge of his materials. He knew what would happen when he poured from a can or cup as opposed to how the paint would fall from a stick or brush.” It is easy to overlook that intuition, particularly, is enriched by skill and experience. I have always felt Pollock was overhyped, and I still think that, but at the same time, what I see is that part of the problem may be that the hype overlooks the skill and experience he brought to his work.
>the Krasner appealed to me from the first time I viewed it at MOMA, but you have nonetheless added a marvelous dimension to my appreciation of the work with these observations: “The shapes and marks in this painting look like characters from a lost language; one feels that there is a meaning to be deciphered but one lacks the key to the puzzle. For Krasner, this work was connected to her childhood when she had copied the Hebrew alphabet though she couldn’t read the language.”
>I also enjoyed your note on the historical context, which is complicated and intriguing.
As a side note, the artist who had the most to do with my own wish to try and engage with Abstract Expressionism, foreign though it felt, was Louise Fishman. On examining her work alongside more famous Abstract Expressionist works, I am at a loss as to why her work isn’t further up in the recognized pantheon. I don’t know whether her work is familiar to you, but if so, I’d be interested in your view.
Thank you so much for this excellent post and your invitation to engage with this art.
I got lost in your fantastic descriptions of a subject I knew little of and had resisted except for Rothko and Krasner. As usual I’ll be back soon as possible to read it again. I grew up in Chicago Institute thanks to my Mum so I need a bit of this.
This is a wonderful post in more ways than I can name, though I will offer up at least a few:
>Your personal story of how you came to engage with Abstract Expressionism is a marvelous entry point: giving us all permission to try it out without having to commit, and knowing it is OK to decide some works do not connect, while leaving plenty of room to find others that do.
>the comparison of the Kline sketch with the finished painting, along with your observations on how he worked, were illuminating. The final seems to me more balanced and carries itself more lightly, none of which would have been apparent if each were viewed separately.
>I only recently ran across Max Ernest’s Fishbone Forest. I liked it immediately (and I’m aware that its accessibility to me may well have had to do with its representational aspect), but how interesting to learn of the techniques he used and their relationship to Abstract Expressionism.
>I appreciated very much your observations that Pollock, valued both intuition and accident, but also that “the artist also depended on his long experience with and knowledge of his materials. He knew what would happen when he poured from a can or cup as opposed to how the paint would fall from a stick or brush.” It is easy to overlook that intuition, particularly, is enriched by skill and experience. I have always felt Pollock was overhyped, and I still think that, but at the same time, what I see is that part of the problem may be that the hype overlooks the skill and experience he brought to his work.
>the Krasner appealed to me from the first time I viewed it at MOMA, but you have nonetheless added a marvelous dimension to my appreciation of the work with these observations: “The shapes and marks in this painting look like characters from a lost language; one feels that there is a meaning to be deciphered but one lacks the key to the puzzle. For Krasner, this work was connected to her childhood when she had copied the Hebrew alphabet though she couldn’t read the language.”
>I also enjoyed your note on the historical context, which is complicated and intriguing.
As a side note, the artist who had the most to do with my own wish to try and engage with Abstract Expressionism, foreign though it felt, was Louise Fishman. On examining her work alongside more famous Abstract Expressionist works, I am at a loss as to why her work isn’t further up in the recognized pantheon. I don’t know whether her work is familiar to you, but if so, I’d be interested in your view.
Thank you so much for this excellent post and your invitation to engage with this art.
I got lost in your fantastic descriptions of a subject I knew little of and had resisted except for Rothko and Krasner. As usual I’ll be back soon as possible to read it again. I grew up in Chicago Institute thanks to my Mum so I need a bit of this.
Thank you for writing this.