Talk:Blue Poles

Prints

Does anyone happen to have any idea why it's so hard to buy a fine art print of this particular painting? I find lots of Pollock prints at art.com, but none of this particular painting. -ErinHowarth 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not an answer to your particular question, but the National Gallery of Australia has 1000 piece jigsaw puzzles of BP for sale. Get one, complete it, frame it, hang it on the wall and you'll have something to really be proud of. I've got one and started it twice. Just finishing the edge is a real challenge! --Pete 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a very large print of this painting, which I picked up at the MOMA during the big Pollock exhibit several years ago. I don't know where you can find one. I wanted to remark that the statement in the article, "It is similar to other drip paintings by Pollock," sounds a bit ignorant and insulting for an encyclopedia. 67.80.72.89 15:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked the Museum of Modern Art online store again today and I found two prints of Pollock's work: (1) Number 31, 1950 and (2) Lucifer, but not blue poles. They are really big prints, though. They wrould look great on the wall. Maybe I should just pick one of them. I was trying to collect the ten most important paintings of the millenium, but even that list is just one guy's (an art professor) opinion. Thanks for your suggestion abou tthe jigsaw puzzle, that woulfd really be something. I wish you a lot of luck with that. The National Gallery of Austrailia doesn't appear to have an online store, but if I ever get to Austrailia, I will be sure to visit the museum. --ErinHowarth (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cost

I find it difficult to beleive this ugly pile of garbage owned by our government would be worth a figure such as that

• I wonder if AU$1.3 million was in fact the highest price ever paid for a work of modern art, or the highest such price paid in Australia. The article might need modifying. Alpheus 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I spoke with a chap valuing the ANG collection a while back. $41 million is his valuation. I'm no great fan of modern art (much of which is garbage, sometimes literally), but Blue Poles is a work of genius, all the more amazing for the time in which it was produced. --Pete 02:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

a work of genious? does that make the death of Clea Rose a work of genious? Both were brought about by excessive drug use. I think you will find that Pollock was a heroine addict or at least a user, the painting has a spoon on it doesnt it? 203.129.37.21 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The chief reason it's worth so much is because of who bought it and under what circumstances, I reckon. Grassynoel (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

i think that we should take wall street and disambiguate there oh so holy haughty toe and attitude towards the senates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.185.105 (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The painting and relationship to others of the period

I disagree with some of the criticism above. The painting is generally regarded as an extremely significant and important work and it is always popular with visitors to the NGA. I rarely hear any sort of criticism.

However, I can understand critical remarks by those ignorant of the art of the period. Perhaps we could find some reviews by Pollack scholars, in particular comparing it to other works by Pollack and contemporaries. It is one of Pollack's best, and holds itself well amongst the many abstracts of the 20th Century.

We are an educational and reference resource, after all.

Does any editor have a good source in mind, or shall I hunt something down. --Pete (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move as proposed. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Number 11, 1952 (painting) → Blue Poles – per WP:COMMONNAME, overwhelmingly known as "Blue Poles" in reliable sources Hack (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support, per nom and common name. By coincidence I ran by this page earlier today and it crossed my mind about the common name. Be nice to have a high res image of this one (or of any Pollack, not a high res among them. It's really nice to get down to individual brush stroke level on paintings, with Pollack I guess its brush-toss level). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, in line with WP:COMMONNAME, the NGA also calls it Blue Poles here. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Number 11, 1952 is a suitable redirect to Blue Poles, but not the other way around. Mduvekot (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as Blue Poles, (Number 11, 1952), for accuracy...Modernist (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, possibly good solution although the extended name would make it look like the official name. Maybe without the comma after 'Poles'. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• • Sounds good Randy...Modernist (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Logical

Article says;

The painting was so large that it required the removal of apartment windows...

I presume the same happened on purchase?

MBG02 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)