Talk:Jackson Pollock/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Mental Health

Pollock was mentally disturbed. Clive Barker is also mentally disturbed. He created Hell Raiser and Freddy Kruger & the like. Clive said that he should get mental help, but it would impair his creativity, same with Pollock. If help had existed in the 1940's and he had had the help, then his paintings would have been quite dull and normal. Also, everyone is taking the art itself out of context. WWII had just happened, the Nazis had just killed a bunch of Jews, and the Americans had just nuked the Japanese. Things were very grim, depressing and bleak. Pollock was the Ren & Stimpy of the 1940's; Ren & Stimpy could not exist without Pollock, nor could Aqua Teen Hunger Force or South Park. Today his work can be called crap, because of the ease of creating crap like Aqua Teen Hunger Force or South Park, but for the time, it was unreal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.30.13 (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Link

I'm removing the 'Pollock Simulator' link out because it is totally demeaning to his work and serves no purpose. --Uwaisis (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I undid that. Let's discuss. I thought it was fun to play with and does no harm. Could other people weigh in? I'd like to know if people think this link should be removed. --JaGa (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Jackson Pollock. It is un encyclopedic. Anastrophe (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know you constituted an entire discussion all by yourself. --JaGa (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody else has weighed in, besides Uwaisis who initially removed it. I concur with Uwaisis. It’s a small consensus, but consensus nonetheless. Your rationale that it does no harm is countered by Uwaisis' rationale. I also concur with Uwaisis on that point. This is a 'gag' site that has nothing to do with Jackson Pollock other than appropriating his name for an online plaything. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia bio. Anastrophe (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol, Ana, you're too self-righteous by half! - And I wonder if you would've supported consensus if it'd gone against you - but I won't prevent removal of this link that upsets Uwaisis and you so. Peace out. --JaGa (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your personal commentary about me, but it's irrelevant to what's under discussion. Your comments are uncivil, and not assuming good faith. I waited two days before removing it, waiting for some other responses. This isn't a high traffic article. For anyone else who might like to weigh in, here's the site under discussion: http://jacksonpollock.org/ . Anastrophe (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with the other two. It totally fails external linking guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotations

Why did you delete my quotations section? --Space Often (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As was mentioned on your user talk page, you need to provide verifiable sources for quotes. freshacconcispeaktome 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

JacksonPollock.org

I have added jacksonpollock.org in Jackson POllock in pop culture. Jacksonpollock.org website has achieved substantial popularity. Most famous facebook app, very popular iphone app and 100.000s visits per year. Also the winner of 2009 webby awards. It is certainly equally if not more accepted in popular culture than movies like Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? which are featured in the pop culture section. Please consider adding this interpretation to the popular culture section. Thanks.NikolaT (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is commercial linkspam and has no place in this article it was deleted for good reason...Modernist (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Marriage sentence in introduction

I'm re-removing a sentence in the introduction about Pollack's marriage to Lee Krasner.

Yes, the introduction should introduce the contents of the article. But it should not jump from a very general first sentence explaining that he's an artist, to a fact about his marriage that is specific down to the month, then back to another very general sentence about him being famous. It's jarring and awful to read.

Besides that, there's no need for this sentence anyway because it doesn't 'introduce' a significant part of the article. The sentence is repeated almost verbatim at the start of the third section, and there aren't any further significant details about Pollack's marriage to Krasner after that. If their marriage had a subsection or was in any way a significant portion of the article, I could understand it getting a mention in the intro, but that's not the case.

If there's any need to even mention his wife in the introductory paragraph, it should at the very least be written differently and toward the end of the paragraph, not bizarrely juxtaposed right up front. As it was, the sentence was completely out of place and pointless. Rodeosmurf (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

His marriage to Lee Krasner belongs in the introduction, her presence was integral to Pollock's life, career, and reputation. I rewrote the inclusion, thank you for your input...Modernist (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Judaism

Did he convert to Judaism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.91.78 (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No. He had a "christian" wedding in a Christian church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.18.19 (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Critical debate - Removed Craig Brown comment

Deleted for several reasons. First, not sure if extemporized comments on a live TV show count as a reliable source (nor can one tell whether he is correctly quoted unless the broadcast or script is in the public domain - verifiability). Second, the claim that Craig Brown is an "artist" seems to derive exclusively from Wikipedia (I've just removed it from his bio page, as I can find no support for it). Third, even if the Brown remark is reproduced accurately, surely the article would be improved by replacing it with critical comment from an accredited art critic in a published source; it's not as if nobody has written about Pollock.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Frankly I agree it should be removed because it served no useful purpose in this article...Modernist (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pop Culture References: Iron Man (2008)

Pepper Potts: "Larry called. He's got another buyer for the Jackson Pollock in the wings. Do you want it? Yes or no."

Tony Stark: "Is it a good representation of his spring period?"

Pepper Potts: "No. The Springs was actually the neighborhood in East Hampton where he lived and worked, - not "spring" like the season.

Tony Stark: "So?"

Pepper Potts: "I think it's a fair example. I think it's incredibly overpriced."

Tony Stark: "I need it. Buy it. Store it.

97.119.131.237 (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jackson Pollack is alive (02/05/2012)

I just created an account to be able to share this information. I will let the more experienced users verify and edit the content.

I just finished reading one of our local (Long Island, NY) magazines, called Dan's Papers, Volume LII, Number 44, dated February 3, 2012. It includes an interview and photo of Jackson on his 100th birthday last week. He even jokes about the reports of his death.

He has lived quite a full life since the crash. Someone please confirm this data and update soon.

Dcestaro (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Dcestaro, I believe the Rattiner article was intended as a bit of a folksy spoof. The same author has written a book about Pollock's death. Apparently, he and Pollock were friends.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That is why I threw it out there for someone to confirm rather than doing any editing. It never occurred to me that this piece would be presented as it was without a disclaimer at the end. Thanks for informing me. Dcestaro (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's just that kind of tongue-in-cheek writing. For example, the article explains his hands shake too much to paint. Seen his work? JFHJr (㊟) 00:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And PS, sorry you got a WP:BITEY response. Also, thank you for bringing this to WP:BLPN. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Representational --> Figurative

It might be better to use the term 'figurative' instead of 'representational'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesthecat (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing gender: her -> his

Under "The Springs period and his technique" it states that:

"Pollock signed a gallery contract with Peggy Guggenheim in July 1943... At the suggestion of her friend and advisor Marcel Duchamp, Pollock painted the work on canvas"

"Her" friend and advisor makes no sense, so I'm changing it to "his". If it really is a "her", then someone needs to clarify who "her" is. Is it Peggy? Or maybe Pollock's wife? Or maybe even Marcel is a her?

119.252.225.130 (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Her is correct - Duchamp was Peggy Guggenheim's friend and advisor...Modernist (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Proper citation needed for references

reference 57 needs proper citation--Nadine9!9 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Ame02128 18.jpg (discussion)
• Bluepoles.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)