
Personally, I think that pretty much anything can lend itself to being analyzed in any sort of manner that one wishes. The only real difficulty lies with the ease in which something can be analyzed, and since we all like ease, I will choose to analyze Jackson Pollock. Mostly this is because I know next to nothing about Madonna or Spiderman. And while I can not claim to know much about Jackson Pollock, I think he might apply to Freud’s or Foucault’s theories more so than Spiderman or Madonna.
As I thought about this subject, I feel that both a Freudian Foucaultian analysis can be applied to Jackson Pollock. Freud says that an artist’s unconscious desires govern what is produced in their art, and I feel that Pollock fits that theory well. Pollock spoke of his need to somehow express his feelings in his art, and when he painted he seemed to be in a “zone” of sorts where his emotions could flow freely onto the canvas. I don’t think Pollock explicitly stated what emotions he was expressing in his various works of art, but it is clear that something strong was driving his works. I am sure that Pollock’s constant imbibing enhanced his emotion-expression, and Freud makes no distinctions as to whether his theory does or does not apply with the addition of alcohol (or other things for that matter).
I feel that that Foucault’s theory can apply to Jackson Pollock concurrently with Freud’s. Foucault espouses challenging artistic norms and questioning the general order of things, and Pollock certainly does this. At the time of its creation, there were not other works or art quite like those being churned out of Pollock’s studio. Pollock challenged the current status quo of what passed as art, and nowadays his works are still being analyzed. Pollock has left the meaning of his painting open to interpretation, and people try to search for meaning buried under the swirls and splatters of his paint. It is interesting to compare Freudian and Foucaultian theories, as while they are different in many ways, they can both apply to Jackson Pollock.

it's interesting that freud makes no distinction between a clear mind's daydreams and a drugged mind's hallucinations. i wonder if it hinders thought or helps bring out the unconscious.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with your statement that Pollock leaves his work open for interpretation. It may be that was his ultimate goal. Maybe he didn't want to necessarily have a specific meaning in each one of his works. It could be that the point was to just get people thinking. Good work man.
ReplyDelete