Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles

Almost anything can define art. It can appear like virtually everything. It just depends on who is the creator. Jackson Pollock was a creator of abstract expressionism. The style drifts from the realistic drawing and heads more for pure color and configuration. Not everybody cares for the style and discussions have risen on whether this manner of abstract expressionism represents art. Even though the first look makes Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles painting seem like child's play, a closer evaluation of the contrast, time involved, and interest reveals an effective piece of art. Contrast between light and dark is one of the most important parts of an effective piece; a criteria Blue Poles has effectively used. Without light and dark, there will be no shape and the image will be very flat. For Blue Poles, the dark blue is the darkest shade there is; to counter the darkness, Jackson uses white for the lightest …show more content…
Without a main focal point, a piece of art can seem lost and rather pointless. The point can easily be found. It is whatever the eye is drawn to the moment you look at the art. Because the eye is drawn to a certain aspect of the piece, it will not be overwhelmed with color and shape. For Blue Poles, my eyes are drawn right away to the blue lines stretched across the page. After I see the blue lines, my eyes start to notice the other colors in the background. Since my eyes are drawn right away to a spot on the painting, Blue Poles has a good interest point. However, many might say that the art is too chaotic and an unorganised mess. I would say that it is because they are looking too closely. Sometimes it is good to get up close to the picture, but not for this drip style art work. This piece is meant to be viewed from a distance and in that distance, the focal points be be easily seen. It looks so chaotic up close because all of the tiny lines can be seen