Art: Chaos, Damn It!

Jackson Pollock’s abstractions (TIME, Dec. i, 1947 et seq.) stump experts as well as laymen. Laymen wonder what to look for in the labyrinths which Pollock achieves by dripping paint onto canvases laid flat on the floor; experts wonder what on earth to say about the artist. One advance-guard U.S. critic has gone so far as to call him the “most powerful painter in America.” Another, more cautious, reported that Pollock “has carried the irrational quality of picture-making to one extremity” (meaning, presumably, his foot). The Museum of Modern Art’s earnest Alfred Barf, who picked Pollock, among others, to represent the U.S. in Venice’s big Biennale exhibition last summer, described his art simply as “an energetic adventure for the eyes.”

Pollock followed his canvases to Italy, exhibited them in private galleries in Venice and Milan. Italian critics tended to shrug off his shows. Only one, brash young (23) Critic Bruno Alfieri of Venice, took the bull by the horns.

“It is easy,” Alfieri confidently began, “to describe a [Pollock]. Think of a canvas surface on which the following ingredients have been poured: the contents of several tubes of paint of the best quality; sand, glass, various powders, pastels, gouache, charcoal … It is important to state immediately that these ‘colors’ have not been distributed according to a logical plan (whether naturalistic, abstract or otherwise). This is essential. Jackson Pollock’s paintings represent absolutely nothing: no facts, no ideas, no geometrical forms. Do not, therefore, be deceived by such suggestive titles as ‘Eyes in Heat’ or ‘Circumcision’. . . It is easy to detect the following things in all of his paintings:

“Chaos.

“Absolute lack of harmony.

“Complete lack of structural organization.

“Total absence of technique, however rudimentary.

“Once again, chaos.

“But these are superficial impressions, first impressions . . . Each one of his pictures is part of himself. But what kind of man is he? What is his inner world worth? Is it worth knowing, or is it totally undistinguished? Damn it, if I must judge a painting by the artist it is no longer the painting that I am interested in . . .”