A Pollock's Paintbrush Tried To Draw Concentric Circles But Failed (2024)
Jackson Pollock's death left his studio with a paintbrush that still yearned to draw something. It had never been used for basic geometric shapes, so it decided to start from concentric circles. However, its attempts looked nothing like circles. It became extremely frustrated and started to drink a lot while painting, just like its master did. As it painted while drinking, the paint mixed with the alcohol on the canvas, creating an unexpected and unique brushstroke effect.
Later, these paintings were discovered by someone, and the media began to praise the paintbrush, claiming it was Pollock's true successor, a contemporary art superstar, the savior of abstract expressionism, elevating unconscious painting to another level, blah blah blah. Of course, there are also many negative comments, saying that it is just a piece of cake and has no new ideas, and so on. The fame was overwhelming for the paintbrush and made it very painful. After all, it just wanted to paint some simple geometric shapes, but it had to bear so much inexplicable pressure for no reason, which made it full of doubts about itself and its works.
When the media arrived for one last interview with the paintbrush, it had already disappeared. On the floor, there were unfinished paintings, posters of Delaunay's Rhythm series, a few empty bottles of 58-degree Kinmen Kaoliang Liquor from Taiwan, and the record player was playing Nirvana's "You Know You're Right":
“Things have never been so swell
I have never failed to fail…”
(Oh of course, the story is set in the 1990s).
Later, these paintings were discovered by someone, and the media began to praise the paintbrush, claiming it was Pollock's true successor, a contemporary art superstar, the savior of abstract expressionism, elevating unconscious painting to another level, blah blah blah. Of course, there are also many negative comments, saying that it is just a piece of cake and has no new ideas, and so on. The fame was overwhelming for the paintbrush and made it very painful. After all, it just wanted to paint some simple geometric shapes, but it had to bear so much inexplicable pressure for no reason, which made it full of doubts about itself and its works.
When the media arrived for one last interview with the paintbrush, it had already disappeared. On the floor, there were unfinished paintings, posters of Delaunay's Rhythm series, a few empty bottles of 58-degree Kinmen Kaoliang Liquor from Taiwan, and the record player was playing Nirvana's "You Know You're Right":
“Things have never been so swell
I have never failed to fail…”
(Oh of course, the story is set in the 1990s).
|
|
Postscript
Although this little story may seem quite absurd and humorous, it's actually my reflection and response to several questions I asked to myself.
Q1: Does the artist statement matter?
Well, to be precise, for this project, the question is, if I simply think the artwork looks good, and there's not much to say about it, do I need to come up with some solemn arguments as the statement?
I've also pondered whether art can change the world. However, as I've grown older, I've gradually come to realize the reality of the world and my own insignificance. Now, when it comes to my work, I have a simple goal: I would be willing to hang this piece on my home's wall. Therefore, I resonate with Henri Matisse's words, "What I dream of is an art of balance, of purity and serenity... something like a good armchair that provides relaxation from physical fatigue."
So, back to the original question, if there's nothing substantial to write about, should I still write? My answer is, if you're already a well-known artist like Matisse, then probably not. But if you're an unestablished artist, and you hope to sell your work for a good price, then it's essential to write something, anything.
Q2: Why did Pollock collapse after becoming famous?
Alright, I still need to write something for this project, even though I don't have any grand artistic concept. But before that, there's a question bothering me. I need to find the answer to this question before I can start writing: Why did Pollock collapse after becoming famous?
Why is this question important? Because the outputs of this project, visually, will make people directly associate them with Pollock's works, even though these pieces are merely the result of adjusting a set of parameters in my creative process. It has no real connection to Pollock in terms of concept or the creative process. But if I don't mention Pollock, it might make me seem ignorant, arrogant, or insincere, or something else. So not mentioning him is not an option. However, if I'm going to mention him, and I should, then it doesn't make sense to say something superficial like, "Oh, this looks a bit like Pollock, but has something different, cool, huh?" I think it's pointless. I should do a bit of research into Pollock's thought process to avoid looking uninformed.
Finally, I found some articles discussing Pollock, which clarified my doubts. I also used the story of the paintbrush to roughly document the answers I've found.
Q3: Is artistic lineage important? Where does mine come from?
Even after understanding what Pollock was thinking, I still feel that writing elaborate explanations that appear serious is somewhat self-deceptive. After all, I don't believe I have any significant artistic lineage coming from Pollock or abstract expressionism. Nonetheless, I do think artistic lineage is important because it helps artists clarify their creative context and find their place in the field.
As of now, my generative art pieces largely digest the visual language I've constructed in my past photography work, it doesn’t count as the inheritance of any master. However, in terms of ideology, I appreciate the Dadaist style in the spirit of Duchamp. Deep down, I feel like a Dadaist, always inclined to engage in mischief. So, since I don't have much to say, let's have some fun! That's how the story of Pollock's paintbrush was born, even though the work itself is not Dadaist, but perhaps the artist statement can be.
So, at this point, all the questions I had about myself caused by this project are answered. Originally, this little story was only supposed to be the first paragraph, but it has grown into this lengthy discourse unintentionally, it would be an acceptable result as the artist statement for this project.
|
|
Algorithm
The prototype of this project I called "AlgoRhythm", was inspired by The Delaunays' Rhythm series of paintings. The prototype generates connected concentric circle groups with a composition checker, to ensure that each output has a sufficiently balanced composition for a given aspect ratio. Also, each stroke of the prototype is an animation (developed from the development animation of Rose 1851), the entire rendering process is as if we are witnessing how an artist creates a painting from scratch.
In the project, I turned one of the noise parameters up to a very large value, to generate extremely distorted strokes, giving each output the look of an abstract expressionist painting.
The prototype of this project I called "AlgoRhythm", was inspired by The Delaunays' Rhythm series of paintings. The prototype generates connected concentric circle groups with a composition checker, to ensure that each output has a sufficiently balanced composition for a given aspect ratio. Also, each stroke of the prototype is an animation (developed from the development animation of Rose 1851), the entire rendering process is as if we are witnessing how an artist creates a painting from scratch.
In the project, I turned one of the noise parameters up to a very large value, to generate extremely distorted strokes, giving each output the look of an abstract expressionist painting.
Project page
https://genify.xyz/collection/lambda/120
https://genify.xyz/collection/lambda/120
