Pollock Subversion Gravity

8/14/2019 Pollock Subversion Gravity

1/25

The Subversion of Gravity in Jackson Pollock's AbstractionsAuthor(s): Claude Cernuschi and Andrzej HerczynskiSource: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 90, No. 4 (Dec., 2008), pp. 616-639Published by: College Art Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20619641.Accessed: 09/04/2013 12:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

College Art Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art

Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20619641?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20619641?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa


2/25

The Subversion of Gravity inJackson Pollock'sAbstractionsClaude Cernuschi and AndrzejHerczynskiWhile implementing the Surrealist directive of eliciting theunconscious, and intent on generating an extensive vocabularyof unbroken, free-flowing lines,Jackson Pollock felt hisambitions frustrated by two constraints endemic to conventional easel painting: the interruption of the creative actcaused by the inconvenient need to reload the brush and thedrag on his hand as he spread pigment along the canvassurface. Initially, Pollock tried to circumvent these impediments by squeezing paint directly from the tube. This adjustment allowed him to dispense larger amounts of pigmentthan could otherwise be held on and eliminated the necessity to reload the brush. But forcing paint out of the tubewhile simultaneously ensuring that it isapplied with elan is atricky proposition; so is avoiding the increased frictioncaused by the tube's rubbing against the canvas. To extendthe duration of his gestures and enhance the fluidityof hisstrokes, Pollock needed a practical way of carrying morepigment and dispensing itwithout touching the image.WhenPaul Brach asked him why he started pouring, Pollock replied, Someone tried to talkme into using a dagger striperbut the sucker didn't hold the paint long enough. I justwanted a longer line. ... I wanted to keep it going. 1 As iswell known, he achieved both objectives by laying the canvason the floor (Fig. 1). Retaining more paint on sticks andtrowels, he worked with fewer interruptions, and pouringpigment in the air effectively enlisting gravity as a participant in theprocess he eliminated the deleterious effects offriction altogether. Not surprisingly, critics have counted theimplementation of the poured technique and the reorientation of artistic activityfrom the wall to the floor as Pollock'smost original and influential contributions to the history ofart.

The Question of OrientationInformed by the ideas of Sigmund Freud and Georges Bataille,Rosalind Krauss struck a different chord. In her view,Pollock's deployment of horizontality as a medium represented a radical regression from the intellectual, disembodied, optical way of perceiving the world that stems fromhumanity's erect (vertical) posture. By stressing the horizontal as opposed to the vertical, Pollock, she argued, foregrounded the corporeal, even abject, characteristics of urination and defecation, an implication of thepoured techniquemaintained in, say,Andy Warhol's laterOxidation Paintingsand Linda Benglis's sculptures.2By itself,though, horizontality does not capture the cruxof Pollock's contribution. The artist conceded asmuch himself.When asked about painting on the floor, he replied,That's not unusual. The Orientals did that. 3This remark isperfectly apposite; laying the canvas horizontally, after all,hardly precludes dispensing pigment in a traditional manner.4 No doubt, the horizontal orientation of the canvas

proved ideal for Pollock's deployment of the poured technique allowing formaximum control and making thepaintaccelerate directly toward the canvas in the shortest possibletime.5Nonetheless, itwill be proposed here that the effects ofrhythmic energy forwhich the artist isbest known are, perforce, contingent on the vertical reorientation of the canvason the wall for contemplation.On its face, this claim should hardly be controversial. AsLeo Steinberg already stressed, Pollock intended all of hisabstractions to be exhibited vertically.6As early as 1962, hereasoned that Pollock

indeed poured and dripped his pigment upon canvas laidon the ground, but thiswas an expedient. After the firstcolor skeins had gone down, he would tack the canvas onto a wall to get acquainted with it, he used to say, to seewhere itwanted to go. He livedwith the painting in itsupright state, as with a world confronting itshuman posture.7

More recently,T. J.Clark observed thatalthough the picturewas put on the floor to be worked on ... itwas always beingread on the floor as if itwere upright, or in the knowledgethat it would be. To pretend otherwise would have beennaive, and Pollock was never naive about painting. 8These observations touch on a key feature of the pouredtechnique; even so, critical aspects of the artist's dyadic process have remained unexplored. If Krauss focused almostexclusively on Pollock's point of departure as if paintinghorizontally were an end in itself Steinberg and Clarkstopped short of elucidating how central Pollock's reorientation of the canvas proved to his mode of operation. To besure, their description of the artist's method as unitary andcohesive isapt, ifonly because there isnothing to suggest thatPollock even considered exhibiting his works on the floorat an angle whereby paintings (especially those at the upperend of his dimensional range) are particularly awkward toobserve. But although laying the canvas horizontally was maximally convenient for pouring, the artist, as Steinberg indicated, often interrupted creative activity in order to reposition his work for study and ultimately display on thewall.These two integral,yet separate actions each played theirownindispensable role. Even ifphysically produced in the firststate, the work was only recognized as complete after thesecond, a process comparable to constructing a sailboat oraircraft: though assembled in one environment, it serves itspurpose only in another. Pollock's shift in orientation constitutedno less of a sine qua non. And it isby recognizing theessential contributions of both steps that some of the subtleintricacies, and broader implications, of Pollock's procedure

may emerge in sharper relief.

This content downloaded from 199.79.254.152 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:53:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/25

1Hans Namuth, PollockPainting, 1950(artwork Hans Namuth Estate;photograph provided by the CenterforCreative Photography, Universityof Arizona

THE SUBVERSION OF GRAVITY IN POLLOCK'S ABSTRACTIONS 517

Two or Three Dimensions?Appreciating the full ramifications of Pollock's manipulationof the canvas's orientation requires, from the outset, a closerinvestigation of his creative process and,more to thepoint, itsreliance on gravity.Pouring, after all, is impossible withoutgravitational force. Had Pollock lived in an environmentwhere the effectsof the Earth's gravitational fieldwere neutralized on the international space station, for example9 he could probably have painted but not poured.Choosing pouring as the principal means of dispensing pigment, in turn,had a major consequence for hismodus operandi, namely, transforming it from a two- to a three-dimensional affair. Pollock's abstractions, of course, are no lessconventionally two dimensional than easel paintings, and,no matter their practice, painters obviously work bymovingin three-dimensional space. Yet, whereas previous artists hadno choice but to touch theirpiece, Pollock was free topaintin the air, allowing his gestures to range in three dimensions,to rise and fall, as well as span from side to side, all without

making direct physical contact with the canvas. In traditionaleasel or mural painting, no sooner is the brush lifted fromthe cloth orwall discounting, for the sake of argument, theexception of an artist flingingor spraying paint at an uprightsurface10 than the creative act is (provisionally perhaps, butindisputably) suspended. No matter what artists do or howthey contemplate their next course of action, if their brush

does not make contact with the support, nothing comes topass. To have any consequences, therefore, the act of painting isdependent on what transpires on the two-dimensionalsurface of the picture plane. Though most painters may nothave felt constrained by this exigency, Pollock sought anddevised an alternative through which he severed his dependence on that physical connection and, as a result, transformed painting into a trulythree-dimensional process.11These technical innovations, however, came at a price.Expanding his activity into three-dimensional space, Pollockforfeited the luxuryof being able to suspend his process atwill. Activelyworking in the air, he could no longer interrupthis movements, especially as a gesture, once initiated, wouldkeep releasing pigment on the canvas as long as any remained on the implement he was wielding.12 The streams ofpaint already in flight,furthermore, would instantly lie beyond the bounds of the artist's control save for measuresoudandish (such as yanking the canvas out from under thepigment already airborne). Yet the artistmanaged to turnthis situation to his advantage. Since his gestures were performed in the air, the painting underneath him simultaneously recorded both where and with what velocity e movedhis implement, including the most subde inflections andtremors of his hand and wrist. Consequendy, the pouredtrajectories qualify as doubly indexical and, as such, providethe spectator with nearly unprecedented access into the art



4/25

518 ART BULLETIN DECEMBER 2008 VOLUME XC NUMBER 4

2 Jackson Pollock, Number 23, 1948, enamel on cardboard, 225/sX 30% in. (57.5 X 78.5 cm). T teGallery, London (artworkPollock-Krasner Foundation/Artists Rights Society; photograph T teGallery London, provided byArtResource, NY)

ist'sworking methods (Fig. 2). Indeed, by choosing a technique inwhich the canvas registers the slightest change of hismotion in space, Pollock encourages the viewer to construehis paintings as effects, the causes of which the audience ismeant to infer. As Frank O'Hara incisively noted, wheneverPollockian lines thinor thicken,we automatically assume thatthe artist accelerated or decelerated, respectively.13 As a result,we tend instinctivelyto re-create the veryact of paintingin our imagination and experience sensations of kinetic energy akin towatching a dancer inmotion or a conductorleading an orchestra.That Pollock hoped his audience would construe his art inthismanner can be deduced from his own proclivity toconstrue all works of art in this manner. B. H. Friedman,Pollock's firstbiographer, recalled the artist's somewhat unorthodox responses to paintings in thewriter's possession:Pollock stood in frontof theMondrian with hands out as ifhe was about to seize and fight it.His hands twitched in theair, seeming to want to touch or feel or somehow reproduce,remake, each element of the work before him. 14 Comingacross a piece byArshile Gorky, Pollock Again . .. assumedsomething like a fightingstance, his hands moving in the air,tracing the configuration of the painting. 15 It is,of course,

very likely that Pollock appropriated this inclination to analyze formal relations empathetically from his teacher,Thomas Hart Benton. Despite endorsing a representationalidiom, Benton made rhythmicenergy and bodily dynamics ahallmark of both his own compositional style and teachingagenda. The effectiveness of a work of art, he maintained,depended on the kinds of physical responses the formalpatterns ina painting would elicit from the audience. Formsin plastic construction, Benton wrote,

... are taken from common experience, re-combined andre-oriented. This re-orientation follows lines of preferencealso having definite biological origin. Stability, equilibrium, connection, sequence movement, rhythm symbolizing the flux and flowof energy are [the]main factors. . ..In the feel of our own bodies, in the sight of bodies ofothers, in the bodies of animals, in the shape of growingand moving things, in the forces of nature and in theengines ofman the rhythmic principle ofmovement andcounter-movement is made manifest. . . . his mechanicalprinciple which we sharewith all lifecan be abstracted andused in constructing and analyzing thingswhich also intheirway have lifeand reality.16



5/25

THE SUBVERSION OF GRAVITY IN POLLOCK'S ABSTRACTIONS \Q

Benton's aesthetics, in turn, were strongly inflected by thoseof John Dewey, a philosopher who argued that, in order toappreciate a work of art,

a beholder must create his own experience. And his creation must include relations comparable to those whichthe original producer underwent. They are not the samein any literal sense. But with the perceiver, as with theartist, theremust be an ordering of the elements of thewhole that is in form, although not indetails, the same asthe process of organization the creator of the work consciously experienced. Without an act of recreation theobject isnot perceived as a work of art.17

Pollock's kinesthetic reactions to thepaintings inFriedman'scollection yield compelling evidence of his thinking alongsimilar lines. Amplifying the very physicality of his process,the indexical character of his technique is ideally suited totrigger the spectator's empathetic response, a response thatmay involvean intuitiveretracingof the artist's gestures basedon themarks lefton the canvas. But because the skeins ofpaint constitute only two-dimensional representations ofthree-dimensional trajectories, Pollock's vertical movementsare harder todecipher from the appearance of hiswork thanhis horizontal (side-to-side) movements which, as a result,are more consequential and most readily reenacted.18 Indeed, if Pollock's hands moved predominantly up anddown, the pigment would pile up or cluster, impedingthe spectator's ability to infer the gestures that caused them.Although stains or puddles are frequently visible, it is thelinear tracks that most effectively evoke sympathetic responses from the viewer, the more so because they werepoured freely in the air.19 It isbyworking in the fullness ofthree-dimensional space, therefore, rather than within theconfines of a two-dimensional surface, that Pollock invested,as much as his painter's medium allowed, in what E. H.Gombrich astutely termed the beholder's share. 20

Deformability and MotionPollock's mode of execution, however, was contingent onusing materials sufficientlymalleable and pliable to be deployed in space. To pour effectivelyand enlist gravityas anaccomplice, Pollock must have adjusted thematerial properties of his pigment to obtain suitable density (thickness)and viscosity (self-adhesiveness). If the paint ran likewater (aliquid of comparatively lowviscosity), itwould be difficult tocontrol with the kinds of implements Pollock employed,producing excessive splashing and puddling rather than thedistinctive linear effects for which Pollock is best known.Conversely, if the paint behaved like putty (a liquid of unusually high viscosity), itwould lack the necessary malleability, ropping in lumps rather than pouring smoothly on theunprimed cloth.21 By fashioning paint viscous enough tocontrol, yet deformable enough to dispense easily, Pollocksought a median between these two extremes. Most of thepaint I use, he said, is a liquid, flowing kind of paint. 22 Heprimarily chose enamel, thinned, as Lee Krasner, the artist's wife, recalled, to the point he wanted it. 23Yet thiscompromise did not curtail Pollock's creativity in the least.

Even within theparameters dictated byhis practical needs, he

managed to generate a remarkably wide range of viscositiesand densities and exploit as much of that range as necessaryto obtain the effects desired.All thewhile, Pollock's process included drippingaswell aspouring. Though both termsare used, often interchangeably,to refer to his technique, it should be emphasized that the

dominant effect throughout his mature production is thesweep of continuous lines, not the pointillism of individualdroplets. Since the former is the result of pouring and thelatter of dripping, the distinction differentiates twophysicalaspects of Pollock's practice; whereas todripmeans to let fallin drops, an intermittent process, to pour means to cause toflow in a stream, 24 a continuous process (hardly an insignificant distinction, if one thinks of a leaky versus an openfaucet). To keep all options open, Pollock purposely adjustedthe physical properties of his paint, making it adequatelyviscous and transportable in sufficientquantities on his implement. Once his paint fellwithin theworkable range, pouring or dripping ensued, depending on the amount Pollockcarried on his stickor trowel and on the velocitywith whichhe released it. To pour, he would increase the amount or

move at a slower pace; to drip, he would decrease the amountor move at a faster pace.25 Occasionally, the two processesfollowed one another or even alternated, obscuring the distinction between them. All the same, although discrete droplets routinely appear in themajority of Pollock's abstractionsfrom 1947 to 1950, theirvisual impact is subordinate to thatof the linear tracks of paint. Of the twoprocesses, therefore,itwas pouring rather than dripping that endowed Pollock'sabstractions with their distinctive character.By fine-tuning the physical qualities of his paint as well ascontrolling the process of dispensing it, Pollock not onlymade his particular way of pouring possible, he also produced some of themost vivid evocations of motion in the

history of painting. For obvious reasons, the indication ofmovement has always posed a daunting challenge to artists,painters and sculptors alike, constrained towork within theconfines of a static idiom.26 Even if a particular postureappears dynamic on canvas, a spectator may always questionwhether the figurewas caught in themiddle of an action orsimply portrayed strikinga pose while at rest (Fig. 3). Sincethe same ambiguity pertains to inanimate motion, artistslargely avoided representing objects in the course of falling(think of the altogether unconvincing suggestion of a dropping knife inRembrandt's Sacrificeof saac)P To deflect theiraudience's skepticism, artists often depicted active figuresadorned with flowingdrapery,material whose pliancy, unlikerigid garments, accentuated the illusion ofmotion. In fact,Pollock himself practiced thisvery strategy in his numerousearly copies after the old masters (Fig. 4).

Rapid sketches, especially if loose and spontaneous, canalso achieve a persuasive effect of motion (Fig. 5). But although incomplete contours, swifthatchings, and multipleattempts at resolving a specific formwere perfectlyacceptablein preliminary drawings, no such license existed within theconventions of academic painting. As loosermodes of painterly execution gained acceptance, Diego Velazquez, for one,ventured to devise a markedly successful solution to theproblem by having the spokes of a spinning wheel nearlydisappear in Las hilanderas (Fig. 6). In themodern era,



6/25


3 Henry Raeburn, The Skater,1795, oil on canvas, 30 X 25 in.(76.2 X 63.5 cm). The National Gallery of Scotland, Edin-.burgh (artworkin thepublic domain; photograph TheNational Gallery of Scotland)

devices invented by cartoonists and illustrators, air streaks,motion lines, and zip ribbons, 28 provided another approach, one so simple as to be readily intelligible to smallchildren (Fig. 7), yet one that lay beyond the purview ofacademic artists a double standard eventually circumventedin avant-garde circles. The Italian Futurists, for example,covetous of the ease and efficacy with which cartoonistspulled off the illusion of speed, blatantly appropriated theirconventions (with additional assistance, admittedly, fromchronophotography; Fig. 8).29For his part, Pollock was fullyconversant with the effectsofaction photography and chronophotography, especially ashis close friend the Swiss filmmaker and designer HerbertMatter was an accomplished practitioner of the genre.30 Byembracing an abstract idiom, however, Pollock was freedfrom having to blur, distort, or multiply his figures. Unlikecartoons, furthermore, his images cannot be parsed intoelements representing the subject versus those representing motion. InHerge's drawing of Tin tin chasing a parrot(Fig. 7), one could conceivably remove the air streaksadded post facto to convey flight without violating the integrity f the human and animal forms in the least. Pollock'spictorial language rendered such a separation inconceivable,of course, precisely because the devices used to suggest dynamism are somehow embodied in, and thus inextricablefrom, the shapes themselves. To be sure, the same may besaid of the blurred spokes of thewheel painted byVelazquez;nonetheless, although its impact would be significantly al

4 Pollock, Untitled, R3: 440r, late 1937-39, pencil and colored pencil on paper, 16% X 13% in. (42.8 X 35.2 cm). TheMetropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Purchase, AnonymousGift, 1990 (artwork Pollock-Krasner Foundation/ArtistsRights Society [ARS],New York; photograph The Metropolitan Museum ofArt)

5 Aniello Falcone, CavalrySkirmish, 7th century, inkon paper, 4V2X 7V2 in. (11.4 X 19 cm). Private collection (artworkin thepublic domain; photograph byLiliane Fredericks)

tered, the overall structure of Las hilanderaswould hardly beundermined if thewheel were depicted at rest. In Pollock'sabstractions, conversely, the dynamic and morphological aspects are utterly indivisible.This effect is also found in the work of other abstractpainters (Wassily Kandinsky, Franz Marc, Frantisek Kupka,just to name a few), but, since Pollock's skeins of paint wereobtained by sweeping lateralmovements, the resulting trajec



7/25

6 Diego Velazquez, Las hilanderas,1657, oil on canvas, 865/s X 99lA in.(220 X 252 cm). Museo del Prado,Madrid (artworkin thepublic domain; photograph by Scala, providedbyArt Resource, NY)


tories recording the deformations of falling liquid paint asit settled on the canvas evoke dynamism in an especiallyconvincing way. Indeed, because liquids flow around obstacles or within vessel boundaries, may deform inmotion, losestability,or break into separate fragments, they are particularly suitable, even more than pliable drapery, to convey asense of motion in a static image. As William IvinsJr. observed, The onlyway that a sense of motion can be given toa body in a stillpicture isby distortion of its tactile-muscularshape. ... It is this distortion in thepicture thatmakes us feelthat the [object] ismoving. The more we elongate our representations . .. the faster seems their movement. 31 Accordingly, artists fare much better when attempting to depictliquids rather than solids inmotion. Portrayed in the form ofa continuous stream, liquids, after all, are farmore likely toproduce a persuasive illusion ofmovement than solids shown,as if frozen, levitating in space.32 From the smooth, laminarflows inJanVermeer's Milkmaid (ca. 1658-61) or Leonardo'scomplicated vortical flows (ca. 1513, Fig. 9) toGustave Courbet's turbulent, chaotic flows (as in TheWave, 1871,NationalGallery of Scotland), this tactic has served artists especiallywell.

Pollock went a step further.He did not just paint liquid inmotion; he set liquid inmotion. Diluting his solution andletting it fall freelyunder gravity,he enabled itsvery fluidity itssusceptibility todeform as it accelerated and decelerated above the canvas to record, ot depict,the velocitywithwhich hemoved.33 In theprocess, Pollock made his work intoan index of actual (instead of an icon of simulated)motion.Not surprisingly,he declared that themore immediate, themore direct a painting, the greater thepossibilities of making a direct of making a statement. 34 In certain ways, thetranslation of Pollock's dynamic gestures onto a staticentity isnot unlike the recording of earthquakes by the needle of

a

7 Herge, Tintin, Milou et leperroquet, from Uoreille cassee,Brussels: Casterman, 1945, p. 5 (artwork and photographHerge /Moulinsart)

seismograph. But, because neither were his marks mediatedby an electrical apparatus nor his strokes constrained in theirmotion (like the tip of the seismograph, oscillating up and



8/25


8 Giacomo Balla, Dog on a Leash, 1912, oil on canvas, 35% X43V4 in. (90.8 X 110 cm). Albright-KnoxArt Gallery, Buffalo,N.Y., bequest of A. Conger Goodyear and gift of George F.Goodyear, 1964 (artwork ArtistsRights Society [ARS],NewYork; photograph provided by theAlbright-KnoxArt Gallery)

down along a single axis35), Pollock's rendition ofmovement,as he himself put it, proves all the more immediate anddirect.

Even so, the claim of immediacy and directness requires some qualification. The double indexicality of Pollock's process should not engender the view that his technique is so transparent as to make reading his paintings astraightforward task.36 On the contrary, the very same com

plexities of fluid flow thatamplify the illusion ofmotion mayactually obscure the precise characteristics and sequence ofthe artist's gestures. At a minimum, three separate physicalmechanisms, each operating at a different scale, impacted hislinear trajectories, potentially leading spectators tomisconstrue the precise causes of the marks left on the canvas.The firstmechanism is clearlymanifest in the numerousfine oscillations of red enamel inUntitled 1948 (CR3: 786, Fig.10) .37 t is tempting, of course, to attribute these undulationsto the trembling, intentional or not, of Pollock's hand. Yet itwas impossible for the vibrations of Pollock's wrist to haveproduced ripples of such fine scale and consistent regularity(Fig. II).38 The effect, rather,was almost surely due to thefluid instability of the stream of viscous paint known ascoiling39 a common phenomenon familiar from the wayhoney ormaple syruposcillates and coils, even when pouredwith a steadyhand. It thus stands to reason thatcoiling couldeasily ensue whenever Pollock poured viscous paint. Indeed,since the thick red lines in Untitled 1948 (Fig. 10) werecreated with highly viscous enamel and the thinner ones inblack with diluted ink,only the former exhibit coiling instability.The high viscosity of the red compound accounts forthe difference: ifdiluted, the enamel would seep into thepaper rather than produce theundulating lines visible in thedetail (Fig. 11). It should be iterated, however, that becauseskeins of paint distort or diffuse upon landing on an unevensurface, woven canvases are unlikely to display similar undulations. Whereas the effect appears in Pollock's work on

9 Leonardo da Vinci, Study ofWater Passing Obstacles, ca. 1513,inkon paper, ll3/4X 8V4 in. (29.7 x'20.8 cm). Royal Collection,Windsor Castle (artworkin thepublic domain; photograph The Royal Collection Her Majesty Queen ElizabethID

paper such as TheMask (ca. 1945) and Unfitted (ca. 1944),it is particularly conspicuous in Untitled 1948 (Fig. 10) because pigments were laid on a dry, smooth ground, not onemade rougher by previous applications of pigment.Another mechanism thatproblematizes the reading of Pollockian marks operates at larger scales. Since Pollock workedabove his canvas on average at about a foot and a half, butoccasionally as high as five feet falling paint fragments retained thememory of thehorizontal components of the velocitywith which theywere moving at themoment of separation from his trowel. Whenever Pollock's hand accelerated,therefore, the fluid already released moved at a differentvelocity than his implement.41 Not only did a lag ensuebetween any change inPollock's motion and the recording ofthis change on the surface below, but also the recorded linebecame distorted as a result the longer the flight, thegreater the distortion. Accordingly, because fluid parcelsmove with constant horizontal velocity in the air, rapid flicksof Pollock's wrist may have translated into recorded arcs ofexaggerated radii.42The thirdmechanism pertains to the expansion and contraction of Pollock's poured trajectories.As indicated earlier,one readily assumes that the thinning or thickening of a lineresulted from the acceleration or deceleration of Pollock's



9/25

10 Pollock, Untitled1948, CR3: 786,ink and enamel on paper, 22% X30 in. (56.8 X 76.2 cm). The Metropolitan Museum ofArt,New York, Giftof Lee Krasner Pollock (artwork Pollock-Krasner Foundation/ArtistsRights Society [ARS],New York; photograph The Metropolitan MuseumofArt)

THE SUBVERSION OF GRAVITY IN POLLOCK'S ABSTRACTIONS

hand. The artist, though, could easily have produced theeffect of changing tempos in a number of differentways: byswitching the leading edge of an asymmetrical tool, varyingthe amount of pigment on his implement, allowing thepaintto run out, or, alternatively, rapidly changing the height atwhich itwould be dispensed. Of these techniques, the latter,though no less effective, was, arguably, the least transparent.Relying on a characteristic of gravitationally driven flowsknown from everyday experience that streams narrow asthey accelerate downward Pollock, by raising or loweringhis hand, may have expanded or contracted the flow at itspoint of contact with the canvas. In thisway, he was capableof creating the remarkably vivid sensations of shiftingvelocitynoted byO'Hara, yetwithout accelerating or decelerating thelateral (horizontal) sweep of his arm.48An examination of the fluid-dynamic aspects of Pollock'sprocess suggests, therefore, that, the artist's reputation forimmediacy and directness notwithstanding, his signature effects do not always readily betray their causes.While pushingindexicality to the extreme, Pollock may have courted a lookof unmitigated spontaneity and improvisation, but, farmoresophisticated a craftsman than even his champions may appreciate, he managed to enlist and indulge autonomous physical phenomena, all without relinquishing the requisite degree of control. This not simply proved a clever means ofoccluding how practiced his performance actually became, itwas also away of eliciting his audience's empathetic responsewhile inserting a certain artistic playfulness in a process partially given over to natural phenomena.

Gravity and Its EffectsEven ifPollock's employment of fluid dynamics requireddelicate adjustments, his idiom also depended on exploitingsharply defined polarities. The artist's creativeprocess mayhave been contingent on laying the canvas on the floor,but

11 Detail of Fig. 10 (artwork Pollock-Krasner Foundation/ArtistsRights Society [ARS], New York; photograph TheMetropolitan Museum ofArt)

the spectator's re-creative process is contingent on repositioning iton the wall. Demonstrably, Pollock's paintings wouldlook strikinglydifferent ifseen horizontally rather than vertically.On the floor, the skeins of paint resemble any liquidsimply released into space and lying inerton a piece ofwovenfabric (Fig. 1). On thewall, the skeins look unencumbered,airborne, energetically moving upward, downward, and



10/25


(a) (b) (c)12 Diagrams illustrating an external force acting on a cart.The gray rectangle represents the cart and the arrow theapplied force (the tail end of the arrow is located at thepointof application of the external force) (diagrams byAndrzejHerczynski)

sideways, as if somehow freed from friction and liberatedfrom gravity.44Once the paintings are reoriented vertically,Pollock's marks, though impossible togenerate without gravity, ook, paradoxically enough, free of its relentless grip, aconundrum barely mentioned in the literature. Pollockscholarship, spanning numerous, often mutually exclusivepositions from biographical, formalist, psychoanalytic, feminist, Marxist, to poststructuralist, just to name some of themany lenses throughwhich the artist has been viewed hasyet to address this issue on itsown terms.Granted, a detailedinvestigation of Pollock's use of gravitymay lie beyond theideological purview or stated objectives of some of theseinterpretative approaches, and, as already indicated at theoutset, a number of scholars have already tackled the implications of Pollock's change of orientation.45 But even thosewho mentioned the complexity of the artist's idiomatic reliance on gravitational force did sowithout acknowledging thedeterminative role itplays both inhis mode ofworking andin guiding the spectator's response. Admittedly, ElizabethFrank has noted that by placing the canvas on the floorPollock could both outwit and exploit the force of gravity,and T. J.Clark alluded to the artist's suspension of gravity;46even so, neither engaged the question with the attentionrequisite to explain exactly how Pollock managed togeneratethis singular effect.

Upon reflection, this oversight is hardly surprising; arthistory, after all, provides neither an adequate critical terminology nor the specialized conceptual tools to account forthe gravitational aspects of the artist's technique. For thisreason, introducing additional insights fromphysics isessential to venture such an account and bridge thisepistemolog

ical gap. Essential not only because gravitywas indispensabletoPollock's process but also because his particular way of deploying this force ultimately differentiates his own, idiosyncratic aesthetic strategy from that of other artists who fellwithin the compass of his influence. Such an interdisciplinaryperspective, it is hoped, will speak to the very dilemma inquestion: specifically,how an artist,renowned for his relianceon gravity, could antithetically employ and elude it at thesame time.

Pollock did so by reorienting his canvas by 90 degrees, anangle that plays a critical role inmechanics. The laws ofphysics47mandate thata small object subject toa single forcewill, at any time, accelerate in exactly the same direction inwhich the force is applied.48 When the object encountersobstacles or constraints, however, its acceleration may beredirected.49 For the purposes of the argument at hand, itshould be emphasized that the acceleration of an objectconstrained to move on a plane or along a line can occur inany direction except t 90 degrees o the applied force.50Thus,although the paint released from Pollock's trowelwill accelerate freely in the vertical direction while in flight, itwillcease to accelerate altogether once it lands on a horizontallylaid canvas.

Perhaps another example, though unrelated to Pollock'sprocess, may clarify the particular significance of the 90degree angle. Consider an object constrained tomove in astraight line on a horizontal plane, like a cart rolling on atrack (Fig. 12). In order to accelerate the cart forward, pushing in the direction of the track (from the rear) would bemost efficient (Fig. 12a). Force may be exerted at someoblique angle (from the side), but thiswill noticeably reducethe resultant acceleration (Fig. 12b). The closer the angle ofthe applied force comes to90 degrees, the less efficient theeffort, and at exactly 90 degrees to the tracks, forward acceleration ceases altogether (Fig. 12c). For an applied force,then, the 90-degree angle is the threshold at and beyondwhich forward acceleration isno longer possible.51Both examples are instructive. Just as the cart stops acceleratingwhen pushed perpendicularly to the direction of thetracks on which itmoves, so was gravitational force neutralized by Pollock's pouring onto a horizontally positionedcanvas. In fact, by painting on the floor, with the canvasperpendicular to gravity,and then exhibiting iton thewall,parallel to gravity,Pollock, inboth instances, reoriented hiswork by exactly 90 degrees.

Initially,Pollock curtailed the effects of gravity physicallyby placing the canvas at precisely 90 degrees to its verticalpull. This is not to say that gravitational force could everliterally e turned off' byPollock or anyone else but thathe devised amode of operation whereby gravity's impact onthe horizontal displacement of poured paint, that is, alongthe plane of the canvas, was rendered as minimal as possible.Indeed, since gravityaffectsonly thepigment's vertical velocity by accelerating itdownward), itshorizontal motion whileinflightwas defined by Pollock's movements side to side. Inother words, the lateral (horizontal) velocity of the pigmentin free fallwas gravity independent. ven if the duration of itsfall, and thus the lag between Pollock's gesture and its recording on the canvas below, depended on themagnitude of



11/25


13 JoanMiro, Birth of theWorld, 1925, oil on canvas, 985AX78% in. (250.8 X 200 cm). The Museum ofModern Art,NewYork, acquired through an anonymous fund, the Mr. and Mrs.Joseph Slifka and Armand G. Erpf Funds, and by giftof theartist,1972 (artwork estate ofJoanMiro/Artists RightsSociety [ARS],New York; digital image The Museum ofModern Art/licensed by Scala, provided byArtResource, NY)

gravitational force, the fact remains that the paint's horizontalmotion was entirely freed from gravity.As signaled earlier, Pollock's tactic of laying the canvas onthe floor also released paint from gravity subsequent to itsimpact on the picture surface. Even as poured material moveswith constant horizontal velocity in the air, the situationchanges once the paint encounters a constraining surface ofany kind. The resultswould vary,of course, depending on theorientation of this surface.On an upright canvas, thepaintwhile still in liquid form would continue toaccelerate alongthepicture plane, causing runs and streaks (as inJoan Miro'sBirth of theWorld, Fig. 13). A similar effectwould ensue on anuneven or sloping ground (as inRobert Smithson's AsphaltRundown or Glue Pour, Fig. 14). By positioning the canvas flaton the floor (that is, at every point perpendicular to thedirection of gravity), Pollock chose the only orientation atwhich the paint would be prevented, as soon as it lands, fromaccelerating any further (discounting the small incursionsmade as it splashed or spread from a localized accumulation). In thisway, Pollock maintained exclusive control overthe motion most consequential for the poured marksnamely, the paint's horizontal motion and created a visualeffectaltogether different from the gravity-drivenmarks generated byMiro or Smithson.

14 Robert Smithson, Glue Pour, 1970, Vancouver, BritishColumbia. Destroyed (photograph Estate of RobertSmithson/ licensed byVAGA, provided by theJames CohanGallery,New York)

But whenever he reoriented the canvas to thewall, Pollockreintroduced gravity experientially y placing the image parallel to its vertical pull a position that, invariably, has amarked effect on the spectator's perception. Since free-falling objects accelerate only in one direction,52 gravitymakesus automatically and continuously aware of where up is inrelationship to down. When we peruse something on thefloor, by contrast, there are no absolute ways of detectingorientation, explaining whywe often lose our sense of direction while exploring unfamiliar territory,nd, once points ofreference are established, we can turn maps around, orienting them along the same axis as our itinerary, to help usnavigate our environment. Pollock worked under similar conditions, as Krasner remembered: Working around the canvas in the 'arena' as he called it there really was no absolute top or bottom. 53

Capitalizing on thisverydiscrepancy between our differentresponses to vertical versus horizontal orientations, Pollockplayfully,almost mischievously, used and subvertedgravity atthe same time. In effect and thismay be thefirst instance inthe history of art he displayed his works at an angle fromwhich they could not possibly have been executed. Yet Pollock realized how powerfully thisposition enhanced the effects of kineticism already achieved by pouring. When reoriented to thewall, themarks produced independently as faras is possible of gravity's vertical pull are repositionedwhere that very same up-versus-down orientation and unidirectional pull are experienced by the spectator as not justactive but inescapable. A twofold readjustment by 90 degrees,in other words, allowed Pollock to circumvent the effects ofgravityphysically,while displaying his work under conditionswhere gravity is instinctivelyfelt to be fully and continually



12/25


15 Pollock, Untitled1948-49, CR3: 783, enamel on paper,31 X 23 in. (78.7 X 58.4 cm). Stadeisches Kunstinstitut undStadtische Galerie, Frankfurt (artwork Pollock-Krasner Foundation /ArtistsRights Society [ARS],New York; photographprovided byAlex Matter)

operational. Had the paintings been painted on the wall,afterall, thepaint would have run or trickleddownward, as inMiro's Birth of theWorld (Fig. 13) an expectation tacitly,though firmly,held by the audience. Since a Pollock abstraction, with lines moving in all directions, betrays no sucheffect, thenwe experience itsmarks, ifonly on a cognitivelevel, as surprisingly liberated from the hold of gravity.Although the effect of subverting gravity, in the sense justelucidated, isparadigmatic of Pollock's classic abstractions

from 1947 to 1950, exceptions can be found even inworkscreated with the same technique. Untitled 1948-49 (Fig. 15),for example, evokes neither the sensations of kinetic energynor the effect of suspended gravity discussed above. Whataccounts for this difference? The piece was, after all, executed bymeans of Pollock's characteristic poured technique,with the attendant twofoldmanipulation of the picture'sorientation in play. Admittedly, the piece is conspicuouslyfigural, but why should this obviate the otherwise idiosyncratic advances obtained by painting on the floor? Largely,because the piece clearly lacks the broad, sweeping linesPollock deployed with such elan in classic paintings such asNumber 23 (Fig. 2), Full FathomFive (Fig. 27), or Number 1A,1948. The mandate imposed by figuration the need to out

16 Pollock, Number 27, 1951, enamel on canvas, 5534 X 73 in.(141.6 X 185.4 cm). Private collection (artwork PollockKrasner Foundation/Artists Rights Society [ARS],New York;photograph provided by theMarlborough Gallery, New York)

17 Pollock, Number 23, 1951/Frogman, 8% X 4714 in. (149 X120 cm). Chrysler Museum, Norfolk, Va. (artwork PollockKrasner Foundation/Artists Rights Society [ARS],New York;photograph provided by theChryslerMuseum)

line, however schematically, aspects of human anatomy nodoubt curtailed the full freedom and spontaneity of theartist's gestures, particularly the vigorous strokes orientedacross the canvas. Consequently, the lines in Untitled 1948-49look comparatively constrained and meticulous. For the be



13/25

THE SUBVERSION OF GRAVITY IN POLLOCK S ABSTRACTIONS

18 Pollock, Convergence: umber 10, 1952, oil on canvas, 7 ft.914 in. X 13 ft. (2.374 X 3.962 m). Albright-KnoxArt Gallery, Buffalo,N.Y., giftof SeymourH. Knox, 1956 (artwork Pollock-Krasner Foundation/Artists Rights Society [ARS],New York; photographprovided by theAlbright-KnoxArt Gallery)

holder, furthermore, the figural reference introduces the unidirectionality of gravity, anchoring the painting firmly longitsup-and-down axis. Intriguingly, the addition of a figurativeelement even this minimal was enough to preempt(withina gravitationally ordered context) the distinct, cognitive effect of perceiving poured marks as freed from gravitational force.

Pollock did not necessarily construe the experiential effects resulting from the reintroduction of figuration despite their apparent concession to the force of gravity asdetrimental. They simply represented another option afforded by thepoured technique. If figurativereferenceswerethe exception rather than the rule from 1947 to 1950, theirappearance from 1951 to 1953 proves more the rule than theexception (Figs. 16, 17). Pollock, moreover, frequently diluted his paint even further, letting it be absorbed into,rather than solidify atop, the canvas surface. Exactly howdifferent pigment choices, and particular diluting additives,contributed to the artist's stylistic nd technical experimentation remains to be fully explored, especially as the preciseidentification of Pollock's materials isonly now beginning tosee significant advances.54 Although Krasner rememberedthat he gotDu Pont tomake up very special paints forhim,and special thinners that were not turpentine, she was unaware of their precise constitution.55 Regardless, it has longbeen recognized that Pollock's proclivity from 1951 to 1953,in connection with the reintroduction of figural imagery,wasto substitute staining and puddling for more plastic and

tactile effects, and contained and localized marks formorerapid and unbroken linear trajectories. In combination withfigural references, such effects largelymitigated the sensations of dynamism and energy particular to the classicperiod. Predictably, patches of absorbed pigment signalmoredeliberate, slower gestures and result as much, if not more,from the paint's gradual interaction with theweave of thecanvas as from the artist's willful agency.However differently these compositional elements amalgamated in any individual piece, Pollock gauged their effectiveness on a case-by-case basis. If dissatisfied with a work inprogress, Krasner recalled, he wouldn't give up. . . . ewould just staywith it until itwas resolved for him. 56 Onesuchwork isConvergence: umber 10, 1952 (Fig. 18), a paintingwhose first campaign was no less monochromatic than themajority of Black Pourings of 1951-53, and might even haveresembled Number 27, 1951 orNumber 23, 1951 (Figs. 16, 17),since vestiges of figurationmay still be discernible in theupper-right quadrant. Presumably, this layer,by itself, id notmeet the artist's criteria for a successful, fully resolvedpainting, and he subsequently added white, red, yellow, andblue skeins to bring the composition to its current state. Ifthis reconstruction is at all persuasive, then Convergence,arguably, straddles the fence between the classic pouredpaintings of 1947-50 and the Black Paintings of 1951-53.Even if latent figural references have been obscured, andeven ifcharacteristically Pollockian whiplash curves appearwith some frequency, thework does not entirely recapture



14/25


19 Georg Baselitz, Les jeunesfilles d'Olmo II, 1981, oil oncanvas, 98 X 98% in. (249 X 250 cm). Musee National d'ArtModerne, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris (artwork GeorgBaselitz; photograph provided by the Reunion des MuseesNationaux/Art Resource, NY)

the sensations of vigorous activityand suspension of gravityemblematic of the artist's previous phase.These examples alone reveal not simply thewide range ofpictorial effects Pollock could generate, but the extent towhich the experiential sensations of suspending gravitythemselves subject to greater or lesser intensity were not aninescapable outcome of thepoured technique. For Pollock tohave conjured his signature effects, namely, the very sensations of energy and motion made visible, 57 itwas not sufficient todispense pigment freely in the air and reposition thecanvas perpendicularly to the direction of its fall. No lessrequisite was modifying the viscosity of his paint so as topermit the formation ofwell-defined, distinctly linear tracks,and deploying it in such a way that the artist's motion in thehorizontal emerges in sharpest relief.Only in combinationdid these deliberate (albeit intuitive) adjustments enablePollock to release his marks from the pull of gravityironically, the very force without which they could not havecome into being.Symmetry and Symmetry BreakingWhile Pollock's method of dispensing paint invitesan investigation of the mechanics of pouring, the three dimensionalityof his process invites an investigation of itsgeometricalproperties.58 A largelyunderappreciated but salient aspect ofPollock's employment of gravity in his classic abstractions isthat he chose the only possible orientation whereby no direction along the surface of his canvases was privileged in anyway. In practical terms,Pollock could rotate his horizontallylaid paintings or, equivalently, move around them while hepoured, with no change relative to the force of gravity. Inconceptual terms, the geometrical framework established by

his placing the canvas on the ground qualified his creativepractice as rotationally symmetric.This orientation changes everything. Gravity is themostreadily identifiable force shaping and defining our environment at a macroscopic level; of the four forces of nature,59only gravityhas a well-defined, locally specific direction instantly and continually felt by anyone on the planet.60 Assuch, this force provides a means of orientation, allowing usto distinguish even in darkness vertical from horizontal ortop from bottom.61 As noted earlier, it isprecisely the fixeddirection of gravityat any particular location on the surfaceof the Earth thatmakes this distinction possible: without it,words like up or down would be meaningless. Ifnot for acompass, we would have difficulty inferringhorizontal orientation, such as north from south,62 but we need no instrument to infervertical orientation, a truism that is reflected inart, especially representational art. We can speculate as towhether the window in, say,Vermeer's Music Lesson (166264) isfacing east orwest, but there isno danger ofmistakingwhether the pitcher is lyingon the table or the table on thepitcher. Comparably, although artists usually insist on aunique orientation when exhibiting their work Pablo Picasso and Morris Louis, among others, having made occasional exceptions to this rule63 theydo not usually prescribewhether theirwork should be displayed on the north or southwall of a gallery.64 This condition applies even to such acontrarian artist as Georg Baselitz (Fig. 19), whose insistenceon painting figures upside down is both powerful and disconcerting precisely because it runs afoul of the gravitationalorder of the world. To hang a Baselitz properly, that is,upside down, would rob it of itsraison d'etre.

Gravity, in other words, singles out one particular direction, and by imposing order on the vertical while leaving thehorizontal unordered, it breaks the symmetry of three-dimensional space. From this perspective, Pollock's decision todispense pigment with his canvas on the floor does morethan simply contravene the long-established tradition of easelpainting. His method also ensured rotational symmetry vis-avis gravity nd simultaneously achieved maximum freedom ofmotion and flexibilitywhile pouring. For these reasons, itmay have been logical for Pollock to paint circular canvases;he did, in fact, execute a tondo (CR2: 208, Fig. 20). Thischoice of format, however, was an exception: all pouredabstractions, but for this singular example, are rectangular inshape. To be sure, Pollock occasionally painted circular porcelain or chinaware bowls during his formative years (seeCR4: 916-25), but he broke the perfect symmetryof thespherical surface in each case by establishing a dominantpoint of view.65 From his earliest production, then, Pollockapparently never considered unbroken circular symmetry tobe a viable way of configuring his paintings.66 In Pollock'smature phase, his very choice of a rectangular canvas alsobroke circular symmetry, fonly by privileging four out of aninfinite number of equally viable orientations.67Even so, since the very positioning of the canvas on thefloor placed all four principal orientations on an equal footing, Pollock could keep an open mind as towhich of thesefour would ultimately prevail. For all intents and purposes,the horizontal placement of the canvas deferred thenecessityto commit to a final orientation while work was still in



15/25


20 Pollock, Tondo, 1948, oil and enamel on metal, diameter23% in. (58.7 cm). Private collection (artwork PollockKrasner Foundation /ArtistsRights Society [ARS],New York;photograph byMichael Tropea)

progress. Yet the artist had to come to a decision at somepoint. He may have approached a canvas with no predetermined plan inmind, but no sooner was a mark laid than acenter of attention was established and perfect symmetrybroken. Working within

the dictates of an allover compositional idiom, the artist compensated for these preliminarymarks by distributing additional accents throughout the canvas, thereby partially restoring the symmetrybroken by thefirst strike. By repeating this process, Pollock allowed thecompositional balance the easy give and take 68 of hispaintings to emerge. All the same, his improvisational manner ruled out perfect uniformity.As William Rubin alreadyobserved: The precarious poise of his all-over, single imageis achieved through the equally precarious balancing of virtually endless asymmetries. 69 In many cases, Pollock accepted and even enhanced these asymmetries, permittingcertain sections of particular pieces to prove more visuallydominant than others. Accordingly, roughly 40 percent ofPollock's twohundred or so poured abstractions seem tobemore heavily weighted in the lower register, a choice exercised, presumably, toprevent his canvases from looking topheavy, although, in some rare instances, this principle wascontravened.70While working on an individual piece, Pollockmost likely settled on itsfinal orientation inmidstream. Buthe always had the option till the lastminute to delay anyfinal decision regarding how thework should be exhibited.71This artistic license constituted an unusual turnabout: fortraditional easel painters, the very irstdecision is orientingthe canvas; forhim, itmay have been his lastSince, as signaled earlier, the inclusion of even the barestof figural outlines inevitably breaks the symmetryof thecomposition, this license and, more important, the experien

21 Morris Louis, Where, 1959-60, acrylic resin on canvas, 8 ft.3% in. X 11 ft. 10J/2n. (2.524 X 3.621 m). Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,D.C., Gift ofJoseph H. Hirshhorn 1966 (artworkMorris Louis; photograph byLee Stalsworth,provided by theHirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden)

tial effect of escaping gravity clearly depended on Pollock'sfaithful adherence to an abstract, allover idiom. The BlackPourings of 1951-53 offer a case inpoint. An upright humanbody, after all, displays approximate mirror symmetryin thevertical, but no such symmetry in the horizontal (conveniently, mirrors reverse our left and right, rather than our topand bottom, halves). Although highly rudimentary, the suggestion of a female torso inNumber 23, 1951 and the headand multiple anatomical fragments inNumber 27, 1951 (Figs.17, 16) not only break rotational symmetry,theyalso imposea definite orientation and gravitational order on thepiecesdeclaring, ifnot the intended positioning, then thework'sdominant axis. Even if figural elements are representedupside down, as inone, albeit exceptional, Black Pouring72and in many a Baselitz canvas rotational symmetry is unequivocally broken. Only by scrupulously avoiding recognizable shapes and by eliminating any such references if theycrept in 73 could Pollock ensure overall symmetry nd con

jure effects of unfettered dynamism in the spectator's imagination.

In the classic abstractions, then, Pollock's artistic processcan be described as a subtle interplay of both symmetricaland asymmetrical relations. He worked at an orientationsymmetrical in relation togravitybut introduced asymmetricpatterns by indulging the spontaneity of his armmovementsand letting the fluid instabilities f thepaint play out a practice, incidentally, thatwas conducive to the generation offractal patterns akin to those detected in complex, seemingly chaotic natural structures.74Yet if such unpredictabledynamics threatened to overwhelm his compositions withfragmentation and disorder, Pollock reestablished overallsymmetry by adhering to the mandate of allover composition.75And, to complete thisbalancing act, he exhibited his

canvases vertically in a manifestly asymmetrical position visa-vis gravity.



16/25


22 Pat Steir, Three Little Dragon Waterfalls, 1990, oil on canvas,60 X 48 in.Collection Flomenhaft Gallery (artwork PatSteir; photograph provided by theFlomenhaft Gallery)

Under the Pull of GravityTo be sure, the intricacies of the poured technique justoudined indulging symmetry-breakingversus imposing allover symmetry,working perpendicular versus exhibiting hiswork parallel to gravity are singular aspects of Pollock'spractice. But what demarcates his artistic idiom even moresharply from those of subsequent artistswho also workedwithin the field and under the swayof gravity is the concurrent employment and circumvention of this force.Like Pollock, Morris Louis (Fig. 21) and Paul Jenkinsmadepouring integral to theirworking methods, adjusting the flowof paint toplay a nearly autonomous role in theirart.UnlikePollock, however, who oriented his canvases either horizontally r vertically,Louis and Jenkins bent theirs into irregularsurfaces, reshaping them even as the color ran. By folding,pleating, gathering, and funneling, theydirected highly diluted pigment to channel in temporary grooves, run downinclines and curves, or pool in momentary basins. Capturinga wide multiplicity of transient gravitational flows, thesemaneuvers stand in sharp contrast to Pollock's. Whereas hismarks were gravity-independent, theirs were gravity-bound;whereas his escaped, theirs embraced the pull of gravity.Louis's and Jenkins's gravitationally driven flows, moreover,were relatively slow, even when compared with the BlackPaintings of 1951-53, but especially when contrasted with thestreams of paint generated either by the fastest thrusts ofPollock's arm or the rapid flicksof his wrist. As Pat Steir putit, To handle paint theway Pollock did, you need themus

cularityof a ballet dancer. 76 EvenWarhol, who repositionedhis Oxidation Paintings on the wall after executing them onthe floor, could not obtain the effects of velocity emblematicof Pollock's abstractions.Why? Because, his skill and dexteritynotwithstanding, Warhol still employed an instrumentthat, in comparison to Pollock's, did not permit a similarrange of horizontal movement at the very orientation, itwillbe recalled, where motion functions independently of gravity.Larry Poons and Steir (Fig. 22) also engaged the force ofgravity,yetwithout physicallymanipulating their canvases inany way. I depend on gravity, Steir declared, . .. [I] let thepaint hit the canvas, walk away and let itdo itsthing. 77Fromstart to finish, Poons and Steir kept their canvas on thewall parallel to gravity compelling paint to run along itsdirection and providing direct visual evidence of itsunidirectional attraction. In so doing, theyobtained the fastest gravity-drivenrivulets possible, with pigment running down thecanvas (rather than in free fall, as was Pollock's practice).These rivulets, however, were relatively limited in their evocation of kinetic energy, since the paint was retarded by itsinteraction with the canvas surface and most likelydepletedbefore reaching appreciable speed.78 Not surprisingly, Pollock himself generally avoided this effect. An exception isYellowIslands of 1952 (Fig. 23); although primarily executedhorizontally, its central clusterwas probably applied with thecanvas standing vertically, allowing the pigment to run as itwould in a Poons or Steir.79The raritywith which this combination is repeated inPollock's work suggests that the artistmay have viewed this concession (or partial relinquishing ofcontrol) to an external force at the center of Yellow Islandswith a certain degree of ambivalence; in thisparticular context, though, thepainting illustrates how drastically the visualimpact of a painting may alter depending on the way itsmaker employs gravity.80 Indeed, gauging their disparitiesside by side clarifies (perhaps more convincingly than anyother explanation) how themarks generated by Poons orSteir appear driven by, while those generated by Pollockappear free of, gravitational force.Pollock's skeins of paint, even from 1951 to 1953, supplydirect evidence of the force the artist willfully exerted toovercome the pigment's inertia,81a tactic in direct opposition to the passive mode of execution employed by eitherLouis, Jenkins, Poons, or Steir artists who permitted thepigment to flow down their canvases with far less interference. IfPollock's trajectories look active, freelydriven, predicated on human agency, their color fields look passive,

weighed down, surrendered to a deterministic process. AsKenneth Noland remembered, Louis wanted the appearance to be the result of the process of making it not necessarily to look like a gesture, but to be the result of realhandling. 82 As for Steir, she declared, I try to make paintings that make themselves. 83 Pollock was of an altogetherdifferentmind-set; forhim, accidents had tobe denied, andtotal control, 84 once asserted, was not to be forsworn.A reliance on gravitational force was no less crucial to thework of sculptors such as Linda Benglis (Fig. 24), RichardSerra (Fig. 25), and Robert Smithson (Fig. 14). Their strategyof generating painterly effects hinged on using materials

especially susceptible to deformation when poured or



17/25

THE SUBVERSION OF GRAVITY IN POLLOCK'S ABSTRACTIONS

23 Pollock, Yellow slands, 1952, oil oncanvas, 56M>X 73 in. (143.5 X 185.4cm). T teGallery, London (artworkPollock-Krasner Foundation/ArtistsRights Society [ARS],New York;photograph T teGallery, providedbyArt Resource, NY)

splashed: pigmented latex and polyurethane foam (Benglis),85 rubber and molten lead (Serra), or glue, asphalt, andgranular material (Smithson). Benglis, for example, described her works as hybrids somewhere between paintingand sculpture. 86 Like Pollock but unlike Louis, Steir, orPoons Benglis, Smithson, and Serra often worked on thefloor or ground, though, in some instances, on sloping terrain or scaffolding. Unlike Pollock, they arranged for theirmaterials to be dispensed almost passively, letting gravityacton thework with minimal intervention on theirpart; Benglis,Serra, and Smithson, furthermore, never intended to reorient theirpieces, neither while theirmaterials were still liquidnor after they solidified. As a consequence, the final shapesand configurations of their pourings are entirely consistentwith the way one would expect their materials to behave;there isno trace of Pollockian double play.The working methods of Eva Hesse (Fig. 26), Robert Morris, and again Serra (in his forged pieces) strike an evensharper contrast with Pollock's. Although critically dependent on gravitational force tomaintain shape and stability,the materials used whether rigid solids, flexible ropes, orvolatile steam made later repositioning either physicallyinconceivable, incompatible with the integrity f theirdesign,or both. What, after all, could be more absurd than attempting to reposition steam? The works of these sculptors,

moreover, are to various degrees impermanent and contingent on exhibition conditions: Morris's Minimalist sculptures are predicated on their particular placement within agallery or museum space; many of Serra's works are meant tobe site specific; Hesse's rope pieces and Morris's felt sculptures depend on the precise position of their suspensionpoints; and Morris's steam pieces are, arguably, among themost ephemeral sculptures conceivable. In Serra's words,the form of thework in itsprecariousness denied the notionof a transportable object, subverting the self-referential, self

righteous notion of authority and permanence of objects. 87

24 Linda Benglis, EatMeat, 1975, cast aluminum, 24 X 80 X54 in. (61 X 203.2 X 137.2 cm), LB-157-SC, Collection PaulaCooper Gallery (artwork Linda Benglis; photograph provided by the Paula Cooper Gallery)

Irrespective of the materials they chose or the methodsused to shape them, the post-Minimalists and earthwork artists shared amarked predilection for directness and transparency. As Eva Hesse put it, I. . .have a strong feeling abouthonesty and in the process, I like to be . . . true to whateverI use, and use it in the least pretentious and most directway. 88 This directness and transparency extended to thevarious ways they relied on, and compensated for, the effects of gravitational force. Once complete, their sculptureswould obviously prove unstable (likeMorris's steam) unlessother forces counteracted the pull of gravity. InHesse's ropepieces, for example, gravity is balanced by the tension in thecords (tensile forces); in Serra's props, by friction; in thelatter's early, forged structures, and in Smithson's mirror andsand pieces, by both friction and the normal force. Normal



18/25


25 Richard Serra, Splashing, 1968, lead, 1 ft. 6 in. X 26 ft.(45.7 X 792.48 cm), installation,CastelliWarehouse, NewYork. Destroyed (artwork Richard Serra/ArtistsRightsSociety [ARS],New York; photograph byGianfranco Gorgoni)

force refers to the force exerted by a surface on an object incontact with it,hindering the object's breaking through thesurface in question (such as the upward force of the floorexerted on any object placed on it).89By relying overtly ontensile, frictional, and normal forces tomaintain stabilityand, to a lesser degree, on the internal stresses in theirstructural elements these artists were able to arrange theirmaterials in readily intelligible configurations. Inmost ofmywork, Serra professed, the construction and decision-making processes are revealed. Material, formal, and contextualdecisions are self-evident. 90 By comparison, Pollock's approach his use, escape from, and reinsertion of gravity ismore complex, nuanced, and crafty. To be sure, criticsand historians have long recognized the originality of Pollock's contribution, but even among those select artistswhoconceded a defining role in their art to gravity,Pollock stillengaged that force in so idiosyncratic away as toplace him ina category all his own.Art and MetaphorPollock's singularitynotwithstanding, one final question remains: Why did he risk subverting gravitywhile other artistswho employed itno less integrally than he did not? He couldhave exhibited his canvases on the floor. This would haveconstituted an unorthodox choice, no doubt, but from ancient mosaics to rugs not tomention the Indian sand painterswith whose techniques he recognized a close kinship91there was no shortage of precedents on which to draw.Krasner's recollections confirm, however, that Pollock intended his works to be viewed on thewall,92 the orientation,as noted above, where the illusion ofmotion and evocation ofenergywould be most effective.But itmay also be argued thateven ifhis technique required working in concert with gravity, e circumvented its effects in order to suggestmeaningsthat artists such as Serra and Smithson sought to avoid.Pollock, byhis own admission, construed technique only as a

26 Eva Hesse, Untitled, 1969-70, latex over rope, string, wire,2 strands, dimensions variable. Whitney Museum of AmericanArt,New York, Purchase, with funds from Eli and Edythe L.Broad, the Mrs. Percy Uris Purchase Fund, and the PaintingandSculpture

Committee (artwork and photographEstateof Eva Hesse; photograph provided byHauser & Wirth Z richand London)

means of arriving at a statement.' Like many artists of theNew York school, he expected his works to conform to anabstract idiom yet connote something more than what hismaterials denoted literally. mong his contemporaries, itwasperhaps Clyfford Still who articulated this ambition mostemphatically: I never wanted color to be color. I neverwanted texture to be texture, or images to become shapes. Iwanted them all to fuse into a living spirit. 94

Similarly, Pollock hoped his paintings would convey aspects of the external world not in terms of an illustrationbut in terms of what he and other Abstract Expressionistscalled an equivalent. 95 When Pollock declared: my concern iswith the rhythmsof nature, 96 he did not mean thathis works referenced natural phenomena by imitating theappearance of clouds, oceans, or rivers ( I try, he stated, tostayaway from any recognizable image; if tcreeps in, I try odo away with it. . . , 97); what he meant, rather, was that hisworks were intended to create visual equivalents for the underlying dynamism of nature.98 The wayAbstract Expressionist rtistsunderstood the equivalent isremarkably similar tohow cognitive linguistsdefine metaphor. 99Metaphors, afterall, do not describe literal characteristics but establish relationships relationships of equivalence.

Devising a conceptual framework for this idea, the linguistEve Sweetser has persuasively contended thatour intellectualway of construing the external world and of describing emotional states develops according to metaphorical projections fromphysical experience. Without drawing an analogical relation between the two, she reasons that we referencephysical situations to express psychological states becauseboth have numerous experiential links drawing them together. 100 Verbs such as to seize, to grasp, or to captureare obviously descriptive of physical experience: we physicallyseize, grasp, or capture objects in our daily encounters withour environment. The same verbs are frequently employed todenote nonphysical, mental, r emotive states as in seize



19/25


an opportunity, grasp an idea, or capture a meaning,expressions through which they acquired new, metaphoricmeanings. In thisway, the universality and tangibilityof thephysical realm are recruited to express the properties of themore nebulous and intangible psychological realm. Since weknow what itmeans to seize an object physically,we relyonthisknowledge to interpretwhat ismeant when someone sayshe or she has seized an opportunity. Significantly, thesemappings are constrained; for ametaphor to strike the rightnote, we need to construe these activities as having experiential links in common.If theAbstract Expressionists conceptualized equivalenceas analogous tometaphor, then these artists projected meanings on the physical sensations elicited by their work in acomparable way. Pollock would have construed the effectsofdynamism evoked by his canvases not simplyas a celebrationof the act of painting but as a metaphor or equivalentfor some other order of experience. To be sure, he enjoyedgreat latitudewhen constructing or refining the implicationsof his canvases during postcreative contemplation. When Iam inmy painting, he conceded, I am not aware of what Iam doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' periodthat I see what I have been about. 101 Nonetheless, those

meanings like the metaphorical projections mentionedby Sweetser must have been constrained by the physicalsensations he feltwere being conveyed by his work. Given hisidentification with and affinity ornature (Pollock's relationship to nature, according to Krasner, was intense.. .. Heidentified very stronglywith nature 102), itwould hardly besurprising ifhe associated the impulsive rhythmof his workwith the rhythmic pulse of the natural world.Steir, Serra, and Smithson clearly took an altogether different tack; by employing their materials literallynd nonmetaphorically, they shunned representational or symbolicallusions. Steir felt that her work was not complicated . . .thepaintings are,what actually is paint falling. 103 I am notinterested, Serra declared, in sculpture that conventionalizes metaphors of content. 104 The contrast was especiallyunderscored by Smithson: Jackson Pollock's art, he wrote,tends towards a torrential sense of material that makes hispaintings look like splashes of marine sediments. Deposits ofpaint cause layersand crusts that suggest nothing 'formal' butrather a physical metaphor without realism or naturalism.Full Fathom Five [Fig. 27] becomes a Sargasso Sea, a denselagoon of pigment. . . . 105 hus, although Pollock intendedno realistic or representational allusion to natural phenomena, he sought to establish a link, as Smithson observed,exclusively on themetaphoric plane (the artist,according toKrasner, once told her, I saw a landscape the likes of whichno human being could have seen 106). It isprecisely this formof reference that Smithson or Serra rejected. Smithson feltthat the evocations of nature constantly.. . lurking in Pollock . . . [presented] a problem . .. [something] somehowseething underneath all those masses of paint. In counterdistinction, he utilized materials in a way that, in his ownwords, was abstract and devoid of any mythological content. 107Accordingly, Smithson and Serra manipulated theirmaterials in a literal as opposed to referential manner. In this

spirit, theydecided to leave their splashings, scatter pieces,

27 Pollock, Full FathomFive, 1947, oil on canvaswith nails,tacks, buttons, keys, combs, cigarettes, matches, and so on,50% X 30% in. (129.2 X 76.5 cm). The Museum of ModernArt,New York, Gift of Peggy Guggenheim (artwork PollockKrasner Foundation /ArtistsRights Society [ARS],New York;photograph licensed by Scala, provided byArt Resource, NY)

and earthworks on the floor rather than tamperwith them inany way (Figs. 14, 25). For an abstract sculpture, of course,the distinction between a horizontal or vertical orientation, or between a piece left in its original position orrepositioned, may be less obvious.108 A number of Smith

son's or Serra's works could conceivably have been reconfigured vertically and, in some cases, fastened to the wall.But such repositioning would compromise the intent of thesepieces and, more to the point, render their configurationssusceptible tometaphorical projection, a condition the creators expressly sought to avoid. Subsequently, pieces thatinclude prominent vertical components and meticulous arrangements Serra's Prop (1968) orHouse ofCards (1969), forexample are more likely, as their titles indicate, to be construed associatively. This predicament also applies to Steir'sWaterfalls: even as she saw her materials to be nothing but



20/25


28 Mark Rothko, Green and Tangerine on Red, 1956, oil on canvas, 931/2 691/s n. (237.4 X 175.5 cm). Phillips Collection,Washington, D.C. (artwork Kate Rothko Prizel & Christopher Rothko /ArtistsRights Society [ARS],New York; photograph provided by thePhillips Collection)

paint falling, the artist conceded that some of her works didlook like a picture ofwater falling. 109When repositioned on a wall, further,any object ormaterial ismore easily reinscribed within an aesthetic framework.As Clement Greenberg declared, the look of non-art was nolonger available to painting, since even an unpainted canvasnow stated itself as a picture. Consequently, the borderlinebetween art and non-art had to be sought in the threedimensional, where sculpture was, and where everything material that was not art also was. 110 It therefore stands toreason that whereas Smithson and Serra exhibited theirworks as theywere created, Pollock did not. Displayed vertically, his work would be firmly relocated within aestheticrather than nonaesthetic territory,nd thepursuant effect ofsubverting gravity, detracting from the literal matter-of-factness of his materials, was more likely to encourage the verykind of kinesthetic participation Pollock himself engaged inwhile perusing works of art, and which he hoped would alsobe triggeredwhenever anyone perused his own. These physical sensations, in turn, would encourage the spectator toinitiate the process of metaphorical projection the sameprocess, presumably, on which Pollock himself relied whenconstructing themeanings of his work.What this implies, on a more practical level, is thatwhen

ever we contemplate a Pollock abstraction, our eyes will startfollowing the linear trackson the canvas, just aswe tend tofixour gaze on anymoving object (cognitive psychologists callthis tendency trajectory tracking 1 ). As suggested earlier, athinning and a thickening line is involuntarily interpreted asan index of acceleration and deceleration; yet, as one perusesPollock's works, no sooner are lines tracked in a particulardirection and a definite orientation assigned to themthan theycrisscross,merge, overlap, run off the edge of theframe, or simply end. With the spectator's gaze repeatedlyskipping fromone thread to another in a haphazard way, noindividual mark is likely to compel attention for long; thus,any particular line is as likely tobe followed inone as in theopposite direction. Projecting a particular orientation on anyspecific line, therefore, proves not just provisional but reversible, and as soon as that orientation is reversed, the line'svisual impactmay alter in a decisive way. Contingent on thedirection the viewer happens to select, the skeinsmay alternatively look leaden, sinking, drooping or, conversely,buoyant, floating, and soaring. No matter how subjec

tive, or descriptive of mental states rather than actual conditions, all of thesemetaphorical projections are nonethelessextrapolated from our physical experiences with gravity: indeed, these epithets describe gravitational phenomena parexcellence.112

Irrespective of how provisional or reversible these spatiotemporal projections may be, there isone aspect of Pollock'spictorial language thatproves far less open to interpretation.By appearing energetic, mutable, and restless, hispoured paintings call up physical sensations of overcominginertia. As a result, they hardly lend themselves to be construed as lethargic, inflexible, or placid. On the contrary, ollockian trajectories bring tomind swift nd swirlingcurrents, or turbulent flows of liquid akin to those in Leonardo's drawing (Fig. 9). In fact,when acknowledging hisconcern with the rhythms of nature, Pollock specificallyreferenced the way the ocean moves. 113 It is their verydependence on the recording and evocation of fluid dynamics, therefore, thatmake Pollock's abstractions such effectivemetaphors for concepts or experiences we associate with thepropagation of energy especially thepropagation of energyin the natural world.114

Against such a background, Pollock provides an instructivecontrast to Mark Rothko, a fellow Abstract Expressionistwhose work isno lessmetaphoric and no less dependent onthe physical sensations associated with gravitational force.Unlike Pollock, of course, Rothko did not relyon gravity inthe actual process of painting. All the same, themetaphoricmeanings projected on his work arise from the viewer's propensity to superimpose gravitational order on his canvasesin particular, the expectation that heavier objects settlebelow lighter ones, and fluids of larger beneath those ofsmaller density.115 For this reason, Rothko's Green and Tangerine onRed (Fig. 28) where an intensely dark green rectangular area rests atop a markedly brighter, reddish onewill likelystrikea spectator as untenable. On the experientiallevel, Rothko's composition seems unstable, unbalanced,even frustrated. These physical states, in turn, will provoke emotional responses that count, in Sweetser's sense, asexperientially linked. High is invariably connected with



21/25


what ispositive and dominant, low withwhat isnegative andsubservient: the elect ascend to heaven but the damned plummet into hell; the brave rise to the occasion but the overconfident fall flat on their face; the conscientious live up toexpectations, but the indolent letothers down.116Within thisframework, the placement of the darker above the lighterarea inRothko's painting will appear burdensome, oppressive, even ominous. In fact, Rothko himself described thelowermeasure as the happier side of living and the highermeasure as the black clouds and worries that always hangover us. 117 In thismanner, both Pollock and Rothko couldbe said to generate metaphoric projections by using thephysical as an analog to the psychological.118 But each in adifferentway and for a different purpose: whereas Rothkoforegrounds gravity,Pollock conceals it;whereas Rothko indulges our expectations, Pollock confounds them.Viewed in this light, the subversion of gravity emerges asinstrumental to the artist's overall strategy. It solved important practical problems, reinforced themost salient visualcharacteristics of his work, kept his process from transgressing the domain of the aesthetic, and underpinned hisbroader strategy of constructing and communicating meaning. Still, it is ironic that in evoking nature all the moreeffectively, ollock endeavored to obfuscate itsmost readilyobservable force. No doubt perplexing, this conundrum isnonetheless reminiscent of a gravitational effect that, at firstglance, seems no less counterintuitive: if an elevator severedfrom its cable accelerates down a shaft, the passengers floating inside will, ifonly momentarily, enjoy the sensation of

weightlessness. Pollock's art (without subjecting his audienceto imminent danger) presents a comparable paradox; he mayhave enlisted gravity, ut he concealed its ffects.His methodof dispensing pigment was inconceivable without gravitational force, yet his poured trajectories appear to accelerateand decelerate, advance and retreat, dash and swerve, allbeyond its reach.

Even so, these illusions of motion were never meant tofunction as ends in themselves. In fact, these very sameillusions provoked a multiplicity of readings, even amongcritics determined to locate Pollock's work firmlywithin abroader socioh

Documents

Pollock Subversion Gravity