Jackson Pollock is probably my favorite abstract (or modern or whatever you want to call it) artists. The man was tormented beyond words and went into a sort of trance as he painted. I'd cover every wall in my house with his work before I ever hung a single Royo or Vallejo. Those two are good for what they do, but there's no depth to their stuff. It's just commercial art - eye candy for little boys to drool over and comic book publishers and video game houses to make fortunes from, and in a hundred years no one will care about them or remember their names because there's a million and one other artists out there producing the exact same thing. 

I've never quite got Jackson Pollock (I should try harder) -- and I think this is most likely because I've never seen one "in person". I'm told they are very powerful when you actually get to behold them. Like Mark Rothko (whose stuff is dismal in photographs) only even more so. On that note, I remember wondering what the big deal with Van Gogh was, until I saw one of his "bowls of flowers".  The collection that came to this city was one of the most expensive (it included some Cezanne, Matisse, Dufy -- and several others). But the Van Gogh was the only one behind glass. A smallish and very unassuming, humble painting. And yet looking through that glass was like looking at a terrarium. The flowers were alive. Because of the texture of the brush strokes, I guess some paintings react to light in ways that can never be reproduced except by a skilled forger who copies them stroke by stroke. I expect Pollock's paintings are similar in many ways. The light becomes almost like a living thing...

---

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.