« 1951: First colour ball game on TV | Main | 1956: Riots in Beverly Hills »

11 August 1956: Jackson Pollock paralized

Abstract artist Jackson Pollock was paralyzed in a car accident. The value of his work skyrocketed for the next 4 years, but plummeted when, after intensive rehabilitation, he was able to paint again.

Jackson Pollock (1912-1956) [Biography]

convergence, 1952
Convergence, 1952

In reality, Pollock was killed when he crashed while driving his Cadillac between taverns near his home on Long Island, New York on August 11, 1956.

Posted by Michel Vuijlsteke in Alternate Entertainers | Permalink


could someone please tell me how Jackson Pollock created convergence?

Posted by: Gloria | Apr 1, 2005 11:25:25 PM

Jackson Pollock spread his canvas on the floor, turned on music and began to drip paint on the canvas. That is how he created convergence.

Posted by: Teri | May 28, 2006 2:19:16 AM

OK, so I don't by all that 'fractal' crap, and everyone knows that a semi-coordinated chimp could do one of these. But Pollock's work is fun to look at! Stare at it a few moments, and watch recognizable figures emerge. Then compare his works and see if you don't see these fantasy figures recur in other of his paintings...

Posted by: BGwinettMulroney | Jun 7, 2007 8:09:18 AM

Teri, u make me sick! i have to do a painting in the style of Pollock for a school report, and trust me, it's NOT as easy as it looks. u have to have the right type of paints, the right shades, right surface, right paper/canvas, etc. and u can't just splash it on there! u have to make recognizable shapes, fill the whole page, and create an image out of it. try it sometime and find out for yourself. Jackson Pollock was an amazing painter, and i don't even like paintings!

Posted by: Bellz | Oct 30, 2007 11:12:53 PM

well that was odd. it put my post (Bellz) under BGwinettMulroney! weird...

Posted by: Bellz | Oct 30, 2007 11:14:59 PM

Teri sounds like some one who doesn't know anyting about abstract expressionism or aesthetics!

Posted by: Rose | Nov 30, 2007 4:05:04 AM

SORRY TERI! that last post actually goes out to Gloria! SORRY TERI :(

Posted by: Rose | Nov 30, 2007 4:06:21 AM

He may be a great painter, but to tell you the truth this convergence looks a lot like a picture that my grandson did when he was 2 year old.

Posted by: Lillie Garrett | Aug 29, 2008 2:28:12 AM

Jackson Pollock Has some moves to stand over a canvas and guide the paint to form lines and be able to make seance of it when your done , is quit remarkable. take a look at the orange line how it comes off the canvas and then comes back its like looking at a map.The yellow is like stationary buildings the blue is where the sky brakes threw and the black is shaded just enough to make you think of landscaping and the white is the balance. I don't know thats just what I see.

Posted by: Karen | Feb 8, 2009 5:50:51 AM

Super post, Need to mark it on Digg

Thank you

Posted by: AnnaHopn | Mar 1, 2009 9:22:21 PM

I see a few comments about recognizable figures appearing, or being painted. While you can always make your own associations with a painting like this, one of the key ideals behind abstract expressionism was a retreat from art as a representation of anything in nature.

Personally I think it's all a bunch of bull, what should have been a brief movement hyped up by warring art critics (Greenberg and Rosenberg at the time, Rosenberg championing DeKoonig's work)has somehow STILL proved popular today.

This does not take anything more than a basic working knowledge of 2d design and an ability to sell yourself, which is sad because Pollock was actually a very talented painter in his younger years.

Posted by: Chris | Mar 10, 2009 4:46:12 AM

The work of modernists, influenced by primitive art, could be compared to that of children in that "child art transforms itself into primitivism, which is only the child producing a mimicry of himself.”(Rotko, 1936) Despite the fact that Rothko did not consider himself an Abstract Expressionist, I think he defined it with the right words. Pollock used commercial house paint when creating his pieces because he like the fluidity of the paint. He believed in working from all sides of the canvas, being in the painting.An it is not as easy as it looks numerous artist have tried to duplicate Pollock and failed miserably. Are his painting not art because they aren't a bowl of fruit or a portrait? Who are we to criticize what is or isn't art, it is someone's creation therefore it is a work of art. I admire abstract art because it expresses who the artist is his thoughts, emotions,and beliefs brought to life in a sea of colors. Colors represent a blending of the feelings our emotions invoke, Pollock had an undeniable talent for expressing his individuality.

Posted by: Cara | Mar 12, 2009 12:00:52 AM

Where are you from? Is it a secret? :)

Thank you

Posted by: AlexAxe | Mar 17, 2009 11:58:27 AM

Well, it is unquestionable that Pollock was talented. However, considering that art is supposed to be enjoyed, I do not consider his work "great" art. Some people enjoy abtract art, but it requires great depth and understanding to really appreciate his art. It is good, but compared to some other art, I do not believe it is great. He was talented and somewhat unique, but when I look at Dali's and Escher's works... there just isn't a comparison.

Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 23, 2009 3:48:46 PM

Well, this ainting has drawn alot of peoples ttention. nd now mine. I am in a college art class and I have to explain and support two reasons why this iece of art is important. Can anyone help me.

Posted by: Tina | Sep 23, 2009 5:55:06 AM

I am an artists, but are we ALL not artists in our own right but also defined by others who say what we create is art? Jackson Pollock to me was a creationists who's style
and works were decreed art.Now weather you like it,call it great or mundane is your opinion.As for me viewing his works has helped free my mind and I am doing a few works in tribute to him.

Posted by: clyde | Nov 2, 2009 1:55:42 AM

Brilliant! What a great read. That was a good post - informative but not too heavy. Thanks for taking the time out to write it! I think spirituality is really important too, we certainly agree on that point. A leader without spirituality is missing a key element.

Posted by: Jordan 14 shoes | May 11, 2010 10:42:12 AM

Mr. Pollock felt alot of pain from the depression era. That is probably why he drank so much; I really don't know.He did grow up in a liberal State and then came to New York. He might have felt the pain of others and seeing different struggles in his and other people lives. Hanging out in Greenwich village help molded his peaceful and unrestful sensibilties. He couldn't control his emotions, and painting in his style; which he created was a way to share what he was envisioning. We must look deep in the mind of an emotional person by viewing and staring at his works of art.

Posted by: Rudy | Aug 20, 2010 5:05:53 AM

It's non-representational, deep and dark. Someone is always watching us, you, and everybody. People have to be careful where they walk and on who's toes. By accident of course; wanting to be free spirited and sometimes we are not allowed to be who we want. Make a stand. Set your own standard or goals. People are going fast to nowhere.

Posted by: Rudy | Aug 20, 2010 5:19:31 AM