F L U X A H E D R A flowing forms

I am shamed to admit, I only just discovered Lee Krasner.  It is an inconvenient truth that big names in art are not necessarily testaments to talent in so much as they knew the right people.  In the case of Krasner, she knew the right people; she was the wife of Jackson Pollock.

I recently rented Ed Harris’ film, “Pollock”.  In it, Lee’s character struck me with as much admiration as compassion.  The film portrayed her as Pollock’s heroine; a remarkable wife devoted to promoting his career as a ground breaking American modern painter.  Lee was also a remarkable painter although she is not recognized for it to the degree we associate with Pollock.  In the film, Lee’s character exhibits her as both ambitiously creative as well as intelligently critical.

Similar to the originality Pollock represented on the canvas, his psychotic alcoholism contributed to his unconventional character.  Pollock was rarely capable of verbally supporting the aims, influence and significance of his work.  Lee however was exceedingly well versed in the politics and formal dialogue vital to modern painting.

The conviction Lee held for Pollock’s talent is regarded as the key to his success.  Where Pollock led a self-destructive life with wildly unruly manners, Lee stood close and picked up all the pieces that would amount to his success.

In the film, Lee politely allowed her art to remain on the backburner as she testified the brilliance of Pollock’s work to Peggy Guggenheim.  Moments after entering their apartment, Peggy’s eye caught an “L.K.” painting.

“L.K., who the hell is L.K.?  I didn’t come to see L.K.”

Lee promptly led Peggy in to Pollock’s studio and began her declaration of Pollock’s abstract.

“Now, these show something” (Peggy)

“The most powerful work to come around the pike, there’s no three ways about it…  What’s most impressed Jackson about the European moderns….is their concept that the source of art comes from the unconscious” (Lee)

Pollock’s devotion to Lee was never noted in the film, on occasion he recognized the invaluable role she held in his life and career, but only during his initial visit to her studio did he remark on her painting.  Understandably, the film is titled “Pollock” not “Krasner” but after viewing the film about seven times I moved on feeling the need to shine a light on Lee Krasner.

I am disappointed none of my art history professors felt compelled to use Krasner as a portrait of an American modern painter, directly influenced by Mondrian or Matisse.

In fact, they never mentioned her in reference to anyone.

Something I have been thinking about is the burden some women carry through their ingrained desire to care for others.  I grew up watching my mother play a similar part as Krasner.  My stepfather, Frank Arcuri, is a relatively successful still life painter.  Day in and day out, Frank is expected to paint, and everything else is taken care by my mother.

Every once in a while my mother decides to join the working world.  The results are always humorous to me.  Frank will blankly stare in the refrigerator unsure where to even begin.  After a couple of week’s worth of pizza lunches his frustrations get the best of him and he begs my mother to stop working.

I too have been found guilty of this ingrained desire to care for others.  In retrospect I am sickened by my blinded ambitions and pray that this revelation prevents any future circumstances of allowing my art to simmer on the back burner.

In consideration of Pollock, I must say I loved this quote:

“How do you know when a painting is finished?’ (interviewer)

“How do you know when your finished making love?” (Pollock)