Decoding Jackson Pollock

This is a engrossing story and brings such a huge and fresh insight into the fascination with Pollock. I never even knew Thomas Hart Benton was Pollock's teacher. They are so different I wouldn't think they even fit in the same sentence. I LOVE the slideshow game! What a great idea. Bravo! I don't think it really matters if you buy into the notion that the letters are there or not. It is sort of like finding shapes in clouds. I clearly see the "S-O-N" and that does not feel like a coincidence. Pollock is so difficult to enjoy in reproduction. You sort of just glance at it and think, "I've seen this before." I like to think about how devastatingly new this art must have been when the canvas was still wet and when I'm lucky enough to see a Pollock in person it is filled with all that explosive energy. I think Henry Adams' discovery is intriguing and whether you see the letters or not if it makes you take a little more time to closely examine one of the greatest painters of the 20th century. This is a fabulous outcome. There is so much in a Jackson Pollock to enjoy! I would love to see the painting in person and look for the hidden letters.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Looks to me like another example of seeing what you want to see, like the "face" on Mars.

Using my imagination and the same 'font' as in the slide show, I was able to see my name as well as "Smithsonian" and countless other words and messages.

I could probably find anything I wanted to in that huge array of squiggles. It is an intesting theory, and quite feasible.

Nope, I agree with Steve Isaacson. It's a stretch.
..
..
But I do think I see "Number 9". ;-)

Just a gigantic Ink Blot that satisfies the postmodern will to see what one wants without objective reference.

Stare at floor tiles long enough and a myriad of options appear by creative eisegesis.

Pollock may have had a purpose in what he did, but for postmoderns to decipher that is, per their own dicta, an illicit enterprise.

But, then, that is what has made art criticism the laughing stock of academia -- and sobre-minded people.

The theory is pure balderdash.

This is an interesting theory from both artistic and historical perspectives. For those two reasons the mural should be scientifically analyzed. The results should be unambiguous.

Of course it is possible that Pollack did the painting in such a way as for it to "appear" to give the impression he did this, without actually having done so. I believe there is a French term for it... something about "fool the eye."

As an aside, this painting reminds me of those eye tests that determine color blindness. I wonder how a color blind person would see the painting?

As far as I am concerned who cares? Art is a creation by an artist. The interesting thing is that people try to find symbolic meaning in things when in fact there may not be any meaning. The Virgin Mary was found in a grilled cheese sandwich. Was it really her or was it just a random pattern created by grease? What kind of Cheese was it? We must know what she favored. Maybe Jackson Pollock couldn't figure out where to start his painting and so he spelled his name on the canvas. So what? Maybe he didn't want anyone to steal his canvas, so he wrote his name across it. Maybe he was lacking creativity at the moment he wrote that, if it is, in fact, there. Archeologist discover bits of things and create a story of how they became. How close are they to what really happened? I guess only another archeologist could tell you. It is all just speculation anyway you look at it. It seems the more educated people become, the further out in left field they go and the problem is they don't realize how far out there they have gone. Because people are highly educated, others assume they know what they are talking about. And so we have establish facts where previously there were none. Are we really progressing or just going around in a big circle? I am not convinced Clement Greenburg had anything more than an opinion. Portland, Or Museum got a lot of his collection and I just didn't see what he saw in the paintings. Maybe I am just ignorant. At least I still have my own opinion.

The term you're looking for is "trompe l'oeil" -- also a common technique in late 19th and early 20th century art. One artist famous for such tricks was the great M.C. Escher. (I'm a math person by trade -- people like me love Escher's works.)

In this case, I agree with the people who liken this to the "face on Mars" -- you see what you want to see. Doesn't take away from the work itself, though.

I see little doggies and kitties, too and perhaps the stoning of St. Paul. But seriously, it is an abstraction built around a symbol, a self reference. It is also a play on an artist's signature for the painting is signed before it is painted and the painting in some respects is the signature. If true, it is Pollock who had the last laugh.

When discussing the idea that art evolves within a cultural context, I often draw a huge random "doodle" for my students. We then discuss how our culture inclines us to organize the random shapes into images we "recognize." Sure, Pollock might have written his name in the painting, but it seems equally likely that he didn't. It would be hard to prove intention just from the image. Has Mr. Adams, in his research for the book, found some reason why Pollock would hide his name in the image? That might make an article of more interest.

If the commentary istablish that this men is one of the greatest painters of the 20th century, it is insulting all the rest.

Like a painter he was a good artisan, who founded a way to expres himself, create an original form of cover a fabric with paint, but not a complete artist in the extensive meaning of the word.

We can compare your discovery in the painting, with the message in Beatles songs, going back the celuloide disc, or seeing LSD drug name in Lucy in the sky with diamonds.

Calder was an artist, or many others, Pollock is far from this capacities.

The relationship between art and play are not new: as play, art works from rules and devices, exercises and interpretations.... and there is more to find. Pierre Francois Puech

Chances are Jackson Pollock was in high frenzy, elevated on some kind of drugs when he scrawled paint across this canvas that he didn't know what he was all about.

Painters have made hidden images throughout the ages.

I have a marvelous Willem de Kooning painting that without question has 172 eventually recognizable deliberately delineated images it that the previous owner thought to be completely non-objective.

Muldoon Elder

Before I even got to the second page, I looked at the right side and the "SON" immediatly jumped out at me. Then, I found my self laughing as the rest of the lettering became clear. If it is by chance, then I guess I am guilty of making what I want to out of it. But, I was totally surprised when I spotted the lettering so quickly.

DH

I laughed at Wofford Wilkes comment. I don't buy it either. Jackson Pollack, for me, always has been and always will be an enigma. Part of Abstract Expressionism, as a movement, was the moving away from figuration. However, I do see lots of birdies.

Have you seen the analysis of Pollock's drip paintings using fractal geometry? Here is a URL of a brief summary:

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_9_20_99.html

There was also an article in Scientific American a few years ago (December 2002?) about this analysis. Another look at it suggests the fractal analysis doesn't actually hold up:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/41944/title/Nevermind_the_Pollock_fractals

But who knows?

Bravo (and Brava to your wife). Very elegant. I don't remember the name of the theory that concerns obvious solutions getting precedence over complicated ones.

In my opinion (as someone who created art for many years), positing that an artist writes his name to start off a painting does not detract from Pollock's accomplishment, as the piece does evolve so much from its start as you have surmised. And finally this is still a masterwork.

I think your theory has a lot of really interesting implications and makes me think about the connections between written language and the arts. To be very simplistic, I understand that any written arabic language is deemed to be an expression of the divine, and that certainly would dovetail with generally accepted ideas of what art means.

My question is what was he drinking when he developed this idea? Or is the question what was he smoking? I think if you stare at this long enough, you can find anything. Ink blots anybody?

I saw the painting differently after reading the suggestion that it might include the name "Jackson Pollack". Now it brings to mind an illustrated Medieval manusacript, with heavy black letters filled in and surrounded by stained glass colored illustrations.

Since when is the artist's name a secret message ? You could also probably find all the US president's names in this painting if you looked long and hard enough. This story is kind of a stretch.

I see his name too, though multiple times, not just the once shown. And why not? If it is true that he used his name as the basis for the painting, then why not many times? Or maybe I see too many images in clouds.

I know he wouldn't be the first artist to use hidden images (by many hundreds of years), but if he truly embedded his name in this mural, does that make Jackson Pollock the first advertiser to use subliminal messages to push his brand name?

So amny varied opinions! I can appreciate that he took one more step into abstract impressionism but only a step. We artists are always looking for that step and hoping for the discovery. Many of us have written messages in our art work, hidden and quite obvious. This is a fun exercize but not really worth writing a book about Balderdash may not be my comment but a "that's nice" comment could suffise. Midgehyde.com

Why do secret messages? The painting is what you interpret to be. The mood or tone I get is confusion and perhaps discort.

I don't fint viewing the picture a pleasant experience.

What does everyone else believe about my opinions?
FM

complete garbage - just like with most of his paintings you can make the case for any word(s) being hidden in the work.

Right time at the right place: Jackson become who he was because of who he was sleeping with. Nothing more or less.

I can sit in the restrooms at work and find many pictures and/or names on the bathroom door! I think it's all a matter of intrepation!

I see my name too, wow, how did he know, I was not born yet.
How much is this painting.

Art who said this was art. I saw the floor that some lady had that was in his barn and he splattered paint on it. Some idiot payed dearly for that junk I have a mess outside if someone wants to pay a lot of money for it I will not throw it away. As you have all seen I am sure there are animals that paint the same way.

Doesn't make sense to the one shown in this article which is based on the larger, blacker brushstrokes. Why would the biggest most dark brushstroke near to the center of the painting not be part of any letter?

I see dead people.

I actually see his name more than once......in fact, perhaps the painting is a collage of his name?

It should be fairly easy to define the extent to which the "signature" is merely constructed by the viewer connecting otherwise random lines.

If the painting is turned upside-down (or viewed from any random angle), can one equally well extract a plausible signature that spans the canvas? If not, then the presented signature seems less likely to be simply a fabrication of the viewer.

Your all freaks, thing looks like something kid scribbled, lol

I'm not buying it one bit. The letters outlined are not hardly even letters. I just looked at the painting for 5 minutes and was able to spell out "Jesus", and the "letters" that I found looked a lot better than ones outlined in the picture. This is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

sure! Why not! His name IS there..its kinda stretch=y but it is there.

Whether his name is there or not, it is an interesting piece to look at.

This is yet another reason why I love Pollock even more!

Big deal Graffitti artist have been doing that for years!

wow people- just enjoy art for what it is!i think it's an interesting theory but as they saying goes "It is what it is"

I think this is bs....i mean seriously its like outlining random parts of the painting to make it look like letters, Pollock definitely didn't write it intentionally.

If this is "art" the garbage men just accidentally dumped some trash out front on the street that is quite artistic. Looks pretty much the same other than being three dimensional...

I see "Jesus Saves"

Not only is this ridiculous, the "painting" is repulsive. Looks like it was done by and elephant or monkey with a paintbrush.

Ive seen graffiti artist do better.

Doh! I see people! Dead people! lol Just another instance of seeing what you make yourself believe you are seeing!

I can see my name in there too!

I think this was a clever insert by Mr. Pollack. He is looking down at the world and saying, "Well, it's about time you figured that one out!"

I think he scribbled my name in there too

Although I do see part of the name Jackson Pollack, that painting is a monstrosity which can barely be labeled as art. I don't understand how any one can look at that and see talent!

I can see Rory Emerald's name.

THATS SO AWESOME!!!! 2FIND!!! WOWOWOW

Stange - I see a lady, a warrior, a squirel, a partially coved mouse but I can't seem to reall dicern the letters. Oh well, it is very interesting.

I can also make out "Carlotta Romero" and "floor lamp." What does it mean?

Mr. Henry Adams is a marketing genius. He is writing a book about Pollack and Benton. He just happens to create interest in the subject matter of his book with a mystery which cannot be solved. A "theory" that is the "stuff of legend", this "mystery" is an astounding announcement, carefully crafted and published in a reputable art magazine a mere month before the publisher releases the new book. Bravo Mr. Adams. Pure marketing savvy with a splash of creativity for a change. Delightfully well done.

i so see it

Hmm. After seeing his name, I immediately picked out my own. Then my dog's. Not so sure about this one.

this from the same man who flattened his own sculpture after a show to make it fit into his car? i don't think so. now, he DID paint Krasner's name on her own work! that much we know.

There's enough squirrely content in the painting to see any letters or words or number or symbols or faces you'd like to see. I'm certain that I could find "Abracadabra" or "Hold the onions" or my SSN if I wanted to.

Hey, I think I see Masonic symbols in there! And there's Dan Brown's face near the middle of the right border!! How timely is that??!!!

Ah, yeah. I doubt it. This is a real stretch.

I can find my name too, including the middle

See if you can find Jackson Pollack's name in the picture.

I'm not seeing it.

No way. This is a total stretch

If an infinite number of artists painted an infinite number of pictures, would they eventually spell "Rembrandt"?

Fiercely provocative.

I'll agree with those saying it's just random pick and choose. If the name was in a row as it were, it might seem feasable, other wise I think its too much a streach.

I will never understand the fascination some people have with the doodles of an egomaniac. His stuff is as ugly online as it is in real life and wasting space in MOMA. When you dribble enough lines together EVERYONE's name is there. Go see the movie "Local Color" and you'll finally get it.

Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Some people look at Pollock's work and see masterpieces. I see only random gibberish. Many people assess the merits of art by what others think, not wanting to be called fools, like the people in the story "The Emperor's New Clothes." There are too many stories of "art" being hung upside down until the "artist" notes the mistake, or an "artistic genius" hangs a urinal in a gallery, signs it, and the literati ooh and ah over it.

The struggle to define what is "art" goes on, but I have my own definition, and it works well for me:

"if it looks like it happened by accident, it ain't art."

I've always found Pollack's paintings to be interesting --the confluence of collors and designs -- I really don't know how good or great he was or if his rating is more based on great marketing -- where one very good artist is sort of picked out and focused on more than his contemporaries. The key for me is --Pollacks paintings are structured turmoil and thats kinda cool. I thought the movie about his life was kinda cool also --- but I wouldn't pay millions to go see it.

seriously? it's POLLOCK, not POLLACK. Is it that hard?

I see it too, took me a little bit looking at it but you can really see the last name good and i can see where he started with his name, many artists that draw abstract stuff do that i have an artist friend that can do it also, have a child look at the picture and ask them they can see better than an adult for some crazy reason, but I do see it there for sure!!!!!! Wtg.

Holy Heck!!! I just found Barack Obama and an 8-gig Nano in there!!!

How did Mr. Pollock know about these things 65 years ago? He's better than Nostradamus!!

Cant they use modern imaging to "see" each layer that was added? That way you could definitively say he started with his name on a blank canvas.

if you look at the marks carefully it does not look like it spells anything. On some letters like the O in pollOck it looks like it goes into an S. What if it spells something else?

LMAO the K that's appearantly in pullock looks like an "h". Plus the "c" in both names can't even count because there just squiggly lines. I'm sure if I spent an hour staring at paint on paper I could come up with the next "Da Vinci Code".

"A work of art is above all an adventure of the mind."
-- Eugene Ionesco

Mr. Adams has indeed been on a grand adventure of his mind!

The name thing is bull. If I look closely enough, I can see my name too. Still, calling it "art"? Only self proclaimed art enthusiasts would give someone a million dollars for something vurtually worthless. Art takes talent. That's what seperates true artists from scribblers and in some cases, such as this, people mistake talent for doodles. It's a shame.

I see sardines packed in olive oil.

I think I could see my name too.

I am a painter and I often hide images and words in my work, so I don't think it's much of a stretch for Pollock to have done the same.

Why is this considered so farfetched? If he was unwilling to be either playful or experimental, then I don't think he would ever paint the way he did! Besides, as I recall, he seemed to have a rather large ego, so I think it makes sense that he would choose to incorporate a larger-than-life version of his name.

I think the great thing about his work is that you can see so many things in it, incorporated into the painter's original visual intent. This way, it becomes more than itself; it's identity is multiplied by our perception of it yet it remains true to Pollack's original vision.

check out www.jacksonpollock.org

I see "Dallas Cowboys win the Superbowl in 2009!"...LOL

I for once am proud, someone saw what others neither bothered or wanted to see, Bravo old man good show.

Whatever you see in Jackson's work its beauty.

I saw my name there, and tell me your name, I'll find yours, too.

Stretching the mind is more like it ~ I could find my name in there if I wanted to. Nice thought, but I don't think so.

Iam pretty sure that if you put the thing upside down and turn it on its side stand back 5 feet tilt your head a little and squint your eyes you can totally see the face of baby jesus!

first let me say...I LOVE ART and i create art. although jackson pollack isn't one of my favorites, i can admire that his paintings were avant garde for his time.

still...what is newsworthy about this article? with everything else that's going on in the world why does it matter if he buried his name under globs of paint?

besides, with his style of painting i'm sure you could see all types of images if you looked at the entire painting long enough. like seeing animals in clouds.

this is no revelation...it's just completely inane.

I think I can see Elvis,too! As said above, stare at anything long enough with a suggestion already planted and you will see what the suggestion implies.

Ive been doing that for years, but I paint beautiful paintings. Not doodles.

That's interesting - I did not realize that Pollock and Thomas Hart Benton had a relationship, and it just so happens that they are the only two contemporary artists I can stand. What an odd coincidence.

It is a fantastic piece of art from a simpler bygone era. It is part of the Pollock iconic story. When you are sick of terrorist's, health care news, and our modern society, get a "good" Pollock book and look at his entire collection. He was one of a kind. And not the kind of guy you could grab the microphone from.

No need to hide a signature

Frank find chaos in the painting.
I somewhat agree.
I have always seen this painting as taking some reflections from the Judgment by Michaelangelo on the back wall of the Sistine Chapel.
Faces jump out to my eyes everywhere in a jumbled fury.
Once the concept of his name was developed, I saw some of the letters almost immediately.
My October Smithsonian Magazine just arrived in yesterday's mail, so I look forward to studying the full article.
The interactive feature made this fun.
I enjoyed it.
A bit of humor to enliven what I have always considered a rather dour painting.
Thank you for an enjoyable moment, Smithsonian.

The truth of the matter is, Pollock actually painted my name there first. He was so inspired by me that he wrote my name initially. I was there when he was painting it. If you stare closely enough, you can decipher "Reagan" in the painting, and that makes Jackson Pollock as the world's premier modern painter.

Look - I can see my favorite pizza place on there also. If you look really close it says plain as day

PAPA MURPHYS

WOW That is so cool.

Hey - I just found Michael Jackson!! His name is in there also!!!

This is better than Where's Waldo?

That is all the painting is is his name over and over backwards, fowards, sideways, sideways backwards, big, small, ect......

I love Jackson Pollack paintings, if it wasn't for his inspiring art I may have received a different grade in college from my art teacher. I got that A+ and her gently persuasion that even though I was in my senior year in Nursing that I consider art.

As an artist, curator and theorist this drew my attention from a link someone posted quite quickly and intensely.

I think it is a massive stretch. I also agree with a lot of the comments on how a lot of names could come up.

I am mostly concerned by the "it is an amazing find" angle and frame of the story. This is the classic way curators or historians attempt to make a big splash, some dough, a book deal etc. It is like the grand declarations of new media art being "dead" that pop up every few years.

This is another one of those "if you look for it, you'll find it"...sillyness

are you serious? this is art. i could make this in the first grade.

people people art is to be enjoyed not judged.I have seen art with names and things hidden in them before.Open your minds.It looks like there is somthing there.I would like to see for myself somday.

i don't see it either, besides if you look hard enough you could see every letter in the alphabet and in any order you want too...

Go to this link - http://microsite.smithsonianmag.com/content/jackson-pollock/pollock.html

And click on "Reveal all letters"

Well, Actually I see faces of both humans and animals in it...

It seems like a stretch... if your looking for it anything can be spelled out in this painting. perhaps that was the point.

Jackson Pollack was a great artist, in his own right, to be a critic of art is just absurd. Maybe you don't like it but it still brought out a reaction, positive or negative. That what art does, art is relative to the mind that created it. To be honest, i think he probably put all sorts of crazy things in the "mural" but is that his name. No, he was better that the outline, he could have made it clearer and still hid it better. The lines you say are an "l" there are several more just like those. How are they not an "l" its all just speculation. But thank you for bringing an american artist back to our attention.

P...

Gratify has come a long way.

I found "Teamsters Local 25" as well as my entire 26 letter name. Hmmmm

Pleeeese!

No Way... you can sit and stare at that painting and find ANYTHING your imagination wants you to find. Now go out and merely suggest what you see to a group of people and they too, will see what you see..... but art????? who was it that said..., "there's a sucker born every minute.?" No way...

Most artists say you see what you want in an abstract painting, or that every artist puts themselves into their painting somehow! I DO SEE not JUST that but, he wrote his own name over & over & over & over in every color, mostly black & Yellow...also he put tons of little women & animals into the collage...very impressive either way!

I could not believe my eyes when I initially saw the reproduction. In its swirls, I immediately saw "Don Cherf".

After looking at it for a moment, I realized "Frank Maurer" was also in there.

Then I began my search in earnest and found "Midge Hyde", Marina Michaels", "Barbara Cereghino", "Tom Leathrum", etc.

Further analysis also revealed "Mickey Mouse", "Donald Duck", "Walt Disney", and all of our congressmen both past and present.

I'm going to put together an interactive slideshow demonstrating where all the names are located. Try finding them yourselves while you're waiting for me to release the slideshow.

Still, I'm stumped. How was Jackson Pollack able to strategically position all of our names in that one painting?

I could see the name in the mural; I am usually pretty good at 3D and other puzzles of the sorts. While it is a cool looking piece of work; it cannot touch the art of sceneries, portraits, etc. I am capable of painting something like this and I doubt I will become famous!

anyone talking trash about this should be ashamed because this man was one of the men who took post modern paintings into the mainstream. coming from and artist a lot of times things "show up" in my paintings, but it could have been starting point or first layer. whatever it may be to me this man deserves more respect than some of these people commenting on here are giving him.

it is there and we can only hope that this current generation will produce other artists with this kind of inspiration. If inspiration can be produced i take it back perhaps we will see the likes of this kind of inspiration in our life time. Digital cameras have already killed film and computers have slayed darkrooms, what next abode illustrator wiping out pens and pencils. This kind of expressive painting is beyond conventional means of understanding. Just my thoughts

Jerry

Art is in the eye of the beholder, and anyone who has watched the creative process in action knows that it is usually not a static process, but takes on a life of its own, as the work progresses.

It does not start with a specific end goal and then proceeds in an orderly fashion to its conclusion. It begins with an idea, feeling or just chance, and with time and effort, develops into a thing of its own. What painter has not moved a figure, or altered a color; what writer has not revised a phrase or embelished a plot; what actor has not altered a nuance of their character. Those who don't are skilled technicians, but not artists.

Those artists whom I have known and watched at work, usually have not known where they were going until they got there. And sometimes, not even then.

Who's Jackson Pollock? Just joking :)

I clearly see his name. Frankly, I was drawn to the picture first, then the article. Sorry guys if you don't see it but seriously, how could you not.....it doesn't take that much imagination to see it.........

Maybe he didn't know that he did it. Possibly, it was a sublimal thing that happened to come out, so therefore, it's not so visually legible to us now. Who knows? Maybe if we look hard enough, we can actually see "Paul is dead". Now considering the time frame of the painting, THAT would be an incredible thing.

as I am sure you have noticed anyone can try to make you see what they want you to see. Its not hard to make things what you want them to be, but who knows there may be a signature, when my son completes a drawing it has his initials in it

I love this article and the ensuing comments for the particular reason that it creates a vast disparity in opinion. Some people have called his work trash and childish; others proclaim his genius. The first group sees disconnected lines forming no real meaning; the second group see, yes, his name, and the totality of the meaning of the universe.
Put into perspective the middle ground. Pollock's work is challenging and provocative. It is not a Harlequin Romance or a lackluster sit-com. It requires thought which the vast array of people do not wish to commit a single moment to do. Therefore they disparage it. Those who revere unconditionally do not allow for the lack of perfection which all human beings contain genetically.
I appreciate the article and the argument and hope the true intelligent discussions continue.

Maybe the whole point of this painting and his "squiggly" lines was to stimulate the mind and cause people to see different things within so everyone could draw their own personal enjoyment and mystery out of it. Get your minds out of the box, for you will find there is no box. Dont let your minds be limited to a way of thinking inspired by influence or thoughts and ideas of those around you. Look at this painting and see what you want to see. And please, give it a rest and stop babbling on about how it cant be or how its possible. It doesnt matter. Its a beautiful work of art, and like the Bible, should be enjoyed, not debated.

Frankly, its ridiculous for this to get any type of "awe" from anyone.

I see images of anything my mind is inclined to think about by looking at parked car patterns, the wood grain on my desk, the white spaces in between letters of a printed page.

I do not think myself some type of artistic marvel due to the above.

I find the article childish and desperate to find a greater image of an artist the writer is already fond of.

It's a masterpiece with or without his name. I can see it. So why is everybody so worked up about it? If you don't care to see it, it changes nothing. If he did do that, he also did plenty of other things that might be considered more interesting in the end. What shocks me are some of the beefheads who wrote in here hating the painting. Our culture is doomed if people still don't like "modern" art this late in the game.

I'm glad to have read of the discovery. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Yes, U can see it. And you never know, the whole painting may be made up of deliberate wording.

Seeing his work makes me want to hang up my hat on making art. Not because it's good - because this is what you have to make for people to notice you. Pieces that took actual effort get picked apart and left to rot. Give me a break.

i think you made a mistake,,,the n on jacson does not have that tail...that is part of the last k

You see your subconscience, thats the point.

SOME OF THE LETTERS YOU COULD MAKE A CASE FOR, SEVERAL OF THEM THOUGH....ARE QUITE A STRETCH!

Nah !

it looks like he just "signed" his work

People are seeing what they want to here. Even I can find my name in the paiting. This is ridiculous.

art is in the eye of both the artist and the beholder. all artists i hve known have a delightful sense of humor. is he teasing us , and enjoying all the fuss?

Maybe it was a little more tongue in cheek - she wanted a "Jackson Pollock" on her wall. That may be exactly what he gave her.
His name. Over and over again.
Hmmm.
Great find. Hard to tell 2D like that. I would certainly want to have it studied after this.

i like the painter who cut off his ear better and dont have the recipe again

First did he sign the painting? if not I would say that he did sign it by hidding it in the painting

Pollock is the biggest fraud in the history of art.

Future generations are going to be amazed that anyone ever paid any attention to his work.

it nonsense, it's completely on viewer to make out whatever he wants.

Pollock's "creations" have always been... MMMmmm "dizzy!" That's all that come to mind when looking at his "splatters..."

Oh, the power of alcohol!!!!

Hey I see my name to!

I agree with many of those above as stating that you see what you want to see. Sort of like hearing what you wanted to hear as we all did by playing a Beatles album backwards and discovering that one to Fab Four is dead... Nonetheless, this is all neat stuff!

*Pollock not Pollack. .correction 4 mis-spell in previous post. (~.^). Funny, really. Considering the subject matter... :P

You can't be serious???? There are a million strokes in the work...every word...name etc in the English language is in there somewhere............move on

Shannon who wrote - Art takes talent. That's what seperates true artists from scribblers and in some cases, such as this, people mistake talent for doodles. It's a shame.

Sounds like a jealous starving artist to me.

I see birds

I can't imagine anyone looking at this MESS called a "painting" long enough to decipher ANYthing!

I buy it, except the "lock" is not where you first think. The l and o of this last part of his last name are much nearer the first l and are an integral l with o at its base; then you easily see the c and k close to that, and not the too-far-right c and k you first thought.

over analyzed!

Wow, that is so cool! I wouldn't have thought of that (or seen it) by myself, frankly.

I see Jackson Pollock, but the letters shown on this site can't be right. The "A" in Jackson is much bigger than shown. The "A" stretches down to look like the first "L" in Pollock. The second "L" is the same, but there is another "L" to make the first "L". The final "K" isn't right either. Take the base part of what the interactive thing shows you to make the upper part of the capital "K". It's there anyways and really cool.

Pareidolia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

Pure pareidolia.

It shouldn't make a difference whether or not the signature is there. The fact that so much attention is drawn to this art work is all that matters.

Wait!!!! IS that ELVIS???
Point...its always in the eye of the beholder. Don't take away from his works. All art is subject to critics...aren't we all.

Holy Batman I see my dog Rusty!!

I see s-o-n very clear. The rest is a stretch. I see his name different ways than shown. I see a possible different J possible different P's and possible different LLs

I dont see what is so surprising. Artists have done this type of thing for centuries, basicly since art became art. So what's the fuss?

S T R E T C H....but at least this will bring such amazing work back into the lime light

I see a whole bunch of lines and an s without the interactive thing. I thought it was a coincidence, the s. But NO it had to be some great discovery that made it to the news JUST KIDDING!

It seems very far-fetched plausible but I agree with many of the other commenters that it is seeing what you want to see. When I read the article my first thought was, "Someone is fishing for a thesis topic." To me this goes along with the optometrist that was convinced that certain artists styles were the result of different eye problems.

I can see it, although I agree you can see almost anything if you look hard enough.

However I'm not buying the N with the long leg and the "assumed" K that looks like an upside down Y.

I think they were pulling at straws on that one.
It doesn't even follow the painting.
The extra long portion of the N is clearly cut off in the painting at a more appropriate spot than what they are saying it is.
And if you take that extra long portion and use it for the K instead, and follow the lines of the painting more, and not the ridiculous assumed shape they have, then you can find a better pattern that can represent a letter K.

Not that any of this actually matters cause basically, it's just a beautiful painting to admire.

But hey, what do I know about paintings, I'm just an Engineering Professor...

Abstract art is meaningless. This looks like what the cowboys found on the trail soon after the cows gave birth.

Proves that one can find whatever they want, in whatever they want, whenever they want.

I'm not sure why Pollock is such a devisive artist from the canon of 20th century artists. It often seems that harsh criticism of him stems from the jealousy of people coming after him who smack themselves on the forehead and say, "why didn't I come up with it first." I also think most of his detractors have never seen any of his masterworks in person. His best paintings are masterworks every bit as awe inspiring as the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or any other monumental work of art. Did he put his name in this painting? Maybe. He certainly did think highly of himself despite his attempt to come off as an "aww shucks" character. He did want to paint and get acclaim for doing so, so I think it could be consistent with his personality. Is it a coincidence? Perhaps. I wondered about the fractal analysis when it was first proposed. I think his work is as likely to have been either more or less premeditated than it appears. He is still a genius in his field and still provoking debate and outrage. He gains fans and garners attention even now in a way that few of our contemporary artists will in the 60 years to follow. Thanks be to you Jackson for keeping us on our toes still!

i do not doubt that there maybe some word or secret in the painting but some of the shapes used are pretty thin.

Jackson would be proud to see that his art has been given second life through an impression it made on someone so long after it's creation. That, for most artists, is their goal; that art should live on. It even gave birth to an incredible number of repsonses as seen here today. I myself marvel at how it seems to have evoked repsonses from a very intelligent group. I will now temper that by reading their polar opposites as they respond to the inane issues in the world of sports. Like - who is the starting QB for this or that team, evoking a cascade of adjectives seeking lower and lower ground in describing another writer's degree of imbecility.

Look even closer and the interactive painting isn't quite the same as the original one. Try to find a clean cut "N" in the first one you saw.

If your notice the whole painting is of his name over and over again

Who cares. The real question for me is, is it really art? A bunch of squiggles and swirls on a large canvas do not, for me, a work of art make. It's the devolution of art.

I think this person has spent too much time staring it. If I look at my ceiling long enough, I can pick out letters and pictures.

all of the various opinions show that art is in the eye of the beholder. the fact that people feel, see, and think differently when they look at this peice is one of the things that makes this piece amazing. where is the fun in a still life of fruit? we would all look at it and see-fruit. the fact that someone could create a work that would make you think, feel, or see anything other than simply what you are looking at is awe inspiring.

really?! to the ppl who are making fun of this rediculous theory... congrats! your not total idiots. To those of u saying it's revolutionary and calling yourselves artists (then mispelling his name time and time again)you should all think about what your saying. POLLOCK was know for his random scrambles of drips and swirls. I doubt he was sitting out in his studio saying "haha i'll show these critics!" btw... I found that entire paragraph in the painting also... ;)

And metalheads everywhere were able to read the name easily.

Why are people making a big deal out of it? All I see is a bunch of paint. That's it. It does make me feel kind of confused and angry.

Just appreciate the piece for what it is. Like looking at a bunch of flowers. Appreciate the beauty, don't try to read to much into it. Istn't that what art is? It's not meant to be intellectualized.

"Jackson was the greatest painter this country has produced."

That statement is about as true as his "paintings" required any talent to create...which isnt saying much...In a nutshell, the guy was a hack...a monkey with a brush could do the same thing.

i have always considered his works pure garbage. This new idea of his name in his canvas still doesn't change my mind.

For those saying Pollock is the most outstanding "artist" of the 20th century measn they probably bought some of his work and want to get their investment. PURE GARBAGE.

Who cares? Jackson Pollock is the most overrated artist of the 20th century-- possibly of all time. My 3 year old daughter's finger paintings are better than Pollock's so-called "art."

Quite frankly ,looking at this painting and with it,s many lines , JACKSON POLLOCK could have been pulled from this painting hundreds if not thousands of times , The letters are not true letters but it,s art is just that if you want it too be ...Thats what art is , anything you want it to be ! I do not believe it was intended that way by the artist and the letters are dismal at best , I have a piece of frech toast with jesus,s face on it if you want to buyonly 1000 dollars ........whatever you make it to be is what it will be !

Pollock's way of drawing with paint made shapes over shapes in a way that, in this painting, innumerable letters can be created by the viewer. You could spell Michangelo Buonarroti if you wanted to. But that doesn't make the letters relevant.

The human mind makes as many connections as it can from the evidence in front of it--the artist can't control all of these connections. But the viewer of art has to question himself about where the connections really come from.

The thing to remember is that abstract painters can create structure without having to resort to pre-existing shapes, like letters, figures, etc. Why can't people understand this, after 100 years or more of abstract painting? Perhaps the post-modern education has erased this knowledge, especially from the minds of artists and art historians.

Ok, forget what I said before. The art is in the eye of the beholder. It's not about how cool it looks or all that. It's about how we interpret it. So, yes. It IS ridiculous, but whatever. Jackson meant what he meant and we just have find a way to see it.

Nah. The Ks are both imaginary. (And not even complete Ks.)

Gee whiz: Is this finally all we have left to do? Okay, I will play. I see J's and P's and N' and O's and everything else between, all over the mural. Don't worry, I'm not saying no way. I am just saying that I think the whole text of War and Peace is there as well. Anyway, he was an amazing talent and painter..so undoubtedly, his name is there..somewhere, probably more that once or twice.

ok, ok but does it matter??????

This is believable, especially to people facinated with the artist. I won't say fans, or followers, admirers, etc., but people who recognize a rare bird. I was in art school in Philadelphia in 1949, and copied a red, white and black drip painting on an old oak table I kept for sixty years. The drip paintings were his best, I believe; the other stuff really hard to like. MURAL is somewhere in between. On the other side of this discussion is the reality that almost anybody could extract their name from this panorama!

"Sorry, but I don't buy it. Looks to me like another example of seeing what you want to see, like the "face" on Mars."

Posted by Steve Isaacson on September 25,2009 | 08:16AM

couldnt agree more.. i literally tried to see this and dont, this story in my opinion is ridiculous

It IS possible that is how Pollock began the painting. It would be a joy to begin a piece that way and disguise your own name within your art. How often have we told someone we cannot read their signature? How often have we told them, "I can't find your signature?" Imagine the reaction Pollock would give.

Despite my own convictions for simply appreciating art as is, I know they will study and ponder over this piece now even more. It's not a piece I find particularly appealing, but to each his own.

I see a few animals in the painting. It's interesting like I spy.

What a shame this article did not appear yesterday. The University of Iowa collection, including the Pollock, is now at the Figge in Davenport. I was there yesterday and would love to have had this to think about when I saw the original.

Are the Masons somehow involved, or maybe the Templars?

It seems perfectly reasonable that Pollock was hammered and decided to write his name on a painting and look, years later we are arguing over his artistic madness! I could see some of the letters in his name before looking at the game, but I also had an imaginary friend as a child, so who knows? As for the artsy-fartsy art critics, I hardly think they are the authority on things like this. After seeing the documentary "Who the F*ck is Jackson Pollock" I have decided that many art critics are nothing but wind bags. This woman has a painting that looks like a Pollock, has a thumb print that forensics have proved matches one found in Pollocks studio and one from another Pollock painting that hangs in museum. These art critics ignore this and say they can tell by the paint dribbles that it's not a Pollock... HA, give me a break! What snobs! Nevertheless, It's fun to try decipher the squiggles. I'm sure we will never know for sure either way and I bet that would make Mr. Pollock very happy.

In addition to "trompe o'loeille" term of the french, the Germans have a word for a simillar meaning "fools the eye".
The term "augenblick" means "in the blink of an eye". Pollack, rather than fool the eye, embeds his name as a 'moment' that has to do with both a conversion of experience that Clement Greenburg talks about in aesthetics, and the way a self-referral is to be found in what others critisized was the arbitrariness of his method--which was hardly the case in what keener critics called "action painting". All artists and writers attempt to be authors, and whether you find a signature in the work or not, the question only deepens immersion in looking at Pollock's painting.

Wow. What a stretch! You can make up any words out of that thing. I can't believe this is a story. Oh, and don't forget the most overlooked reach...If Pollock did intentionally do this, who gives a hoot?!! Holy schnikies, he encoded his own name in his painting! What a revelation!

If you soft-focus your eyes you can see the shapes of dinosaurs.

Modern art is overrated.

For those above claiming Pollock was nothing but a doodler who could create only scribbles must not have been fortunate enough to witness a Jackson Pollock painting in real life. An image on your computer screen or in your art history 101 book will not give you a clear opinion on Jackson Pollock’s artistic talent.

I have the great fortune of living 5 minutes from the Figge Art Museum where this painting is currently on display. I get to see it every week and it is simply breathtaking. Before one dares to make such silly remarks about artistic ability, they should stand in front of the mural painting for just 5 seconds to realize that the man was a great artist who did have something to say and I don’t see the harm in searching for further symbols or meaning among his "doodles" and “scribbles.”

It seems like a desperate attention-grabbing ploy by the art historian.

OKAY - SO IM NOT A VERY ARTSY PERSON, BUT I THINK THIS PAINTING IS QUITE EXQUISITE. I WOULD HANG IT ON MY WALL, JACKSON POLLOCK OR NOT. ALTHOUGH I CANT REALLY SAY THAT I CAN MAKE OUT THE NAME VERY WELL. BUT I THINK I SEE LOTS OF LITTLE PINK FLAMINGOS.

As I said before about your first locations for "lock" I also feel your "Jack" is off. You're trying to make the name too traditionally balanced and full-frame. The "son" is spot on, work on the rest after getting in a Pollock fram of mind. Close to unlocking a Pollock, nice.

Such is the power of suggestion that many will see just to be part of the crowd.

Kinda like the Emperor's New Clothes.

First off, anyone who does not understand painting in the abstract needn't have commented, it was just a convenient way for so many to bash intense creativity. If you want to truly learn about the man and his art, read, read, observe his work, and then watch the movie Pollock, it is a good progression to find some truth about this intense man and his art. Secondly, the name is there, plain as day, it is almost there twice over. Of course it is. Jackson did not like to name his work no less, sign it. His name in black is a great base for the layers he built upon it. It is a neat discovery within the context of the greatest abstract artist in history. Nothing more, nothing less. I think I will go paint now...

That is really cool.

Uhh... I can find my own name in there as well... Along with every single family member from the past 500 years...

Wow. So much resistance to the possiblity that his name is in there. Amusing.

Wow #2. Always some more 'this isnt art' people waiting to come out of the woodwork. Amusing as well.

You dont have to like it. No one cares if you call it art.

By the way, it clearly says 'My sweet Satan' backwards... and there's a backwards Jimmy Page in there too i think...

IF YOU LOOK LONG ENOUGH,YOU'LL PROBABLY FIND A CURE FOR BALDNESS TOO. AS FOR JACKSON BEING THE GREATEST ARTIST IN THE WORLD, AT MOST,HIS WORK WAS INVENTIVE AND INTERESTING!

did he do acid or any other psychedelics?

wow... either way, I think that what he wanted is happening... people are interested in his art... which is simply expressive and beutiful :)

I have to agree with Randy, "who cares. Art is the creation of the artist" Stare at something long enough and you can see whatever you want. And as far as I'm concerned that's the mark of a great impressionist artist. The artist may have an idea in mind and you may never see it but you will see something. For those of you looking for names jusr go look at Hirschfeld's drawings, he put his daughter Nina's name in everything he did.

I'm a little surprised by the antagonistic tone (directed at the author specifically and modern art in general) of some of the comments. What, exactly, has the author done wrong? He's quite clear that this is just a theory. And that to prove the theory would take scientific analysis that is unlikely to happen. So it will likely remain a theory, which is fine. What would the world be like if people didn't make interesting, thought-provoking, and yes, occasionally controversial claims??

it clearly says "Paul is Dead"

Lets image the painting layer by layer. Then lets do a slideshow of the painting showing the image appear layer by layer on the blank canvas. That would give us some insight into the 'genius' and his creative process. I would love to see the first layer.

I want to know why people are determined to make a "right" or "wrong" out of it. Art is self-expression for one, and self-interpretation for the other. There is no right or wrong. If you see Jackson's name, great. If you don't, great. In no way does that elevate one person's perception over another's.

I doubt this was on purpose.

You can spell out any sequence of letters that you want adhering to the lack of standards of the author.

and god, why would an amazing artist spend so much effort on a lousy font rendition of his name-

no way.

I found his name too. 100 different ways.
If you turn the painting upside down, you can clearly read:
"All y'all are crazy. This painting don't say squat"

I am curious as to why he used a period after the first sentence but not after the second? I looked a dozen times. No second period.

Fascinating.

Actually Pollock is one of my favorites. I even made a few paintings to be a mimicer. I will sell one to anyone of you crazies for $11 million. If you act now, I'll discount my offer to the low price of 11 million cents. Any you can make 13 easy payments of 846,000 cents each.

Crazies.

i saw it within the first 10 seconds of looking at it before i even read the article and it took them 70 sum odd years to see it?

hey, I think I found my name too. You could probably find every letter in the alphabet if you squint and distort your vision enough.

Ummm- no, don't think so.

You know I've even thought about figuring out a way to remove the hair off the wall in my shower in the exact form it is when I put there while washing my hair. Maybe using a piece of poster board with some adhesive on it. And then painting is with wild colors and call it art. I'd probably make a lot of money with it. Heheh, me losing my hair makes me rich. That'd be great.

That's my idea don't steal it or I'll hunt you down and cut your head off.

See crazy and an artist. I could really get rich. Or after I die I'll be famous and my kids will be rich.

ya know, who cares? To quote our beloved Queen of England - of yesteryear "I remain unimpressed"

Looks like to me Jackson won!!! Art ought to stimulate the mind and senses. So Bravo Mr. Jackson

I think I just found Jimmy Hoffa in there!!! Mystery solved!!

Actually, he wrote "Paul is dead."
:)
(And Paul McCartney was born not many months before the 1943 painting!)

I think this piece of Pollock is very creative but, I still think he made it by accident and people see his name because that is what they were told to look for. I see "Jesus in the painting as well. It's all based on one's mind set.

wow this cat was the first graff artist amazing

As an Art student having studied Polluck, it would not surprise me one bit if he did just write his name on the canvas first and base the painting around it. But at the same time having each viewer see something different, establishing a personal connection with everyone who views your piece is the goal of every artist. Truly Jackson Polluck was a great artist

Well, Actually I also see faces of both humans and animals in it...

I heard one needs to cross their eyes and stand on their head, oh... now I see it!

I bet I could find my name in there too; within the font parameters of the final Jackson Pollock conclusion here.

It is not that " shocking " to discover that he did a painting around his own name, many artist at one point or another do a painting or drawing or some type of art work that encompasses their own name! This does not surprise me in the least! He was a great artist!

If you compare his signature to the letters that were found you will notice a great likeness in the shape and slant of the letters, especially in "Pollock". This is probably because he signed his last name much more often, especially on artwork.

Also he is well known for basing his work around other figures such as letters and numbers.

The first time I saw this peice of art I thought I could see letters out of the corner of my eye. But I never really tried to guess what they were. I'm not an expert, but I do enjoy peices like this that make you stop and look twice.

ummm... Where's the "k"? So close Marianne!!!

Very Interesting

If you look hard enough while viewing in grayscale, you can actually see his name in at least 3 different ways. But like any type of art, you see what your mind wants you to see.

Of what importance is either the "discovery" or all of the conjecture surrounding it? Its no wonder most of whats written, either by critics or artists, regarding art is so contrived as to be laughable. And that, my friends is what the world needs more than anything. Lighten up, and enjoy yourself. Pompousness went out of fashion a long time ago.
Ciao, baby!

When I was a little girl, my mother subscribed to a magazine for me. It had a picture each month .with hidden objects and you had to find them all. Thanks to that magazine article I have always seen things in other things. Wallpaper, Clouds and many other items I could find some really weird objects!! Just looking at that picture on my computer, I saw faces of women, a king, an elephant head, a horse head, fish and so on and on. Not too long ago in advertisements for liquor you could find hidden in the pictures---- skeleton heads!!!

uh, yawn, a "Jackson Pollock",...does anyone really care?

Marianne Berardi discovered this, not Henry Adams. Please give credit to who it is due!!!

I mentioned in one of my Art History courses in college that I could clearly see "SON" in the upper corner. My Ivy-League-Educated professor stated it was reading too much into an abstract design.
I'm all for this theory.

I recall a girl at the university years ago who told me she discovered a man at an "art festival" who had purchased several of her pieces who had then removed her name and painted in his own name. She sold at rock bottom, a few dollars a throw, as a poor and unknown artist, but was scandalized at this man's treachery and making a bundle at it. I don't know if she ever made a fuss about it, but how would she have been able to prove the forgery? Pollock may well have built his name in to prove his proprietary origin of the work as a self-protection against fraud by another "artist" who might try to pull the same trick. I've buried my own name under paint layers in the hope that some suspicious future curator might use x-ray techniques and uncover future fraud against my work.

i see darwin... it's evolution, i tell you!... the hidden items change the more you SEE them... they evolve... darwin was right!

You can also make out the letters JALOCK that stretch largely in black letters form the leftto the right. Im sure you could make out tons of stuff.

I am a professional artist, and I hide my name in my work all the time! It's not that big a deal or a mystery. I don't care for the painting, might be good for a gift wrap pattern though.

www.shrox.com

Looks like vomit.

Putting hidden names , Dates, portraits , and symbols in art is not new. George Ohr did exactly that in the glazes when he created his art pottery back in 1895.

WOW! and they say the homeless are crazy.

Nobody saw the name until now? Since 1948? Seriously? That's the part I find hard to believe.

The name's the first thing I noticed the first time I saw this thing. I just thought it was a big, obvious, egotistical, self-referential, look-at-me artist thing, and it turned me off from the work in general. I didn't know anything about Pollock and seeing his name there convinced me I didn't want to.

The "art" of Jackson Pollock consisted of using the least amount of imagination and talent possible and foisting it onto a gullible art community as though he was the reincarnation of the old masters and French Impressionists rolled into one. The truth is Pollock was more a modern-PT Barnum than a modern-artist and his greatest talent was in selling himself to art-snobs hungering for something more avant-garde than the last waste of paint they lionized.

honestly i think i could find my own name in this painting...it really is a stretch to find JP's name...some of the letters aren't even complete like the "K" in Pollack!

I don't think it is his name. I could make all kinds of words from this painting if I wanted to. I could find my name in it. But this piece is magnificent. I love abstract art. Just absolutely love it.

The only thing better is actual pictures of real living things. I am a wildlife photographer.

My mother has a very nice oil painting. Just wondering if these artist could be related. The painting we have is from the 1800s and the artist is Herman Pollock. If any body has any information please let me know.

I found my name, did Pollock hide that too?

I will bet anyone one million dollars that I can find their name in this painting. Anyone!! Ha ha

Wow, some of you are like little girls, "he sucks, no this guy was the best, all of you are stupid!" Of course, you are all supposed intellectuals so you throw out 10 dollar words in an imperious way. He was a guy painting on canvas. So one lady sees his name in it, big deal. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'll leave you bickering intellectuals to your insults and pretenses. Good day to you all.

"Paul is dead." I saw it. of course, it's written backwards.

OMG!!! I found my name in the painting!! This is the cooloest thing ever!!

pollock was not only an artist but a genius

I saw dogs playing poker!

I think we should post it as another Jesus sighing and put it on ebay. Seriousy, I thought I heard that Pollock never "signed" his paintings

well first of all when u hover over the letters in the picture the second L in pollack or however u spell it isnt even facing in the right direction

I once did something very similar to this. I drew a much of abstract lines and circles in black ink. Straight through it I wrote the word "mommy." I then colored in all the spaces in between the lines in different colors. No one could see the word just the colored shapes. I had to point it out and then it was obvious.

If you look closely, you can see Jimmy Hoffa in there.

SO WHAT!!!!

I wish Jackson Pollock was alive and well to comment on this claim. In fact, there should be a commissioned painting of this moment--a tableau if you will, of a roomful of self-congratulating, ghastly, self-aggrandizing, wit-ful, 'artistes' and critics proclaiming "oh my, aren't we the bee's knees for being so clever and unravelling this mys-tery" with Pollock striding into the room and rendering his judgement over the misguided.

look even closer, and you will discover what I found years ago studying Jackson's "Mural". Not only does it contain his name in bold letters, but also contains the Gettysburg Address and the novel "War and Peace". It's easy to find all this on the canvas. One just has to imbibe in a dozen or so Martini's before staring at all that goo.

That's ridiculous. I could find any name in there if I connect enough of the swirls.

Here's the best quote: I've shared my theory with several Pollock experts. They've had mixed reactions, from "no way" to "far-fetched" to "maybe."

LOL - what they really were thinking is - "How can I consider myself an expert when this has been staring me in the face all these years?"

How ridiculous to say it isn't there.

That is not art but it pays well.

There is nothing new under the sun. Since always, painters have found a way to put their name or image in their work.
And why not? It is their privilage.

I found an "E" kind of rocked on its back, a "d" is there, I haven't peered intently to make all kinds of shapes and letters in there, but, I DID find Waldo.

This is another example of giving an artist WAY too much credit for his work. Judging by the "interactive view" there is NO way that is correct. You can make anything with the way they did this. None of the letters are complete and you can make different letters from the same way. GIVE UP people, its just your eyes. Same way we see a bunny in the clouds, yes a million people could agree it looks just like a bunny, but that doesn't mean "god" is putting bunnies in the sky as a sign... These people need to spend more time and money on important things in life, not seeing letters and giving credit to someone who didn't even do that. I am personally sick of people looking so deep into art, when sometimes it really is just a mess of color. And I DO love art, and know many well established artists, and when I've asked them the same, mostly all say the same thing, "sometimes people just see what they want to see, I had no intention of anything other than blending colors."

I'm really sick of this stuff, spend your money and time and articles on saving people, or cleaning up the planet, or getting poor locations stable. You people make me sick.

I know nothing about art, just know what I like, and I like this Pollock. It is certainly more interesting than a sunflower painted by a "Master"

People do we know how to say garbage. Not just about this one painting but all of his work....here it is in large letters GARBAGE . I can also state that I lived in Houston and I got to go see Rothkos' work. Another artist that is consider great. After walking through the exhibit I asked the people out at the desk if his paintings were out on loan....she jumped up and lead me back into the room and pointed out very large paintings on all the walls. Huge black pictures....that is it huge black paintings. To the amazemnet of the other people there I said thats' it just these big black pictures....I said no wonder he killed his self. She explained that that was layer upon layer of paint. I told her if she got me a 5 gallon bucket of black paint and a roller and pole I could knock out 50 of those paintings in an hour. I guess art is in the eye of the beholder.

That is awesome! He is mi favorite artist!!

What an insightful observation. This truly is an amazing find in such a remarkable work. At first glance the artwork seems to be random. But there is really structure with the black strokes.

Upon careful observation, there appears to be more of the same letters in different sizes, shapes and colors throughout the different layers. Perhaps the artist spelled his name more than once in this work as shadows or echoes.

ITS AS PLAIN AS DAY!!!
If your colour blind. I could see it right away not clear till i stared but is right there. Look at Staney Mouse And Anton Kellys work.

Well, you gotta start somewhere when you make a painting...and the way one's name divides up the picture space is as good of a place is any, especially if one's painting an abstract action painting. What's funny here is that even the ones who don't care for his art, or call it "not art," are giving JP what he asked for - a look. And, the stronger reaction the better - how's it feel? - LOL!

BTW, it's "I buried Paul"

So, he signed it, o.k. big deal

I think this is so interesting because it really changes the way I think about how Pollock worked. Knowing that he had previously included words and number, and that as an artist he may well have had a lot more intent than we currently give him credit for, really changes the way I see the piece. I think that does make it "newsworthy" (the way the Booker prize in newsworthy, I guess). It makes a lot of sense, too, when considering him next to Thomas Hart Benton who was such a storyteller.

From dance photography, to oil kaleidoscopes, to Picasso’s light drawings, to a Jackson Pollock painting, captured movement – whether of temporal fluidity or frozen on canvas –transfixes, mesmerizes the viewer. Movement is the infinite life of the spoken word and in a way so is the destiny of the written word. So be it whether Jackson Pollock embedded his name or not, movement is its key!

Ive seen it long ago! And..... so he put his name in the painting? And people are starving in this country. I love art and appreciate intrigue and mystery in art but come on! In the grand scheme of what's important in life, how does this rate?

Jackson Pollack last work was, I think, his best, and it was a gift to the world. He probably would have called it "brains splattered on windsheild."

This isn't art, and he isn't an artist.

I see a message that tells that the world will end at noon today! Oh wait, that already passed. I really wish art historians would stop trying to read the minds of dead painters. Maybe the lines are there because they are there. I may not know great art, but I know what I like and don't like.

I can find any number of names hidden in any Jackson Pollock painting. It doesn't mean that was the intent of the artist.
The "hidden signature" theory in this particular painting does seem to be stretching things a bit. Most of the letters wouldn't even be recognized as letters outside the context of this "study".

No, I see Johnny Cash's name... maybe he was a fan

Doesn't everyone at some point hide a message in a diary, a poem or paper they wrote, or a drawing they scribbled. It's perfectlly understandable that Pollock among many other's did this in their work. Artists do this all the time. That is why we can never realy understand the complete meaning of art as it meant to the artist. What it represented and the meaning and emotion it held for the renderer. It's creative and that in itself add's another fun and mysterious and at times safe to be anonymous dimension to the message. Art as an instrument to express and communicate to people you otherwise can't reach.

WOW- that is an awesome picture. It reminded me of those pictures that were done years ago where you would look deep into the picture and actually see something completely different- no I wasnt on drugs.

This is truly a work of art - way to go! all thumbs are up for you. Good luck!

Jennifer

I am a color blind person and I saw "SON" at first glance. But I do agree with the "eisegesis" comment: "Stare long enough long enough at floor tiles and a myriad options appear by creative eisegesis."

Pullock was just one of the first taggers. don't know what a tagger is? it's just a graffiti artist, but of course high society doesn't want to hear that, but whatever... you can clearly see the lines that make up the letters. he painted his name in abstract letters than add a bunch of colors to hide the lettering, then bam you got some graffiti. don't believe me, just look at some proffesional artwork done by graffiti artist(yes there are professionals)Pullock used canvas instead of a wall and regular paint instead of spray cans. haha, but that's just what I think :)

I see long people walking from right to left- I can find anyone's name there but the long figures are pretty cool.

how about finding some human figures and faces..........i could see a lot of them...dont u? in fact i can see some numbers as well as some arabic letters....ya it shows you whatever you want ot see

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant. Thank you for your keen mind and sharing it, Marianne, owner of painting, and Tball for the most intelligent, open minded, inspiring comments and most likely to be true (unpredjudiced) perspective. And for those who have such difficulty giving credit to the obvious discovery and find pleasure in belittling it to a comparison between seeing a figure in a cheese sandwich: LIfe all around is like art...it IS what you see and want it to be... art reflects life so what you see or don't is more revealing of your own mind and its limitations or its ability or inability to see the beautiful, fantastic and real, true, and unlimited, beyond your filters and idealogies and attitudes that YOU are bound and blind to and blinded by or you are free to see beyond...

I believe we are not just "seeing things" I believe that it is there! How wonderful to see and find!

How come the K's are drawn differently, I think that is the first tell that this is far fetched.

if you squint hard this is definitely apparent

I think "arty farty's" comment is extremely insightful.

The comments that dismay me are of the "who cares either way since Pollock's already famous?" variety. Such a comment implies that it's pointless to construct a deeper understanding of a controversial artist based on new, concretely visible observations. Whether or not Henry Adams's argument is correct, why deride the impulse to better understand that lies behind it? The attitude behind such a comment, to me, does the greatest possible disservice to the artist by virtue of its apathy.

I'm a student of Dr. Adams so I won't pretend to be unbiased. However, I do find his argument convincing. It is true, in a "postmodern era," that visual ambiguities lend themselves to endless personal interpretation. The problem with leaving Mural with that gloomy and skeptical prognosis, however, is that we have evidence external to the painting that proves the name "Jackson" (the last three letters of which I see, as well as the J) isn't an arbitrary guess.

Pollock's old mentor was Benton. That much is indisputable. So we can assume he was exposed to Benton's formula for a successful composition:

1) a sprawling horizontal format (check),
2) a series of vertical poles (the letters of the name, check),
and 3) pivoting movement in layers of space around those poles (more muted here than in later drip paintings, but check).

Why wouldn't Pollock fall back on the teachings he internalized as an art student in order to grapple with an entirely new trajectory in his work? It makes sense to me.

Art is a both a creation by an artist and an interpretation of the viewer. It is enlightening that we still appreciated both.

I don't discount our willingness to see meaningful shapes where none were ever intended. But neither would I be so quick to discount the possibility of Henry Adams' thesis. The caption beneath the painting uses the phrase "camouflaged letters." I find that interesting because I recently read (in the book Camoupedia) that Benton was assigned to make paintings of camouflaged ships for the US Navy in WWI. Also, as Pollock was growing up, a common form of public entertainment was the "chalk talk," which consisted of a performance with a drawing pad in which one thing evolved into another, or nonsensical marks turned out to be meaningful. These often consisted of letters hidden in pictorial forms. In psychology, these are called "embedded figures" and there's an online essay somewhere called "Revisiting Gottschaldt" that talks about the use of these in recent history.

Remember that people see things differently. I'm partially color blind so those circle/color tests with the hidden letters that are routinely given are impossible for me. On the other hand I'm able to spot small variations in certain hue's very easily depending on what colors are being shown. I do see the writting.

You definitely can see it, squint your eyes, it is there and the letters in order. Not a coincidence at all. For this discovery 60 years later is pretty amazing. I love this painting for it's colors and energy, now I like it even more.

I thought it was interesting at first, but when they show you the letters in the painting it seems far-fetched. I was able to spell my name... I think it is definately one of those things where if you look for something you'll find it

So I get how they n see SOME letters but here's my question... why take the time to make the entire letter K in Jackson but the K in Pollock looks like and upside down Y... thats why I am a sceptic now

I dabbled in abstract expressionism in school and found something unique -- if i did something truly abstract the teacher hated it. If i created an image and messed it up really good the teacher would say "that looks like sailboats -- i like it" even though the original was never sailboats. i assumed the eye is drawn to signs and symbols and a certain amount of geometry. true abstraction isn't aesthetic.

Artists are given a quirky kind of genius. I think the "hidden" letters amongst the squiggles is a great parlor game -- and many great artists love parlor games -- like dali -- oh and benton.

Well Im just a stay at home mom, with no knownledge of art or this man, but I can tell you that I love art and anything thats unique to me. And as soon as I seen this painting without even knowing whats going on with it, I seen the letters first,like one of those 3D pictures. It caught my attention that I had to read on about it. So All I have to say is that, the painting is trying to say something to us lol. Look luck on the search.

Their reaching here.

Whoever wrote the comment: "I see dead people" had me cracking up!

The thing about this painting is that you can formulate the letters in Pollock's name with many of these squibbles, not just what's been pointed out.

That said, the painting does appear to have his name...

This is bull, I could probably find the entire Declaration of Independence if I wasted time looking at paintings all day.

I can't see Jackson Pollock's appellation, but the name RORY EMERALD is clearly seen.

Sure, this painting is so chaotic that I can probably find my name there also, is what mind wants to see.

$140 million. Really. I'll leave it to the art historians to describe the implications of this work on modern art. As a layperson, I have to say that this work is a shining example of the point at which art started becoming elitist and inaccessible. It shouldn't take a college degree to be able to appreciate great art on a gut level. Granted, becoming educated in the structure and form of a piece of art, along with the cultural and pursonal context in which it was created, can add to its impact greatly. But there has to be something for me to be attracted to immediately. This piece...does not do that for me in the least. Upon looking at it I'm not even remotely interested in pursuing the details I just described. I suspect that most people think like I do, since I'm an average Joe and all my friends are too. So I have a question to all the true artists and art appreciators here - what's the point? Why does something like this even get made? So an artist can recieve accolades from a few friends, and they can all have a laugh at "the little people who don't get it"? If it can be done briefly, please enlighten me.

Hello.... If I could get the photo to open up to a larger size, I might be able to make a judgement myself.

All I can get is a photo of the artist with links to another small photo.

It would be like him to play a game like that. I've done this myself with a number of my paintings. I would ask 'Why Not'!?

JL

It looks like it should be called "War of the Stick Men".

I just spotted his profile!

I see...wait for it..........JERRY GARCIA !!!!!!

I found my name in it as well. Suzette. With that many squiggles and lines you could write anything you wanted with enough stretching of letter forming. If they were exact or his signature then okay, but seriously, it's a bunch of squiggly lines.

Peolple see what they want to see, that's what this is. I can see more than they did if u ask me. Are these guys going to make this another Da Vinci's code? LOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

Amen Steve! People should appreciate it for what it is...beauty in motion. Take it in and then move on. Picking it apart only destroys the work. Art is emotional not intellectual.

His work is pretty sad, lacks most things that make art something that is appreciated. If I had to say something good about his work, is that it captures what most high-schools students spend inordinate amount of times drawing on paper and jeans, while their minds wander. An in-depth analysis of the design with a Cray computer reveals, that he was very bored.

WOW! You're good!!! That's how he signed that canvas, and then painted over it. Nice discovery.

I opened a dictionary to random pages and pointed to a word on each (with my eyes closed). I was able to discern each of these words in this work with absolutely no effort. also found my on name, the name of my hometown and finally the phrase "I buried Paul".

Any sounds music, any words song.

The artist, the poet, the profit and sage.

Can't we all just get a long.

There is a fine line between genius and wacko.

No more shall I write, no more shall I sing, no more shall I try anything.

You know what I think?
I think before you can criticize anyone elses work, you should learn how to speak and write in good english. A mistake here or there now and then is not what I mean, but most of the comments I have here is no where near good english. Also, if he did what it seems as if he did, then it seems he used great imagination and mastery. Possibly, inspiring the graffiti artist and the like for years.

I actually found my name in the painting. This offends me, how dare an artist use my name without my permission. Please destroy it immediately or risk a lawsuit.

It is in the eye of the beholder. I can find the names of every member of my family in that painting.I'll bet you can find your's.

I just found my name hidden in there.

Trompe l’oeil is a specific type of art, and this is nothing even remotely in that category.

I agree that someone might get whatever they want from this painting...it IS a Pollack after all. But even before I read the headline, I noticed the name in the work. I can't believe that it's a coincidence. It's a fun thing that artists sometimes do, a little whimsy hidden in the piece. Also makes an outstanding signature.

i love that this has brought about some much discussion and shown -if you look closely at these responses-how ignorant and self absorbed most people.......sorry just channled pollock......

I really like the mural, but I tend not to agree with the theory. I could see many other letters as well if I considered letters to look as abstract. Since I knew what I was looking for, I actually saw some of the letters in different places than she did. Also, the lines she uses to identify the letter are not the ones that strike out at me. I do think the theory is imaginative, though.

You guys have got to be kidding. I can't believe people are just now seeing this. I have looked at this photo many times thru the years and wondered why someone wrote the name Pollock in a painting. I had trouble figuring out the Jackson part. I was not enough of an Art buff to look up the Artist. Besides the painting was too busy for my taste.

Obviously the man was stumped and in a fit of aggravation and painters block wrote his name on the canvas. The rest was maybe not genius, but certainly inspiration to paint around and disguise it. Keeping it quiet was the Genius part.

Does anyone else see the word "science" in between his first and last name?

So-called modern-art lovers, professional artists, art teachers and critics who are convinced that they can see his name in this eruption of paint should look closer because, with their hallucinatory imaginations and warped sense of artistic expression, they should also be able to make out where Jackson scribbled another special message just for them: "if anyone sees anything at all in this garbage, you're a bigger fool and loser than I am."

I think a painting is whatever the painting was intended to be. If it was meant to hide his name, then fine, it did. If it wasn't, so what? It doesn't matter what he painted. He painted it, we look at it, and we get all differnent meanings from it. It depends on our perspective of the painting. If you look at it for what it is, then it's art to you. If you look at it like it's gibberish nonsense then that's your business. You can kep up you little word search game while everyone else enjoys it.

This painting is amazing. The theory itself I think is a bit of a stretch, seeing as one could pick out several letters and words amidst this, however, why is everyone so up in arms over this. Art is there for you to enjoy on a personal level, to see what you want to see in the work, to derive your own personal enjoyment and meaning out of. If one person sees Jackson Pollack's name within the image, that's great, if I see something else, that's great too.If you look at a field of wildflowers, do you pull your hair out about what it means, or do you just enjoy it?

I find it ridiculous that this amateur is held in such high esteem. Any moron can fling paint at a canvass and call it art, but only the masters like Monet and Renoir took the time to build the skills necessary to make true master pieces. Mr. Pollack is only famous because modern artists can defecate and be called a visionary. So ultimately who cares if he dripped his name in along with the other childish swirls and lines.

So pollock was a graffiti artist huh? thats strange doesnt that kind of art get a bad rep..... =P

I love art, but I can't stand his work, it is way to angry for my tastes. As for if he put his name in his work...he would not be the megalomaniac to do something like this...so what.

I'm with Marian...not sure any artist would appreciate the idea that what they do can be compared to the image in a grilled cheese sandwich...purposely and random without meaning.

This is so dumb. Supposing that he did write his name, so what? What is the point? The article says:

"Pollock's possibly writing his name in Mural testifies to an overlooked feature of his works: they have a structure, contrary to the popular notion that they could be done by any 5-year-old with a knack for splatters."

So this 'new', 'fresh' theory manages to take down one of the oldest and laziest critiques of abstract painting. I'm not sure there's anyone who has seriously looked at Pollock's work who would suggest that they don't have any structure or that a 5-year old could do it. This isn't an 'overlooked' feature of Pollock's painting. In fact, it's something that Pollock continually insisted upon ("No Chaos Dammit!" is one of his most famous statements about his work.)

The "Art World" is about 90% marketing and 10% art...
The Loc Ness monster serves the same purpose as this unseeable Pollack "signature" it's called marketing....

I disagree. There are so many intricate lines in this painting I could probably find my own name in it. Plus, even if Pollock did put his name in, what's the big deal? Most artists sign their paintings somehow...

Like all so-called modern art, it is all up to the viewer. Did anyone see Jesus Christ in there?

cool

The first "a" is almost invisible, so it is a stretch to say it is an "a' a squiggle above and slightly to the left makes a much better "a'
The "O" in Pollack has a break in the top with the sides curling inward, so not in the supposed sample and the second "L" is backwards from the illustration above it.
So who is imagining what???

Very far-fetched... I can see anyone's name if I try hard enough.

Initially, I was looking at the picture alongside the story, and I could have sworn I saw the name, but upon opening the interactive slide, I realized the picture next to the story was incomplete,only about 4/5ths of the mural, and what I thought was the "N", they thought was the "S" in JACKSON, which leads me to say, you can find whatever you want in there really. This however, is a testament to his genius. I still see his name, but then again, I see the first 3 letter of my name.

Well, now, there is no reason for anyone to get so upset about this theory. Art is subjective, period. It is what you see. Yes, even figurative work by a "Master" artist is subjective...think of the Mona Lisa and all the discussions about her smile.

But, the challenge for an artist is to make you see what the artist's sees. And if you think that's easy with an abstract painting I say go ahead and give it a try. Technically, it is more challenging to create art that is realistic but, artistically, it is infinitely more difficult to create art in the abstract that connects with the viewer of the art. (Goto ArtofHilario.com and see what I mean.)

So, did Pollock put his name in there? Possibly and it would be an interesting device if he used his name to help create this painting. But Pollock's talent was in making you see and feel! what you didn't know was there. Brilliant.

Reminds me of connecting the stars in the old Proctor & Gamble emblem...you can make anything...anything! If you tried hard enough, you could probably find the Virgin Mary...wouldn't that cause a stir??

My mistake - it was Elvis!

Intersting theory, no doubt. I wonder, though, if the author of the article got the conclusion he was looking for? Almost anyone's name could be gleaned from an abstract piece of art. One could probably find "Bugs Bunny" among the swirls and brush strokes in this particular work of art.

A Jackson Pollack Painting,... you could arguably hang one upside down, and a thousand randomly selected folks off the street wouldn't know the difference.

I see the Virgin Mary, Elvis and Michael Jackson in the lower left hand corner.

Sorry but this painting is a trash ... :/

i see crowded of women who are nude.one of them play gitar and other are dancing.its so intresting

NO WAY!!! Purely coincidence.

the holy grail is there too... who cares?

As an artist and occassionaly uninspired I have also begun a work around a phrase that has meaning, my name and sometimes just a word. It is an easy way to get started & I wouldn't be at all surprised if Pollack did that. I often get calls months after someone has received one of my works saying that they had just found and "easter egg" hidden some where.

This is ridiculous, but then, calling the garbage that Pollock produced "Art" is ridiculous too, so...have fun y'all!!

Hmmmmmmm art is not my thing but I see it and it also comes with his address too.

I think this piece of art is very creative and unique, these days people are so hooked on ''SCIENCE'' that every thing on earth has to have a meaning or a secret or something. Maybe he did put his name, maybe he did wanted for us to figure it out. Have you ever thought we exactly dont know why he did it. Any one can state their opinion but honestly speaking what they say can be right but yet wrong.

It also says: beans, milk,bread, beer,and vaseline

This is a beautiful piece. That's all. Why must you over-analyze EVERYTHING? Nobody will ever know the full truth behind this painting besides the artist, so why not just enjoy it instead of trying to desipher it?

Pathetic precis of all the delusions of 20th century "art." I'd trade you every "work" by Picasso, Pollock, and the rest of the dreary, self-obsessed paint-splatterers of the 20th century for just one work by Massacio, Rembrandt, van Eyck, Michelangelo, or DaVinci, because the works of the latter are as sublime as the 20th century works are common and vile. Incidentally, the 20th century was the first to turn its back on God in earnest. And, coincidentally, the 20th century also brought us the godless genocides of Mao, Stalin and Hitler. As C.S.Lewis remarked, when you stop believing in God, the problem is not that you believe in nothing, but that you'll fall for anything. Hence all the tortured attempts to explain why Pollock's drop-cloths are really "art."

It's in there. Everything is in there. I've personally written four books and everyone is an allegory on life--the perfect Melville. Not. I know what it's like to create, and it rarely starts out as something smart and clever. Sometimes a whale is just a whale. This is a breakthrough painting because most traditional artists at the time were more careful and "artistic"--meaning well schooled strokes not jibberish. Along comes Pollock and creates jibberish. Background noise, so simplistic and childlike, we think, no way, there has to be more to it. Sorry. And, honestly, a simple person like Pollock might start with his name--it absolutely makes sense. I start all my books with a character like myself--I draw from within, then I transfer my madness into someone else--a mask--from what I am to who I want to be.

Yeah, why wouldn't he have done that? I can see it clearly. I'm an artist, why wouldn't I want to have my name put on my work in a unique way? That's the whole point behind being an artist, uniqueness people! Besides, the man had an ego, of course he did it.

I see waldo!

Definitely not! With all respect, I love art and plan to major in art as well but that is too far fetched. I found J's, A's, C's, K's, S's, O's, N's, P's, and L's in different spots then the one that the Interactive Slideshow pointed out. In all honesty, if I splatter paint over a canvas I can find all letters of the alpahbet and spell multiple names. Unless his name was the first thing he painted, I don't believe this.

He probably didn't mean to. I admit I do see his name, but it's probably an eye trick or an accident.

now this is amazing! it's awesome!

A freaking 2nd grader could paint better than this pile of garbage. This looks like something someone wiped their feet on! Absolute junk.

Either it was indeed written there by the painter, or it was "discovered" by someone else, there is nothing interesting or newsworthy here.

A couple of comments - Pollack could not have done this painting in one night only to deliver it the next day. He worked in oil based paint - takes forever to dry. He typically poured paint on his canvas, from a height sometimes of 8 ft. on a ladder. He also smoked while doing this - putting out his cigarette by squashing it in the paint. Take a look sometime - you will see the butts and also nails -He would throw a bunch of nails on the paint for more texture. And don't be misled - there is structure in his drip paintings. Follow the lines around the canvas and you will see that they all come together; they do not go off the canvas in a haphazard way. There are those who understand abstract art and there are those who wish to remain closed to new ideas. It doesn't mean you like it - It simply means that you can accept another person's view of life. We can all learn a lesson from that.

The moment I read what was supposedly embedded in this piece of art, I immediately started putting the letters together and as to how they may appear in the mural. I may not have noticed this without reading the article, but it wasn't but a minute that I saw letters in the darker areas of the art. It may be that only people of higher intelligence notice these kind of things, and people who have to pay close attention to high detail in their line of work. I would not put it past an artist to create something unique in their art, I don't know why most comments simply have a negative regard as to why, how or if this may be seen in the mural. I own no real pieces of art at all, but I do admire some styles. Let the art speak for itself!

I think it's cool that he may have put is name into his painting especially considering it took the world over 50 years to figure it out. You'll notice that he didn't put initials in a corner so this is an indirect way to sign his name. What can I say? I love art! and obviously in this matter I'm not a skeptic =D

Being an art historian and professional artist painter, since I discovered Pollack, I have always been intrigued by his spontaneous, frenzied, passionate use of painterly techniques, materials and style. The fundamental aspect to this question of whether or not Pollack first etched his name into the composition and then built up his sinuous design of lines and layers of paint, is as a previous responder indicated not critical unless it is documented by x-ray examination.

However, what is significant, is that many artists including myself in my method of generating a painting, often initiate a line, a movement of form to give birth to a concept that consciously or conceptually surface as lines that can reflect or resemble the letters of an artists name as a jumping-off point to begin the composition.

Nevertheless, the true acceptance or denial of this proposed possibility of his name imbedded into the composition, is a fascinating thesis, but perhaps more relevant and critical to this discussion is that it has positively ignited responses to a work of Pollack, which beyond any measure of doubt is rightfully and eloquently deserved.

Like the face on Mars? As analogies go, that's a wild stretch, but I see your point. Perhaps he had something to do with Mars as well.

I see the letters but I dont see them where they should be. And there is no last nae. I think Pollock Put his name on the painting more than once.

for 140,000,000 you can smear my name all over a canvas I don,t care.'Modern Art is more cocerned with tecknique than content!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I see.....Flowers in the spring,......dead people.......no that's not it.... It's Waldo!!!!!

Omg, I noticed this in art class in 3rd grade, and when I pointed it out to my teacher she said I was crazy. Same with everyone else. Now I'm 11, and in 6th grade, and my theory is making headlines.

THE NAME {JACKSON ] IS THERE IN THE PAINTING . IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO SEE. ACE

I cannot see this in the painting. could someone tell or show me this? I am having trouble seeing it.

After viewing the the painting and the percieved letters in the interactive model, I choose not to believe this particular claim. However, I found other lettering in the painting which perhaps I should file claim to! In closing, I believe every artist's ego would allow them to paint at "one" piece with thier name "woven", or "coded" within the work itself!

To those who aren't Artists, duh! All artists at one time or another do this. Same as self portraits. Look in the past for what and the why people!

I don't see Jackson Pollock, but I do see the word HUSH.

Let the artwork be multiple digitally scanned.
the leading scientific method to review the artwork at over 32 ways kind of start to finish process, and with a data base of other pollacks to compare with . mush better than x rays and human eyes...even hex-perts or experts.
can not argue with the physical information derived from this type of non damaging scanning...

You people are bored... "emgrossing story"!? We're in a world of hell and you think it's interesting that a mediocre artist put his name in his art. You are the same people who would pay ridiculous sums to own it... or spend more money on your house pet than you would on a human.

Really??

The notion of why or how Pollack or anybody for that matter, executes a painting is of no consequence. One must in addition to offering review, criticism or critique best stems from the position of being or having been a practitioner of the art of painting. Every painter has to begin a work somewhere and I genuinely believe that Jackson Pollack was one of the very very few American artists whose work reflected precisely those tenets that Modern Expressionism were supposed to - an emphasis upon pure form without color or representation entering into or complicating the works intangible premise. I seriously doubt that Pollack practiced designing his works around his name each and every canvas and should this particular piece to have been constructed in that way advances neither abstract nor representational painting one step above the abysmal point it holds today. If Graffii artists would for a moment step aside their narcissistic tendencies they would be awestruck by the works of Pollack - inspired perhaps but I do not think any graffiti artist has even carefully looked at what real subjective but non-representation painting is. Pollack might have been idiosyncratic and a bit disturbed however, he was truly a gifted painter who helped to define mid 20th Century culture and painting. I work with intanglibles however all my work results in representation - so from the point of view of 35n years of professional painting experience, this mans work still has alot of impact, grace beauty and meaningfulness with regard to its era -- His name and initials et al is besides the point and really trite - Look at the art work for Christs sake!

I think his work looks alot like the throw tarp most true painters use under there work rather than something we should really even bother to look at. For the fans of his work i think the San Diego Zoo is has a chimp thats doing comparable work. Pollok was just another drunk. I he blew his nose in a hanky there would be some Art Snob telling you that it was some sort of genious work of art. as long as you had the money to give the little shill!

Saying that "Jackson was the greatest painter this country has produced," is in the eye of the beholder. Frankly, I can't stand his art or modern art for that matter, so I don't think much of Jackson's art let alone believe he's the greatest American painter. That being said it's also a stretch to say that he painted around his name. It could be plausible, but you'd have to find better letters then the ones they suggest are there (neither of the Ks are really Ks).

Perhaps the author simply misses Al Hirschfeld and his hidden 'Nina's.

can someone help me? i dont understand how a person is deemed as a great painter? i dont mean this painter or this piece, i dont know if i like it or hate it, but what makes a great a great? brushstrokes? the final image? imagination? i dont get it.

Balderdash. By studying this painting long enough I can pick out my name too. With so many squiggles and curves I don't doubt that one may decipher many other names or words also.

Wooowwww, you guys just noticed that? I saw that ages ago and even commented about it in my art class.

This is great, just think of what other discoveries that will be made in his other paintings. I was looking at Convergence the other day and could swear I read "Paul is Dead"! This will give new life to the conspiracy nuts of all types. What fun we have in store for us!

Personally it makes his work a bit more interesting to me. I like a lot of modern art but I must admit to not being much of a Pollock fan. It doesn't pose any questions for me or look all that pleasing to the eye - two major criteria for me. I especially have little regard for art that has to be explained the the 'illuminated' rather than stand on it's own merits. Oh well, once a Philistine, always a Philistine I guess.

Of course it is his name. Pollock was just the kind of painter to do such a thing and enjoy the controversy that would arise about it after his death. If you know anything about the man you MUST know it is his name! Duh!

joseph 1:57 are you the father of the son?

I found the powerball numbers!

This is not all that surprising. Given the time and style it's appropriate for the artist to do this kind of hidden or obscure artistry. For the people who are passionate of all varieties of art this is one more example of why art is unique and is to be looked at on all different levels. For those who believe this is just another way people want to see what they want to, you are an uneducated group and don't realize the full beauty of art.

I think they just wanted to find something that was different about the picture. Standing back and looking at it you would have never found his name. Some of the letters dont even look like letters at all. This is just my opinion. Its just like those games, Hidden Pictures. I do like his work though.

The interesting thing is that you can apparently make out any word or words that you want out of the squiggles. A fun story, and very possible he worked the letters of his name into the work but made lots of other ambiguous lines in it to make us wonder. Quite the interactive piece in that sense.

I thought everyone knew about that. I have seen the letters in the picture since high school in my art class. I really thought that everyone has seen it and thats why it was great art. lol I guess i should stop assuming that everyone can see that. I think you need more of a abstract mind, or more a visual thinker to see it without trying so hard.

I looked at the reputed letters alone, as shone in the article. Then I looked directly at the painting and within 15 seconds could read the letters in the painting. Now, they are there. But I see the painting as a complex and endlessly fascinating figurative representation of the natural world -- or am I just baked?

seeing this painting again is a special treat. i made many visits to see this piece while i was a student at the university of iowa. it is a rather large work that grips you with raw energy. i never saw the artist's name in the thick paint, but i respect the creativity of the viewer as well as the painter. many comments here prove my poinr, including the viewer who sees vomit. seems like this masterwork still has it's magic because so many see so much.

I have to say I have seen this painting and have said that very thing.. thank god someone else sees it too.. anyway only time will tell if its true or not for they will start testing out things to see what is hidden in his works

I can find his name if you give me a magic marker and a dalmation. That makes just as much sense as making the words fit on the mural.

He is my favorite artist of all time, and i do see his name, but, there are so many curves and curls, u could spell anyone's name, right?

first i will say I love J.P.s work.

But like one commentor said "who cares?" I don't think he wrote his name, but I bet I could find MY NAME in there. I bet I could find my name in a lot of his paintings. But even if he did slap some paint along those kinds of calligraphic lines I don't think it has any more significance than any other of the dynamic marks he made in his work. The article is just a bunch of blabla. As if you cant find something interesting to talk about in the art world.

I remember years ago I was walking down a hallway to the office of a prominent businessman, and just outside of his office were two Pollacks hanging on the wall of the hallway. That was the first time I had ever seen an original Pollack painting. I was too distracted with my business to dwell on them, but the thought did cross my mind as to what is art? I remember thinking that they were interesting. John Carey, in his recent book, "What Good Are The Arts" defines art as whatever one thinks it is. I like that. At a symposium a few years ago at the Cleveland Institute of Art, the modern composer Michael Torke was asked, "What is art?" He responded by saying that art is what is left over after one provides sustenance and shelter for oneself. I like that, too. The point is, I guess, that those who loathe "modern" art because it doesn't translate for them into something they have seen before, are locked into their own static worlds. Even if I don't happen to like Pollacks, they are art and contribute to the stream of things that we call progress. It's all very interesting. How much money one of Pollack's paintings is worth is an entirely different topic.

Looking at the way you selected letters, passing between marks and encircling contrasting areas arbitrarily, gives me the idea that I could find any number of letters using the same method. It is possible that he used script to inspire the painting, but his name or only his name as the key word seems doubtful.

I believe that we must credit Pollock with the invention of those annoying security measures, consisting of letters and numbers written in strange ways, that one must copy to assure one is human and not a "bot." I often have trouble recognizing the contents.

As to whether his name is embedded in the painting, I have trouble seeing that also.

If he did it becouse he could and we can look at it every way we want to and nothing we can do about it,you have a choice to like it or not. THE END RESULT IS THIS,IF YOU DIDN'T GET IT READ IT AGAIN,THANKS.

I can kinda see S-O-N on my own but the interactive thing looks like the found some letters,but despertly tried to carve out the missing ones out of lines not even touching or relatedin any way what so ever

Seems to me if you tried hard enough, you could get that painting to spell "Rosebud", or just about anything else you wanted

As much as I would love to believe it, it seems too far fetched.

Even with the slideshow, the letters are truly in-decipherable and if the same method is used, countless other letters can be found.
I think this, unfortunately, is one of those 'see-what-we-want-to-see' things.

His name... hidden... how original!

Hold on people. If i look closely and let my eyes stare through the painting I can see the statue of liberty, a humpback whale, the san francisco skyline, and wait my aunt francis on her rockin chair smokin a peace pipe with geronimo. Get outta here. He was high. Got a little freaky with some paint. That's it. Enjoy it for what it is, and leave it alone.

First off I think that most of the comments from everyone here sound like children. Second, I don't particularly favor this painting but it doesn't change my opinion in the matter. I myself am an artist...a 24 year old artist without a college degree. BUT I have many times put my name into the painting/drawing itself because I hate creating something and then ruining it by signing my name in clear print somewhere. So I do lean towards the fact that maybe Pollock did do it on purpose. I have never seen this painting up close, but is there anywhere on the painting, an actual signature in a dedicated spot? If not why?...hey maybe he did do it and maybe he did it for the same reasons I do it. Maybe he didn't, I don't know but this is NOT far-fetched and I think it's very interesting. This was the most interesting, thought provoking subject I have read all day, all week, heck probably all month! Yet this is something so simple that people think it's impossible because there are no true facts or there are no mathematics involved or no sudoku problems to be solved. Nobody ever takes time to just enjoy the simple things in life. Another thing is that most people don't like to see the simple truths. A lot of people won't believe that Pollock may have done this on purpose because of the fact that is simple and "right in front of our face". A lot of people out there, like COMPLICATED and therefore you could SHOW them the truth about something and they still wouldn't think it possible because it was too simple. We only use a quarter of our brains and we can be intelligent humans...but if we open up our minds even more, just think of all the possibilities...including things as simple as incorporating our names into our painting.

I totally agree with Randy. 9/25 post.
Who really cares. I'll bet I could find the declaration of independance in this mess of squiggles. Art is Art by the artist.Whatever is in his/her mind at the time of conception
It's nothing if nobody cares.
If there isnt a buyer it's junk.
One persons junk is anothers treasure.
Only a yardsales. Great luck to all artist !

Come on...I could probably find my name basically on anything.

Thanks! now I can't quit see it,,, ya'll ruined that painting for me..

cool!

Guy scribbles name on paper.
Guy splashes paint on paper.

wow...a masterpiece.

I am in the wronng profession.

there are spot on the painting that have spot that lok more like a real letter ...like i found a k on for the end of pollock..is there a way i can shot the letter to you so as to refine your great finding
...cfmoreno7@yahoo.com

I think he wrote his name 1000s of times in different colors and that's how the mural came out

this is cool, i even found my name on the right (mostly to the bottom) this is remarkable.....

For the little bit of time I looked at it, I got a headache. Who in there right mind would want to look at it for any length of time. Not what I would call art, a child could do the same thing.

From what I see, it is Pollock's name covered with scribbles so NO ONE WOULD NOTICE IT! Leave it alone & let it be!

As a Fantasy Illustrator who uses multiple imagery upon multiple imagery to give the viewer alot more to see than they originally bargained for, I'm often times asked if "this" or "that" particular image was drawn purposely. Most of the time, the viewer is seeing something conjured up in their own mind. And while they are on "alert" that there's more to meet their eyes upon viewing my work, they often times simply "project" an image, and declare that "I purposely drew that into the picture!", when, in truth, I had not! So, did Pollock add his name in such HUGE letters to that mural? Based upon the vague outlines shown in the video above, the case could be made that several other swirls on that painting also resemble the letters of his name. But, as an artist who would love to have the world view his work, I don't think I could bring myself to make my name the central theme and image of my breakthrough painting! Sure, we artists DO have egos. But, I somehow can't see that Pollock was THAT big on himself. Especially that early in his (too short) career.

For an "ARTIST" who only Slapped paint around, And Called it " Art "
This is Very Detailed and Ornate, Resembles " Scream " by Munch.

Okay, so the caption to the picture reads 'discernable as camouflaged letters'--if something is camouflaged it is not discernable. Give me a break. It is like any other abstract piece, the viewer sees what they see, but not because it was 'intentionally' put there.
What nonsense. This is making news why?????

Oh heck, why not? It is his name and he did own the canvas, I am pretty sure it was paint as well, so why not. This is a rare find that you can either believe or not,it is something that there really isn't enough proof either way. I just hope someone doesn't get a hefty grant to spend 3 years researching it.

If the letters are there does that mean the painting is not abstract? If you are among those that claimed any image can be extrapolated from the painting; I challenge you do find one and share it with us.

I think he did hide his name in the painting. I do not think this is akin to, say, seeing religous figures in the bark of a palm tree. It's his signature,the odds of it being a coincience are slim.

I spent a few years studying everything about Pollock from every angle (i.e. psychological, artistic, etc.) while I was an artist. Every artist that I ever met who was considered to be exceptional goes through a phase of focusing solely on one's self through their name, apart from the selfishness many modern artists tend to display. It would not be a shock to find a clearly discernible 'Jackson Pollock' through x-ray analysis. If people really want to understand his intense selfishness, all one has to do is look at his upbringing and forays into shamanism/esotericism. Examine the people/things he was interested in and you won't find much innovation at all.

As an artist who has studied Mr. Pollack's work ...who cares...whats the point? Please don't try to get inside the mind of an artist (not possible)....just appreciate the art and it's beauty that you see.

so what if he wrote his name on it? maybe not a 5, but umm, a 12-year-old can do that too!!!!!!

there is nothing genius about it. just because somebody will pay $140 million, doesn't make it a great work of art.

the articles itself mentions that pollock says he "didn't have the technical ability to make a great realistic mural and needed to do something different"

look up real genius artists like bouguereau. nobody else can do what he did, unless they're real geniuses too.

I see my own face in Mars! And the Moon too. (If I look hard enough)

But in a bigger scope, I wonder if anyone found one of his cigarettes in the painting as he did most of it on the ground. A typical fall and inclusion to the work.

Also my friend did a Indiana Jones swap of JP's shoes for his own paint caked ones while on display at the Art Institute of Chicago. Why has someone not figured that one out yet?

If you look for something hard enough you will end up finding it or at least clues that indicate it is there. Pollock's work is signature enough - he wouldn't need to do this to insure he's remembered.

I don't think you should assume a person is uneducated because they think the hidden letters are unintentional coincidences. Much less can we assume they do not appreciate art.

Judgments aside, I do not think it likely we would be able to see those particuar letters, in that order, in a painting by J. Pollac,

so what if he wrote his name on it? maybe not a 5, but umm, a 12-year-old can do that too!!!!!!

there is nothing genius about it. just because somebody will pay $140 million, doesn't make it a great work of art.

the articles itself mentions that pollock says he "didn't have the technical ability to make a great realistic mural and needed to do something different"

look up real genius artists like bouguereau. nobody else can do what he did, unless they're real geniuses too.

If readers study my mosaic of gathered words they will eventually see a concealed and forbidden message.

Compare and contrast: the sigils of Austin Osman Spare, and the calligraphy of Brion Gysin. Both involved the writing over and over again of words, phrases, letters over each other, beyond readability.
I'd post links, but I read all this stuff in books years ago.

impressive huh?
did he mean to do that or its just and accident to have his name on the painting? LoL

Everybody is a critic. It is so easy to criticize and berate an artist and their work, and think of ourselves as experts. Is their a perimeter to good art or bad art? Isn't the judgment purely subjective and based on personal taste?
They say those who can't do are teachers. Prehaps those who have no art ability are experts/critics. Bravo to Pollock, bravo to every artist who has the courage to create and let others judge, and bravo to the gentleman who wrote this article and his wife Marianne who saw the hidden name!
The Mural with its intricacy... it's hard not to believe Pollock intentionally wrote his name in the piece.

Come to think of it: if one really sets out to prove this through the scientific method, the researcher should measure the distance between each letter: if there is a proxemic pattern, it would provide more objective proof on the author's purpose to encrypt his name in the work.

hi , I see my name to.

leave the guy alone, he's dead. sometimes a picture is just a picture!

Of course it's his name!!! although the characters might be misinterpreted by the surrounding scribbles, nontheless, it's his artwork, it should be his name. that's the name of the game*

You see what you want to see. I don't buy it.

take it as it is and leave it alone it is art and i see his name clearly

Balderdash! I see the word BALDERDASH. Seriously. And I also see the words JACKSON POLLOCK. What do I know though, as any art created past 1356 A.D. is absolute rubbish.

A very good story to follow.

definite! without a doubt!

I feel painting should be what you think. There should not be any secrets. I real painter is that who express his felling through his painting!!!

Man, that's a stretch. They're kidding, right?

well i think this is no cooincidance because think in a artistic way he may or may not of had a idea but realisticaly he probly did that.

...........

if you stare at anything you can get a name or sign or symbol but that is what our brain is supposed to do we have to realize that but by the look of the letters ( yes i see them )it was no accident lets test this theory with lets see..... rigged ink blots anyone ? ;)
but yes i think the name was intentional :)

No, he did not hide his name in this painting. With all of the curves and shadows you can spell anything if you look hard enough. It's like the wallpaper in my bathroom. If you stare long enough you can see Abe Lincoln, Jesus and Marge Simpson.

I've never even seen any of his works and by just looking at his painting, I could tell instantly that it looked like one of those mind trick drawings (where you need to stare at the middle and something else eventually pops up). The black lines are intentionally thick in this painting. You'd have to be brain-dead not to be able to figure this out.

oh please you can make those swirls look like anything:( But Pollock is a genius

Tom, the name of the theory that holds that the obvious/simple solution for an observation is most often the best solution is called Occam's Razor (also spelled Ockham's Razor)

And what if they find that the artist painted left to right or up to down or some other organized fashion? In such a case, how would they prove that he didn't just weave his name into the drawing. I hope that they find that he wrote it down first; otherwise we'll have to brace ourselves to one unresolvable debate.

I see it, but any of those lines and curves could be taken for any letter of his name.

jackson pollack often said it was intimidating looking at giant blank canvas not knowing what to put on it first. So might as well break the ice with something that you know. i often find myself staring at a blank canvas wondering what to do to start it why not write my name, i have had my son list his favorite star wars characters to start a painting. Jackson Pollack was just pre star wars.

I found my name in it too! How cool is that? (wink, wink, nod, nod) :)

no.. the person just completed lines to make the shape, especially the last "o" there was no o there

This is a fun project I used to do with my 3 and 4 year old day care kids. Write your first name and then decorate it and everything around it. Matthew, Emily, Kathleen and Alex: your artwork is probably worth a fortune!!!

I like the painting. It... reminds me of many figures doing a dance around a camp fire. It uses beautiful colors... with stark contrasting black... in a way I have never seen used before... it is a new experience. And new experiences should be good. This is a good experience.

I smell a new Dan Brown book!

In gimp, I stripped the image down to its thick black lines and came up with the following photo:

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/lIdzTGl4kVESBz5SBI55NQ?feat=directlink

Though it's impossible to completely discount any claim that "Jackson Pollock" is written somewhere within that image, it seems just as plausible that he began by writing something else, or by writing nothing at all.

This seems to be another fun yet farcical case of "the genius" myth-making...

I see the mental process of his grand niece K.K.P... but then I spent too much time looking for logic or truth in that pond.

Ed Harris, where are you? Can you, please, shed some light on this debate? ::::teehee::::

The number of postings on this article is sign enough that "beauty i[remains] in the eye of the beholder."

how he did it is wat i want 2 c

Most of you are looking through the filter of a calm mind.

Pollock's manic-depressive illness is well known. For someone with the same disease it is easy for me to see his work as a by-product of his illness.

If you have not been through a "mind storm" of frantic creativity during a hyper-manic episode you won't understand.

There's no way to describe it. Think of it as your mind is on warp drive and no matter how hard you try your hands cannot keep up.

The frustration of not being able to download the thoughts to your hands fast enough feeds the mania. A cat chasing its' tail. The episodes can last a few minutes or several hours until you burn out.

I think it's a plausible explanation for why he stopped using brushes as the work progressed. Eventually in frustration he started throwing paint in an attempt to keep up with the tsunami of expressive energy.

The characteristics of the densly packed strokes has an explanation as well. You are so focused on the work that you don't see it in perspective. Your hands are working at 1:1 but you mind is working at 2 or 3:1.

If you ask me to describe my own mind storm drawings I will tell you they are larger than they really are. My mind sees them as 20x20" or larger but in reality they are small about 4x6".

During one of these episodes my mind is so intently focused on the spatial relationships and significance of the drawing elements that my mind attributes to each object everything seems expansive.

What do I see? The work of Pollock's out of control mind attempting to reinforce his identity. Try writing your name over and over as fast as you can and see if it's of the impressionist style.

Did anyone see what I saw?...I saw 7618 and I'm gonna buy this number today at the lottery outlets

im not convinced either, i can read my first and last name as well! ------ Try yours guys! always works! hehehe

I just found my name there. He did not even know me!

I found:

Johnny Carson
Carson Daly
Joan Collins
Eric Clapton
Elvis
Eric Idle
and stopped at Mel Brooks.

Was Jackson Pollock a Mel Brooks fan, or Monty Python fan?

I was a Ph.D. candidate in 20th Century Art History at the University of Iowa and a curatorial intern at the University of Iowa Museum of Art. I walked by and looked up at this painting (installed between large-scale Motherwell and Max Beckmann paintings) everyday for over a year, and I never saw the outline of Pollock's name in the intertwining lines and drips of paint. I imagined figural outlines. However, that doesn't mean it isn't there. Pollock left his painted hand print on a late canvas as a sort of signature before he committed suicide, so maybe this new theory isn't so far fetched. As American artists who were considered second class to the Euopeans at this time, they all wanted to make names for themselves. I don't underplay Pollock's ego. This was Pollock's 'breakthrough' painting (he had a difficult time letting go of the figure, representation), so maybe his ego (signature)was a transitional bridge from figuration to the abstract, gestural paintings. Subconsciously, he may have started with a signature in the process of creating this work. Other artists of the New York School often used handwriting in their works, i.e. Robert Motherwell's Je t'aime paintings. This is worth researching further. It would be interesting to compare to the psychoanalytical drawings.

Given that an abstract painter can and will use anything to initiate a painting, Jackson Pollock may have just written his name to start, then built on that, or integrated it into the rest of the work. If you look at his work with open eyes you realize that it is a kind of writing, but using a new, unique and forever changing set of "letters", so why not use the letters of his own name as a point of departure? But to actually comb through the work for symbols and signs seems almost fatally pedantic, and a waste of time.

No way. This is just another incident of "seeing what you want to see". Just like you can associate any number with anything if you try hard enough, and besides, you can make out anything in a huge array of squiggles like that! Nonetheless it is still possible that he did in fact put his name in there on purpose, but highly unlikely.

This is totally ridiculous. The letters that guy found look nothing like the original letters themselves. How can we be sure that he wrote Jackson Pollock instead of just "Jack" "Son" "Poll" or "Lock"? After a long time of observing, I simply see dozens of ghosts squeezing up tight and smiling at each other.

I think that Jackson Pollock painted this painting in such a way that you can see any letters,names,words, or even pictures in it. Maybe that was his real purpose for painting this painting. Maybe he wanted everyone who sees this painting to actually stand there and think about it. I mean ask yourselves,everyone who said that he was crazy did think about it, they just probably didn't think hard enough.
If he did do that, I think hes a genius. This painting really captured everyone's opinion.Think about it.
:)

I don't see it either. I'm a watercolor artist, and just finished a painting of a street in St. Augustine. A plaque on a wall that I painted, if you look closely, looks like a Sumo wrestler. Purely accidental, but I'm leaving like that because I find it quite amusing.

I think it's a great work of art...

I can see where you get the letters from, but my question is How did art experts look over this all these years? It is very possible that his name is there, I can see it, but then again if you look at something long enough you can see just about anything your mind wants you to see, right? Anyway, I think it is a great discovery none the less.

Sure he probably put his name in it- Ive done paintings where I hide my name or other words and then splatter paint to make it abstract.... but it never fails a friend or family member will see other words letters or things in there as well.

If memory serves correctly, there were a lot people that thought the world was flat too but thankfully they were wrong.

I beg to differ. This is an obscene waist of intellectual talent. Had JP written his name across the canvas, he wouldn't have used such a peculiar font. The letter "k" for example, in this thesis, is not even completed. With everything going on in this painting, he could have used Ariel, Courier or Times New Roman and it ( his name) would have remained hidden from view.

sorry I don't buy it... Pollock's ego was huge, no doubt, but his hugely individualist style and expression was his signature; hiding a signature in a painting would have been too cliche for him. Pollock would have sooner hidden a "blue" message to his patrons, gallery owners, and curators...

I'm happy that in the United States, Art is in the news and we are having an intelligent conversation...... I think Pollock is an American master who considered his influences,(Benton, and the Mexican Muralists), and using his intelligence pushed forward with painting into the unknown. He was not that far removed in style from some of the other modern masters who came before him untill he arrived at the drip paintings. Art is important. Some people have said things like "people are being killed in the world and we are talking about art." Art is what civilizations leave behind. It is how we look in on cultures of the past. Their religions don't last, it's their art that remains.

The fact that the name is in the painting matters little since the name is already on the painting. Abstract art has the advantage of allowing the painting to stimilate different thoughts in different people at different times. It is successful when intense thoughts are stimulated. The problem here is that the name of the painter is not very stimulating. Why not look for something about world peace or international famine? The fact is that Jackson Pollock was a tragic figure. Finding something about his personal tragedy might also be stimulating. Must a person suffer so to produce great art?

wow

looks like graffiti i see it for sure!!!

If you look closely, it looks as if Pollock included his name not only forwards, but backwards. There's a swirl that resembles a capital J in the top right hand corner. Find it, go from there, and it looks easier to see than when written forwards.

Hmm...I see...

Sunshine =D

And a bunch of other words, but I guess I can see his name too - The 'a' was a far stretch for me too - but who really knows but himself =]

This is a very interesting theory, and I agree with DirtyCowboy79. This is most likely done on purpose by Pollock, is not very surprising that he would put a 'hidden message' in his art. It is a very beautiful peice.

..tell you, i can find my name too in the painting...

The truth on the subject is that only one person knows what hidden messages lie in this painting and that's Jackson Pollock. To say, "No! That's stupid! There's no way that's in there!" is preposterous. Fact is, we just don't know, do we?

ok...everyone should eliminate the word abstract from their vocabulary, as all art is abstract,(blockheads) even photo realism(or what ever it is refered to these days). i strived to teach my first born the word modigliani as the first spoken word, and have never uttered "jeez, my kid could do that". help me out here, i believe willem dekooning theorized that the art god came and touched everything made in the name of art once every millenium? even if this particular instance is a happy accident, so what? why not enjoy the artwork?

I see a doodle..I see Jackson Pollack at his desk..doodling his name while on the phone and this was the result.I think the "n" and the last"k" have a little more to them than what is shown.
I agree with Ms.Berardi!

Thats what i call Art, no description, most of the Hater critics don't want to acknowledge this work but so many people want to say something about it, pretty obvious there is content here!

The theory is interesting, but when I went through the interactive feature, I wouldn't even call it a stretch. It seems like a willful fantasy. I could just as easily find JP's name in the grass on my front lawn.

...of course he did...

Even if this wasn't pointed out by this article, I would have thought there was letters.
I have never seen this before, and just looking at it there are easily definable letters? And no one has noticed before?
Wow.

Yeah this is a stretch. A great story, but really there are so many lines, swirls, and circles in there that it's anyone's imagination to find the letters/word. Besides that is not a "k" it is more like the Greek letter lambda. Although I can see a different "k".

Either way, what an incredible painting that I still love. Makes me want to fill my walls with his work!

I believe he could have encoded his name in this painting. It looks like one of those pictures that we used to do in middle school doodling and not listening to the teacher. You write your name and trace it with a number of colors. If I look at the painting I see Jackson, but not Pollock. And the Jackson I see it not aligned with the Jackson in the slide show. The (s)(o)(n) is, but the J and A looks to be in cursive. The back part of the (a) is actually the beginning of the K in the slide show and the other part of the K is the (c). The name is not so spreaded apart and messy looking.

...YES...he did it......

as noted above and quite humorous in nature "maybe he wrote his name on it because he was worried someone would steal it" now that's genius

Once it was mentioned that his name was within the painting I saw it immediately. Your wife is correct, the name is there. For some people, their brain does not function well in the abstract and so even simple games and puzzles, like "Magic eye", "Find Wando", "I Spy" are difficult for them to do. It does not make them less intelligent, just less capable of the task. My brain does not do concrete calculus math problems, which are as simple as 1,2,3 to one of my daughters, but she does not see the name. My other daughter, the right brain child, creative and artistic, saw it immediately as well, when I asked her if she could see the name. It was a "Wow!" reaction from her. We will enjoy it as we see it. The rest of you can continue to argue it out.

TRUTH. My eyes move from right to left folling the flow/movement of the piece as a whole. The yellow and red shapes force emotion, and the black line guide me through, and, bring me back to the beginning agian. Only to find something else the next time around, a face, a word, something meaningful to me. I'm not sure if Pollock knew what was he doing, I dont care. It is a wonderful work, because it "creates" wonder,concern,argument, feeling, it touches/speaks to us as humans "in our condition", in the end Pollock,(i belive) put his soul on canvas for us all to judge. I wonder, "if" he had a choice, would he have done it? Too many great artists cant find the courage, the rest of the greats have no "choice". I may turn this piece up side down and take another look... I may see something new. What you see may make a great new discussion! AT LEAST WE ARE TOGETHER.

I see the name Pollack easily, I thought I could see his name in other paintings as well in Pollock by Leonhard Emmerling's book. I believe Pollock wrote or symbolized on paintings he did outside as well then added paint over them. What he himself said "literally be in the painting."

its too easy to "find" things if you're looking for them...especially ina painting like that where everything runs together...you could "find" other words/names as well

so interestig............

It can be either true or not, only the artist himself can tell what is realy inside the painting, so lets just leave it as a mystery,......

Scratching out your name in swirls, and then painting over it does not seem like such an incredible task. It certainly is in line with artistic vanity, and most people sign their work.

I see it as a point of curiousity, not any form of 'amazing' genious. The presence of his name in the first deposition of black on the canvas seems fairly simple to me.

John H.

No, your right he did that a lot with his work many of us do it. Its like useing ones life to write storys you put a little of your self in all work.

This is so bizarre. SO are we gonna analyze all of Pollock's paintings for similar work now??? The guy was completely random. The only thing consistent about Pollock was his media. Who knows what he was trying to do.

I agree with "fearless bystander"s comment. It is just like the story of the emperors new clothes. If you look at some of those letters that they "reveal" there isnt even anything supporting the shape like the c(both) or the a and the bottom of the j. I mean this is so idiotic its not even funny. and some people are so "awwweee!" wow...talent is not throwing paint at a canvas, my three year old can do that, her great grandmother can, YOU can! I can! and they go for 2 million?? now I know what to do to make some money....

In Pollock, by Leonhard Emmerling's book I see his name in several paintings. I believe he symbolized & wrote his name then painted over it on paintings he did outside as well! As he himself said "literally be in the painting."

sorry, ain't buying it

I think it is fully possible that Pollack actually hid his name in "Mural." When I looked at the first image of the painting, even before I read the article, I could make out the vague shapes of letters. This is actually similar to one of those 3-D hidden image posters we've all seen. You have to look at it for several minutes before you actually see anything. Also, Pollack may have hidden his name as a form of signature; is there any evidence of a signature on the painting? All artists learn early on to sign their works, even DaVinci signed his paintings. Perhaps Pollack wanted to create a legacy that far outlasted history; long after his name has been forgotten, someone with a keen eye (and a bit of an imagination) will look at his "Mural" and still know who created this masterpiece.

This theory is absolutely ridiculous. The last letter (a "k") is not even complete. This is a perfect example of the art world trying to make something of nothing. You also see this type of over-analysis in literature. Many of the scribbles that the theory presents as letters are actually much more evident in other portions of the painting as the letters the theorist wants them to be. Hog wash.

I believe it's unlikely.

What's the big deal? So he used his name as a starting point for this piece. As an artist I can tell you there's nothing worse than trying to start a painting on a blank canvas. I knew of a guy once (a printmaker) who whould lay a cooper plate on the floor for people to walk on, then used the results as a staring point (or inspiration) for his work. May sound a bit odd, but inspiration can come from the most mundane sources, a flock of birds, shadows on a wall, etc.,. Before you laugh, try starting a painting on a white sheet of canvas or paper. Not quite as easy you might think.

while i think art is great, and if you come to some understanding by feeling and internalizing the art, then the artist has done his job well...etc., etc., etc. but i'm leaning towards the idea that in this case, people are seeing what they want to. too many letters in the interactive picture don't look like letters at all (the "k" in pollock looks more like a T that fell over...and since when did a "k" have only three lines?). but i'm glad that this "discovery" is getting people involved in the arts.

maybe its the way that the interactive picture highlighted the letters of his name, but i really believe you can see anything you want in this.

all i saw was a rock...

He's really a great painter . Awesome I was in love with him ,

If I stare at this painting long enough, maybe a portrait of Clement Greenberg will emerge, too! (Har, har!)

This theory regarding Pollock's name is intriguing, but I'm not quite convinced. It's a fun thought, though.

Other art that Pollock could have certainly encountered, like Cubism, attempted to depict figures as they changed state and character and moved, within the constraints of a single picture on a canvas. What would happen if you wanted to do that with a colorful historical mural or with a depiction of every kind of language/calligraphy in one place... and not just to layer figures one on top of the other, but to put them in motion... A God's eye view of history... or an attempt to drill down into history and take a core sample...

I see people, horses, saints...

I can't ever know what his true intention was, but if this was it, it was well-executed. In the popular mind, much of this type of art is a mockery of art put on by a bunch of charlatans to make money. The truth is, it's just a mirror... but just because you opened your eyes in front of it and saw some sort of reflection and doesn't mean that you saw nothing at all... and isn't that popular opinion about the art, about that reflection, just a short essay on what's wrong with our society? That it's all orchestrated by charlatans just to make money?

And to all the people who have a problem with "inkblots" and art "without objective references"... These "inkblot" type depictions are useful tools. However, this topic is deeper than the scope of this article. I will say though, that all human progress, all "answers", cannot be obtained without the creative, non-objective capacity to formulate the right questions and to conceive of possibilities before they become objective reality. Discovering "what is" means playing at the boundaries of "what was" and "what could be." Our concrete reality looks pretty abstract to a newborn baby.

I have often wondered what I was not seeing. Now I know~~ It's his name. His art work is fantastic. Thank you. Souci

It's true! Can we talk? It's just like the stars of Aquarius form the image of a man with water streaming from the bucket he holds.

I was an art student at the University of Iowa back in the 1960s and down in the dank basement hallway of the Art Building was stored this particular Pollack. It was just leaning up against the wall unprotected and unattended to and when I would venture down there I never noticed any hidden signature although the light was pretty bad. Anyway, ccasionally, it would appear on the back of an express truck heading off to some place that was considering purchasing it. I remember one day seeing it on the open air back of an express truck heading off somewhere in a sort of a dilapidated crate wobbling back and forth in the middle of an Iowa snow storm. Luckily, it didn't blow off and I guess the University could never get anyone interested in buying it. Lucky for them.

wow I wish had that time to spare to find similar discoveries

That is what the painting is meant for. To see what you want to see. It is abstract. The meaning of an abstract painting is up to the one looking at it.

Too much time on your hands. I have some weeds to be woven into lovely artful hand bags. Want to help???

Umm...I have a dead on recreation of Jackson Pollock's work done by my 2 year old using spaghetti and meatballs and chocolate milk.

Such an artist would not write his name so carelessly The way it appears looks like a child wrote his name. I do not believe this. He is a masterful artist and I am positive this painting holds more truths then just his name. Anyone can see anything in art that is the point. I'm am truly sorry but I love art and I see his name only because it is pointed out. But taken my own look I can see his name maybe five other ways. Either way this is art and it will always be a special piece. He did a wonderful job making sure or eyes would always find something to see in his work and for the he will be remembered an artist.

who cares....its an ugly painting anyway

Me like art

quite frankly, i have a little appreciation of this kind of painting like those of picasso; salvador gali(?) or vali(?)(spanish painter) including this one by jackson pollock. it looks bizarre to me. but paintings like that of picasso and or pollock are quite interesting how an artist mind is being expressed. its still bizarre but "wow"!

i'm just a laymen, not an art student and have no knowledge of art whatsoever. even so, i can see the letters the first time i saw this piece. i mean, what's wrong with you guys? is it that hard to see?

I saw the same thing on the toast I made this morning. That's crazy!

My 8 year old focused on one spot and saw a black ink blot....he has autism. My 3 year old saw fish...then they both called each other stupid.

It took me all of 6 seconds to clearly find my first and last name spelled out in two lines within the curves of this painting as well. In fact, I could see mine more clearly than his.

Try it. I'm sure you can find yours, too.

We see what we look for in chaotic shapes. It's like finding a picture of Jesus on a tortilla.

This whole thing is beyond silly!!

...someone once said.....and i believe to preserve the initial moment....... "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I say, "hold it well".

"camel's hair paint brush" is there such thing? that's what i say too and still believed until i heard an amazing revelation when one boring day i happened to watch this tv program which caught my attention what he said that among other things that there is no such thing as paint brush made of camel's hair. such is deceiving he said and what such brush made of "squirrel hair" instead. and also he did mentioned that "panama hat" are made in ecuador. further said that commercial airline black box is not really black but orange in color. isn't this amazing to know. what a boring day which is not boring after all. God Bless ya all.

Imagine they used images like this for captchas.

omg i saw my name to wow

I'm amused by the negative comments concerning Pollock's possible "penning" of his name on "Mural". Actually I see an image of him standing on his ladder and laughing to himself, leaning over as he "writes his name in the snow". With the same glee and abandon of a small boy during a New Hampshire winter, Jackson forms the letters in the air with his brush like a conductor at the Phil....the paint flying through the air....and to his satisfaction his name appears on the canvas below as magically as did the painting to follow. The "signature" alone is typical of his style

Who cares if he did use his name or not... it got your attention!

I see his name in there multiple times, heck I see my own name in there (Jason Rock) He probably meant to do it, big deal, he's an artist, they all sign their work, why not make the work their signature. I wouldn't believe it if there was some significant date somewhere in the painting supposedly predicting some event, but his name? So what?

only S O N and P were actually not a stretch, the rest of it was just wishful thinking (at least in the slideshow). what kills me is that someone actually could one day cough up the above mentioned 140 MILLION dollars for this! don't let smart people with various art related degrees tell you that this painting is "poetry in motion" -- you are simply peer pressured into revering the squiggles.

To Drew who said Pollacks work resembled "Scream"... Really? Don't get it. I admire Pollocks work, but where is your comparison?

And, I am so happy that this article resulted in so many posts! Even more than some of the "Red vs. Blue" articles. Yeah!!!

Abstract: thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.

Monkey riding the elephant!

I know this is a little strange- but I found JACKSON, spelled multiple times in the painting... I looks to me, like he didn't just write it once but many times.

I outlined a few with paint, and if you look at my outlined version next to the original- it's easier to see what I mean

http://s60.photobucket.com/albums/h6/Beeblemonster/jackson/?action=view&current=Jackson.png

It seems like he spelled Jackson in many directions as well. I also think he overlapped letters and on occasion spelled his name backwards (that's the red in the picture, and I didn't immediately see an "o" or "n", so I didn't include those.

I too, saw many elements in the painting. Like one prior comment, I saw the stoning of a Saint. I also read my name, the batting average of Ted Williams in 1941 and6). my wife's name in this painting after a cursory glance.
Pollock was a wonderful but tortured genius who had demons inside I have no desire to even describe. To simplify his work by taking abstract and putting it into common verbiage denigrates the work and the author of such.
Sad commentary on cheap art historians.

Georges Seurat is more my style. Anyway, I've realized when people are asking "IF" something "is" or "isn't" or look for deeper meaning in a composition or psychoanalyze its creator, this is when the inquiries actually secure the piece as a "work of art", confirming success for the artist too. Abstraction stirs speculation, perplex viewers, cause skepticism & challenges us to think differently. When art is born, it's composed of it's maker's emotions & personal perception of the subject. Many aspects of the creator are contained in the creation. Chaos over art causes the subject to be magnified, advertised, a spectacle which ends up sparking the curiosity of others not yet familiar. Whether or not Pollock's name was intentionally "inserted" in this piece, the fact that so many are taking time to observe, criticize, rationalize & "discover" the "truth" is the epitome of successful artistry. All forms of art are personal expressions from the illustrator's mind. Usually they are meant to convey the artist's ideals, provoke each viewer's individual prospective & help viewers see there are various concepts regarding what "is" or "is not". They may find out what some may see as "confusing nonsense" makes perfect sense to it's translator. The point is that although it didn't make sense to that person, they still spent time looking at it, pondering it and, like me, spending WAY too much time writing about it. This artist and his piece have accomplished a major part of the purpose.
So, shut up and enjoy the doggone painting!
I saw some letters once they were pointed out. This isn't a coincidence. The problem is his handwriting and letter formation really suck! He was probably on "the stuff" or "drinky-drinky". For many it's addiction or emotional affliction, or both. I'm a victim of Bipolar disorder. It's ruined my desire to create. But I still try.

"We were created with the gift of learning to become creators". - Keziah J. Acocella

Many years ago I painted a scene in abstract using the paint left over on my palette. It was of a small glen in sunlight showing through a shaded forest. Turned upside down it became a picture of a most amazing flower, sitting in a forest of long grass, with shafts of light springing from its centre, lighting up the world around it.
Another time, I painted a couple of oranges hanging from a tree branch and viewed through the kitchen window. Upside down, it looked like two alien people walking into my house from outside in the forest. Both of these were given their correct titles, but hung upside down to 'confuse and bewilder the art critics'. It worked!
In another of my paintings of a beach scene with a strong onshore wind looking down from on top of a cliff, when it was lit from the side, people said that the waves appeared to be in 3D and that they were definitely moving onto the beach. Upside down, it looked like a surreal alien sky and clouds observed from within the entrance of a cave.
I know what I painted. The viewers saw what they saw and made up their own minds and comments. Not many ever come up with the truth. So what's in a painting. Who but the painter ever knows what it's about?
George Bernard Shaw said that satire was designed to shatter the complacency of conventional minds. Are we 'strange' artists the world's best satirists?

I studied Pollock in college and while I find his art, motivation, and life incredibly fascinating, a cryptic artist he was not. I agree with so many other that have posted on this article, the viewer sees what they want to see, what they want to feel, how they interpret the piece. Jackson Pollock would not have wanted it any other way.

Maybe Pollock was the first GOOGLE artist! LOL!

I can't wait until his birthday....I'd love to see this painting as a Google (buried beneath all the layers of paint)! LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

Some of these comments had me laughing hard; I love "tongue-in-cheek" "dry wit" humor.

I would like to address the different style of the "K" in Pollock; if you look closely at it, there is a curve that rises up & out to the right from it that could very well be the rest of the "K" that somehow someone overlooked. However, most likely neither side will ever convince all on the other side (although there may be a few who cross over). As a teenager in the 60's, I used to draw the word "LOVE" on a piece of paper & fill it in with so much color & design it was difficult to see until I pointed it out to someone (although some could see it readily).

Several mentioned the pictures that were so popular years ago that had hidden 3-D pictures in them (you had to focus on one spot for a long time for your brain to finally see the hidden pix). I recently spoke to a doctor & asked him why some people could readily see those hidden objects (like I could) while others could only do so with difficulty or (like my brother) not at all. He said there is actually a physical reason for it, having to do with the eyes & the brain.

Perhaps he did sign his name in it (it sure looks that way to me) & perhaps more than once. Hiding words, names, & objects was & is a common practice in art, & not so far-fetched.

I've never heard of the man or seen his art before (& I haven't decided if I like it or not), but I do admire the genius & talent it takes to weave something around his name so well that it has to be pointed out to you, but also then becomes so easy to see once it has been.

Why is everyone so upset & negative & sarcastic & critical? Relax, it is supposed to be fun & entertaining.

Rubbish. I could see any words i wanted to see from the painting.

I agree with the consensus: pure rubbish.

I call bs on this theory.

The "c" in Jackson that they highlighted is on top of nothing that resembles it's shape whatsoever. The "J" stroke keeps going in the painting but the highlight CHOOSES to stop where a J should. Etcetera.

It's a nice painting but let's not get carried away now.

i hid my name in this comMEnt....

My wife is a painter. However, her stuff will probably never sell because it't too realistic and too good.
Pollock's mural looks to me lika a bunch of black worms feeding on a rotten cabbage.

I am an artist too. No matter what Pollock intended, his art must be viewed in its historical perspective, that is its place in time, which makes his energy driven, never before done work so interesting and valid. His work was planned but then spontaneously and physically done. My cat, Jackson, does see the name in the picture, but thinks a typo in the last name exists. LOL

I buy it. Just enough there to make it feasible.

You freakin idiots! Abstract art has NOTHING to do with creativity. He was not creative. Abstract art that is not based on any known form is just mixing paint on a canvas until you get tired of doing it or you find a repetitive pattern.

ITS JUST WALL PAPER!!!!!!!

Some of the commenters are crediting only Mr. Adams, when his wife saw the letters first.

Hmm. The SON definitely jumps out at me. The rest is a bit of a stretch, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were really his name.

I didn't find it on a quick search of Google, but I'm nearly certain that Pollack once said in an interview - 'I choose to veil the image'. I've always remembered this quote - His very early work where he is developing his abstraction style has clear 'overwriting' on top of underlying images. Not sure if his name is dribbled on the piece in question, but this quote would have helped the article.

I enjoy the work of Jackson Pollock, but in this case people are turning his work into something it is not. I was willing to be convinced, however, so I checked out the interactive display for "finding" the letters. After doing so, I believe that almost anyone could "find" whatever letters they wanted to find using the same standards as those who are pushing this theory. This is, in my mind, a classic case of highly selective perception, that is, the tendency to see what one needs, desires, or anticipates in vague or ambiguous stimuli.

Using letters or words as a device to activate the blank canvas is not an unusual device for a painter begin a painting; it gives the painter something to respond to especially If the artist's intention is to avoid representation. Using letters (or numbers) is more liberating than beginning with images. This brilliant discovery reminds us of the rewards of sustained looking at paintings.

I'm astounded by the number of people claming to be scholars or artists and who fail to know the correct spelling of Pollock's name.

Pollock did not set out to just throw some paint onto a canvas and call it a day, there's actually some theory behind the 'randomness'- which is more than I can say for your three year old.

As an art historian, I will say that I don't buy it- I don't see the signature at all. Unfortunately I think this article has just given more fuel for the anti-intellectual group. I find it sad that people, whether or not they understand art, can't appreciate that this is our cultural heritage- both as americans and human beings in general. How dull our world would be without art.

The painting is full of shapes that look somewhat like letter forms. Personally I think it takes quite a leap of imagination to see the letters of Pollock's name as superimposed by the interactive feature.

My father-in-law "painted" in this style, long before this "greatest American artist" ever did. Sam was a paint contractor. His tarps, which lay on the ground, across furniture, etc, to protect them, looked just like the subject of this article. Mr Pollock fooled some of the people, ALL of the time, and got rich doing it.

Lol...! People always want to theorize about artists and what we do, but never consider to just ~Listen~ to us.

i think it's credible...Pollack's contemporary, Bill deKooning, at times, "meandered" letters and/or numbers onto his paintings to help get them started...wonder if Pollack knew that...or vice versa?

It's too vague for my liking. If I tried hard enough, I'm sure I could find the first thirty digits of Pi in there as well, and probably inscribed more clearly than his name!

Nonsense....If some nutter wanted to, he/she could find Picasso on a moped........ciao !

I can't believe I'm posting on here, when too much time and brain power has been wasted already.

I see it

I am in love with Van Gogh and seldom have any emotion left over for another artist. Pollock, however, is an exception. I love the handprints, fingerprints, and other pieces of himself that the artist left on his work. How like Vincent he is in that regard - each work a unique piece of his soul. I'm not surprised by the name being there, and I love it. Its his way of saying, look beyond what you see - see what I see! Cool.

I'm reading these comments and when people think he would never do anything like that I look at the painting I bought at country auction were the estate was from long island and the signature is write in the middle of the painting and pollock is very easy to read and jackson is hard to make out it's a odd portrait done in many differnt colors so I did some research and jordon kantors artical on pollock signatures poped up and if you read it you might see the whole thing a little differnt

For some reason or another, I believe that I have seen the name before this article and research. I know, weird, but I feel like i saw it there before... =/
But I also agree that it's a case of "see-what-you-want-to-see" in a way...

Who cares? I've know that Pollock was basically a fraud since an Art Appreciation course in college many, may years ago. The teacher showed a film of him working and he using a housepaint brush to flick paint on glass. Pollock had the nerve to say he knew where every drop was going. Right then, I heard the tick of the second card being dealt from the deck and dismissed him as the darling of morons.

I have a print of Number 27, 1950, I might be crazy but after reading this story I can see Jackson Pollock, all in the same color, a light blue/grey, written across it. Either way this story has impacted the way I look at his work.

Benton-Pollock:

In one of Benton's murals, I believe "Ballad of the Jealous Lover", Pollock can be seen portrayed sitting at a table-

eeggs.com/images/items/1252.full.jpg

To use my teenage daughter's vernacular, "What ev'."

Every Day I pass the Hirshhorn with it's hideous sculptures facing the street. I'm glad the Smithsonian keeps mad, impulsive scrawls like Pollock's isolated from those easily offended. Like Picasso, he made fools of the wealthy, elite art crowd.
It's a free country however, and art (like morality) has become relative.

yes his name it ,diffent than what was in the smithsonian.turn "mural" upside down,there's an evil darkness to it.

Van Gogh was an artist. This guy was a drunk. 140 million? More money than sense. Is it art? Sure. Good art? no

Henry Adam's discovery is a perfect example of pareidolia, a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random image being perceived as significant. As an art historian writing a book about Jackson Pollock, Mr. Adams is inclined to see what he expects to see in the painting. Such expectancy is a common and commonly misunderstood phenomenon that frequently fill the "oddities" columns of newspapers and magazines.
Sorry guys, you have been conned by a guy selling a book.

The assertion that Jackson Pollock hid his name in the work is intriguing. I've always been a fan of his work. I've never seen it as 'paint drippings on a canvas' but a more meaningful and methodical piece of art. There's something strategic and beautiful in his brush strokes that goes unnoticed too often. The idea that Mural is centered around his name, if proven, could lend credibility to Pollock's name and more importantly, a deeper understanding of the art and its original concept.

The most intriguing portion of this story to me was the claim that Mural was Pollock's announcement to the world that he was replacing Benton.
The impact of this article is great. The possible discovery of Pollock having a system to his art changes the art textbooks and opens a new door for art theory and research based on Pollock's art.
I am a fan of Pollock's works. I find his work very mind boggling. It looks and seems to be mayhem but somehow hi makes it look cohesive and beautiful! I don't doubt that he put thought into his works. A reproduction of his work is nearly impossible--to discover the method and order of the layering of paint and colors. What a brilliant and eye catching artist! I am even more interested to look at his works in great depth to discover other masked portions.

To suggest that Pollock's work was not random, but based on a concept, is very shocking. I tried and was unable to find the letters in the painting. I find Pollock's work to be rather interesting and would be curious to know if this theory can be proven by experts.

I think the hidden artist's name is valid.

He was so creative, why not have a playful moment?