Decoding Jackson Pollock
Did the Abstract Expressionist hide his name amid the swirls and torrents of a legendary 1943 mural?
- By Henry Adams
- Smithsonian magazine, November 2009, Subscribe
It was my wife, Marianne Berardi, who first saw the letters.
We were looking at a reproduction of Jackson Pollock's breakthrough work, Mural, an 8-by 20-foot canvas bursting with physical energy that, in 1943, was unlike anything seen before.
The critic Clement Greenberg, Pollock's principal champion, said he took one look at the painting and realized that "Jackson was the greatest painter this country has produced." A Museum of Modern Art curator, the late Kirk Varnedoe, said Mural established Jackson Pollock as the world's premier modern painter.
I was researching a book about Pollock's lifelong relationship with his mentor, Thomas Hart Benton, the famed regionalist and muralist, when I sat puzzling over a reproduction of Mural after breakfast one morning with Marianne, herself an art historian. She suddenly said she could make out the letters S-O-N in blackish paint in the upper right area of the mural. Then she realized JACKSON ran across the entire top. And finally she saw POLLOCK below that.
The characters are unorthodox, even ambiguous, and largely hidden. But, she pointed out, it could hardly be random coincidence to find just those letters in that sequence.
I was flabbergasted. It's not every day that you see something new in one of the 20th century's most important artworks.
I'm now convinced that Pollock wrote his name in large letters on the canvas—indeed, arranged the whole painting around his name. As far as I can tell, no one has previously made this assertion. Nor is there evidence that Pollock himself, who was loath to talk about his art and left behind few written records, ever mentioned this coded gesture.
I've shared my theory with several Pollock experts. They've had mixed reactions, from "no way" to "far-fetched" to "maybe."
"It's feasible," says Sue Taylor, an art historian at Portland State University, who has studied Pollock's 1942 canvas Stenographic Figure, which includes written symbols. "Pollock would often begin with some sort of figurative device to which he would then respond—and eventually bury under layers of paint. Letters and numbers, moreover, frequently appear in works of the early 1940s."
It may not be possible to answer the question definitively unless scientists use X-ray scanning or some other method to trace which pigments were put down first. At the moment there are no plans to do such an analysis.
If my theory holds up, it has many implications. Mural, commissioned by the collector Peggy Guggenheim for her New York City apartment, is the stuff of legend. Owned by the University of Iowa since Guggenheim donated it in 1948, the painting is said to be worth $140 million. (A later Jackson Pollock painting, Number 5, 1948, reportedly sold in 2006 for $140 million—the highest price ever paid for a work of art.) Mural is so central to the Pollock mystique that in the 2000 movie Pollock, the artist (played by Ed Harris), having stared perplexedly at a giant empty canvas for months, executes Mural in a single session the night before it's due to be delivered. That (standard) version of events, originally advanced by Pollock's wife, the artist Lee Krasner, reinforces the image of Pollock as an anguished, spontaneous genius. But the art critic Francis V. O'Connor has debunked the story, saying Pollock probably executed Mural during the summer of 1943, not in one night in late December.
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. In my view, Pollock organized the painting around his name according to a compositional system—vertical markings that serve as the loci of rhythmic spirals—borrowed directly from his mentor, Benton.
Pollock had studied under Benton for two years and once told a friend that he wanted Mural to be comparable to a Benton work, though he didn't have the technical ability to make a great realistic mural and needed to do something different.
I have found no evidence that Pollock wrote his name in such fashion on any other canvas. In a way, that makes sense. To Pollock, I think, Mural announced that he was replacing Benton, a father figure whom he once described as "the foremost American painter today." It was Pollock's way of making a name for himself.
Henry Adams is the author of Tom and Jack: The Intertwined Lives of Thomas Hart Benton and Jackson Pollock, to be published in November by Bloomsbury Press.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Related topics: Abstract Painters 20th Century 1940s
Additional Sources
"A Pollock Saved From the Flood" by Michael Judge, Wall Street Journal, July 30, 2008.
Comments (623)
+ View All Comments
its full of indian masks
Posted by qwerty on November 28,2012 | 10:36 PM
There is a small box (interactive slideshow) that shows how Pollock's name is visible in this painting. This is how I was able to see it after several minutes of dizziness. The piece is very intense and almost hurts to look at which makes me wonder why, and I sort of like this. But, just like clouds and many other images can also create letters and possible hidden clues does not mean they were intentional. But, sort of pondering whether it was intentional or coincidental without proof results in an intellectual discussion and creates some additional value to the piece. I like Pollock's art work, and he is probably valued highly because he is the "original" who brought the trend and style to the art world and sort of "broke ground" for his imitators. But, I do agree with many people that this art style is similar to that which a child could draw, but it still invokes emotion, and it's value is subjective.
Posted by Heather Gleason on August 31,2012 | 09:39 PM
It's well known that in his drip paintings Pollock often started out with figures and then worked over them until they were imperceptible. So it's not hard to fathom that he might have done the same thing with his name.
Posted by Matt on April 24,2012 | 01:35 AM
This is a wonderful insight, and seems plausible, not to mention delightful. Hidden and cryptic are quite entertaining, especially in abstract art. I gave little credence to abstract art, especially fully abstract expressionism, siding with the crowd who chanted "any three year old (monkey, random event)could paint that," etc. Having read and heard some of the things Jackson Pollock said about his art rather changed my perspective, though. He said that his paintings did not have to mean anything in particular, just as a bed of flowers did not mean anything in particular, in order to be valid, or to have an effect on the audience, or to be enjoyed. Art attracts compliments and criticisms. Abstract art seems to engender rage amongst some as outrageous and over-valued, at the same time bringing forth the philosophical bent in many abstract-loving art critics. If the work has an effect on you, then the artist has succeeded in some measure. And fair-market value is still what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller. I decided to see first hand, for myself, and undertook to paint an abstract expressionist piece. To my delight, it turned out nicely, I enjoyed the process and the result, and I have completed several now. So enjoyable was the experience that I feel as if I have finally found my genre. So my conversion is complete, from nay-saying skeptic, to active participant. I often start with a symbol or theme to "prime the engine" and ultimately paint over it. But it gets things started nicely. I am thinking MY name might not be a bad starting place for my next piece. Thanks!
Posted by Jim on April 23,2012 | 12:45 PM
Pollock is one of the most over rated artist of this or any other centuary. He is a product of marketing and is the equivalent of toxic derivatives the art world's answer to credit default swaps. Having bought the derivatives hook line and sinker from the investment artists the art elite are now desperate to keep the large dirigible of worthless canvases afloat by the continued blowing of hot air. Abstract expressionism is an invention, a modern art phenomena that is now too big to fail, but mostly worthless.
Posted by paul on December 28,2011 | 07:53 AM
Not sure if he really used his name for the composition, but it's a nice story. No, his wife didn't paint it. Pollock was a true master of his time.
Posted by Bob C on December 24,2011 | 07:40 AM
I bet my life his wife Lee Krasner painted this
Posted by tkackle on November 21,2011 | 01:47 PM
Henry..Very interesting. Perhaps this came from Michelangelo's Pieta where his name is integrated into the ribbon accross the Virgin Mary's chest...
Posted by GAShippen on September 30,2011 | 03:20 AM
Dear Friends,
Here is the long waiting video from exhibition on Rudolph Tegner Museum North of Copenhagen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUE9i-mHdPM
Kindly,
Niels Lundgreen
Posted by Niels Lundgreen on August 28,2011 | 03:10 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen. A tribute to Jackson Pollock a New Yorker 1949, winter spring.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePV7xDZ0OY
I have the pleasure to present this to you. Next month I take you to the most interesting museum in Denmark the Rudolph Tegner Museum where Jackson Pollock will be exhibited.
Thank you very much
Posted by Niels Lundgreen on June 19,2011 | 04:52 PM
Thank you for the legendary 1943 Mural. It is always a pleasure. The genius is a genius in time. I have the pleasure to give you Jackson Pollock Untold spring 1949 winter New York.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvXT_-Suvug&feature=related
Thank You.
Posted by Niels Lundgreen on April 23,2011 | 11:19 AM
Uh, I can see my name, my wife's name, all four of my kids and both of my cats. I'm still trying to piece together the hamster's but, I'm sure if I stare long enough it will appear!
Posted by Donny on February 2,2011 | 06:59 PM
Whistler used a bee as a signature.
Posted by Ramona Schroeder on February 1,2011 | 04:58 PM
I believe that Jackson Pollock DID camouflage his name in his 1943 Mural painting. I can see the letters, and they do spell out his name. This painting does include squiggles and random lines; however, I think the letters are really there. The presence of the black "N" in the top right corner can NOT be refuted. It's there! The "S" and "O" next to it are also easily visible. Every artist signs their work in some way; this was Jackson Pollock's way, being an abstract expressionist. It's more than extremely unlikely to find those letters in that specific order and have it be just a coincidence. Anybody can have their own opinion, but I truly believe that Jackson Pollock wrote his name in the painting.
Posted by Megan C: graphic designer, sculptor, and artist on December 4,2010 | 04:11 PM
+ View All Comments