ProcrastiNAAAAtion

Here's what I'm not doing-

reading "The legacy of Jackson Pollock" by Allan Kaprow.

Thing is, it starts out like this:

"The problem of Jackson Pollock, two years after his tragic death, is of paramount importance. The examples of his life and revolutionary style are increasingly, and not always benignly, influential, for his career has encouraged some artists in the perilous belief that self-destruction is necessary to the integrity of a work of art. Here a young vanguard painter attempts to separate the man from the myth, and also to suggest what Pollock will mean to artists in 1960."

Why? I mean, not really, I get it. I guess I just don't want to hear about how Pollock is going to encourage people to drink because they think it'll make their art better. Is that over-simplifying what this guy's saying. Yes, of course it is. And I guess I am a little curious what this guy thinks Pollock is going to mean to people in 1960. But not that interested.

Also, I don't know Allan Kaprow, I think a lot of artists were self-destructive LONG before Pollock came along and drank his ass off. I don't think it's his fault. I think exceptionally bad habits are just part of the territory for a lot of us creative types. Not all of them, of course, but a lot of them. I guess some people could look at Pollock's life and say "Hey, he did some bad shit, and I assume that's what made his work so awesome. Hm... I think I'll give this alcoholism thing a try." Seriously, though, if that's the case, then I kind of think they deserved their suffering. And I hope their art was terrible.

In any case, I should probs read this shit. I'm going to have to talk about it tomorrow. Shit.

P.S. I like Pollock a lot more than I'd let most of my peers know. His work is pretty powerful in person. So, here's a Pollock painting.

Greyed Rainbow, 1953. It's at The Art Institute of Chicago. It's kind of awesome. The picture SO does not do it justice.