Three Films - Essay Example

Part I:

After a screening of all three films, the viewer is left with the distinct interpretation that they have viewed films on three separate and distinct artists.  The underlying reason for this has to do with the fact that Jackson Pollock is represented in such a widely different manner in each and every film.  For instance, Hans Numath’s film is perhaps the most historically relevant, depicting Pollock at work; following his movements as he describes the process and the rationale behind these processes. By means of contrast, the second film, Ed Harris’ Pollock focuses on a more personal and fanciful aspect as it creates a somewhat fictional account of the early life and influences that helped to develop Pollock in the way that he did.  A heavy focus on his alcoholism and the level of psychological trauma he suffered as a tortured genius is specifically engaged.  Although this might in fact be true, the effect that such a representation has is first and foremost engaged for dramatic effect.  Finally, the third film, Who the Fuck is Jackson Pollock, is an adventure film told on the backdrop of Pollock’s life and contribution to art.  Although it should not be dismissed, this particular film cannot be viewed as authoritative as Pollock is only an “aside” from the actual intrigue and primary interest of “finding lost treasure” that pervades the film.

Part II: Answer the following questions:

1.

By means of comparison and contrast to one of the clips that were viewed as compared to one of the films that were viewed for this section, the two that have been chosen are “F is for Fake” and “Who the Fuck is Jackson Pollock”.  The first film focuses upon the fact that the world of art forgery is a developed industry; leveraging the “artistic” abilities of master forgers who are able to adequately mimic the techniques, colors, patterns, and approach that well-known and highly sought-after experts were responsible for crafting.  By means of comparison, “Who the Fuck is Jackson Pollock” depicts a much more magical interpretation of the artwork as something that only Pollock could have been responsible for.  The difference between these two has to do with the fact that one assumes that Pollock must be the master painter of the artwork in question; whereas the other clip maintains the fact that even some of the most convincing pieces are in fact forgeries.

Henri Cartier Besson’s “Images a la Sauvette” engages the reader with the understanding that art, whether photographic or within some other genre, must not specifically be engaged in the representation of beauty; but should instead be primarily engaged in the presentation of life as it is.  This is somewhat different than what the average observer would call “reality”. By the same token, this particular approach was useful with regard to understanding Hans Namuth’s “Jackson Pollock”.  This was due to the fact that the approach and description of the way in which Pollock himself engaged in artistic representation could adequately be understood based upon the rubric and logic that has been put forward by Henri Cartier Besson within his piece.