An Abstract Dance

During the 1930’s and 40’s and the outbreak of World War II, surrealists fled from Europe and eventually settled in New York. Soon, their interest in unmediated expression influenced a younger generation of painters to find a voice for American art, one of these painters being abstract expressionist, Karen Davie. The European pioneers of abstraction heavily influenced the new movement, which later became known as Abstract Expressionism. The movement “abstract” gets its name because it incorporates emotion and is a rebellion from the norm. Unlike the “hands off” approach that Jackson Pollock used with drip paint, Karen’s technique uses thick blocks of color and light to create the “busy” feeling. As opposed to the style of Jackson Pollock, Davie’s stoke of her brush tip never leaves the canvas. With abstract expressionism being somewhat of an emotion, many have their opinions as to whether Davie’s creations are considered art when trying to interpret her work. While Deven Golden praises Davie for the original aesthetics, tools and techniques that intensify her work, Roberta Smith claims that her work is a joke resembling that of a fun house as opposed to a piece of work.

Creating art as pure emotion and creativity, the idea of expressionism itself said, “what was to go on the canvas was not a picture but an event". This all-over approach used every aspect of the canvas and treated the entire space the same so that the eye can make its own meaning. According to Deven Golden, the way that the lines veer from the canvas symbolizes a losing control as both the viewer and the artist. Using darker colors mixed in with a host of bright sunny ones, Golden credits Davie’s clever use of dark colors to liven up the brighter ones. The longer one looks at the paintings, the more interpretations and ideas a person draws. In no way however, she adds, that even though the lines appear sad and droopy, Davies works are not depressing because her brush strokes are too erratic and difficult to consider depressing. Because Davie’s paintings require all of her body, she has to concentrate heavily on her task, as she performs her “dance” she worked so hard to choreograph.

At the time, few scholarly art critics could interpret the ideas and meanings in works such as Jackson’s and Karen’s because they lacked literary knowledge. Some could not and did not understand the political references and the beauty behind the rebellious attitudes of the era. Roberta Smith of the New York Times presents her thoughts addressing Karen’s works. Unable to make connections to the strokes that was ineptly explained by Deven Golden, Roberta only seems to mock the works of Davie. One of Davie’s works entitled “Pushed, Pulled, Depleted, & Duplicate looks like several of her other paintings.

However, the color and strokes of the brush in each suggest a different emotion. Smith incoherently adds that her works are similar to the stripes in a fun-house mirror. She further goes on insulting Davie’s usage of tools as being “inextricably fused” making her work seem more and more a blob of nothing, concluding that her works resembles toothpaste from a tube. Sarcastically, Smith mocks the mixed colors that Davie blends saying that the colors make nothing but curves that look like candy-stripes. Understandably, there clearly must have been something else going through the artist’s mind. Its art for crying out loud, a chance to express feelings, emotions and freeness.

At the most, I am able to say that I understand how the colors and forms of the paintings created by Davie are abstract. I believe that Roberta needs to find a little more research on what exactly abstract expressionism is because she clearly is confused. Who are we to say that someone’s work is not abstract when we were obviously not in their minds while they were painting? It is not modernism in clown makeup Smith mocked, but rather a choreographed movement to relay her emotions. We don’t know if those white and red, and blue colors show her pride in her country, or if the landscape of the portrait shows Davie’s anger and discontent with the politics in the country. This may be her way of showing her dissatisfaction with the way things are rather than using picket signs like normal people. As complicated as art may be, Davie’s simplistic yet complex style, has so much to say, if only we knew where it began.


Work Cited:
http://the-artists.org/MovementView.cfm?id=8A01EE83%2DBBCF%2D11D4%2DA93500D0B7069B40

Golden, Deven. “Notes on…Karin Davie.” http://www.artcritical.com/golden/DGDavie.htm

Smith, Roberta. “Art in Review”. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DD103AF930A15757C0A96F958260

Van Gogh Loved to Sew

Sewing is an archaic way of making clothes. Even when Vincent van Gogh was around, in the 19th century, sewing machines were used as a practical way of manufacturing items to be worn. With this in mind, Lauren Soth, in her article “Van Gogh’s Images of Women Sowing” still asserts that van Gogh painted women manually sewing because he had values that “led him to choose such traditional subjects as seemed illustrative of them.” Who really knows what van Gogh’s values were? Using just some of van Gogh’s common motifs in his paintings and his love life as evidence of his distain for the mechanical world is founded in some ways, but not in others. Focusing, instead, on his own words about life will lead the viewer to a clearer perception of the artist, his ideals, and the reasons behind his choice of subject.



“To me it is as clear as day that one must feel what one draws.” Because van Gogh depicted his life with his artwork, Soth uses van Gogh's quote saying that his works consisted of manual labor and nothing technological. Yet the lack of technological labor becomes questionable especially when his work evolved around the Industrial Revolution. His negligence of technological innovations confused many educated individuals. Surely van Gogh encountered technical mechanisms; therefore, one cannot assume that he ignored the sewing machines near him. Van Gogh painted things relevant to life such as women sewing clothes evident in his piece entitle "Women Sewing". However, one cannot assert that he detested sewing machines and valued traditions, when instead he just liked the image of a seamstress. Van Gogh just drew as he felt, not truly as he believed. To believe and to feel two evoke two dissimilar emotions.


Van Gogh, like Soth points out, did try to paint in the likeness of his life, but it was not his true life and instead what he wished it to be. In the “Woman Sewing,” the subject most probably being his lover and also prostitute called Sien, Soth determines that this woman must have sewn his clothes by hand; however, given the time period, that idea cannot be. The clothing style of this period () was much more likely to have been sewn mechanically because of the invention of the sewing machine. The garbs were intricately woven and fashioned, something a simple seamstress would be incapable of doing by hand. Soth goes on to quote van Gogh as saying, in regards to Sien, “she is incapable of doing what she ought to do,” as a clear indication that van Gogh believed she should be at home sewing instead of whoring herself out, which could be the case. But, in the context, Soth asserts van Gogh proclaimed that women should sew and do nothing to earn their wages. He did end up leaving her, but not because of her wage earning power, but because she was indeed a prostitute. His painting reflected not his life, but some sort of ideal that did not directly correlate with his surroundings. In particular, “Woman Sewing,” van Gogh is determined to paint the seamstress “as a dark silhouette against the window” which could be indicative of a longing for escape from manual labor that a sewing machine and other industries might provide if the seamstress ventures into the light of the outdoors. If interpreted this way, the seamstress and van Gogh himself are rejecting traditional ways and instead yearn for change.


When van Gogh left Holland, he no longer painted with the seamstress motif. Soth believes it was because of his emotional ties to Sien and the seaming world, which is valid given the eventual departure of Sien and the fact that his family rejected the promiscuous life of Sien, pleading with him to abandon her. Yet it is also plausible to assume he found other things to paint. Van Gogh simply realized it was idealistic to believe that women would solely sew his clothes and do nothing else, therefore he stopped painting this image once he left Holland, where perhaps more women were willing to sew. The fact that he never returned to Holland meant he was no longer concerning himself with the manufacturing of clothing in a homely sense and instead focused on broader issues, such as farming and real every day life that was not just his ideal.

Religious Undertones In Rembrandt's Latter Paintings

In an article from ArtNet.com, critic N. F. Karlins discusses Rembrandt’s concluding works and how these works seem to address Rembrandt’s inner struggles through religious subject matter. During Rembrandt’s later years, he was faced with economic problems as he was, at that point, “yesterday’s news.” Not only was he troubled financially, but he was also brought before a court by a woman who claimed he had fallen back on a promise to marry her (tough legal system). To make matters worse, Rembrandt was forced to live out his days with a sullied reputation after having an illegitimate child with the lucky Hendrickje Stoffels.

The series of paintings, perhaps an intentional series, perhaps not, represents inner struggle. Each painting is characterized by “lined brows, putty-like hands and drooping eyelids,” a fact that illustrates the inner drama and emotional struggles faced by each figure. One notices the deep struggle over, presumably, religious questions in the majority of the paintings. Religion is the presumed topic of contemplation by the characters considering a number of characteristics found in many of the works. These characteristics include the subject matter itself (saints, evangelists, Christ, the Sorrowful Virgin, possibly a monk), signs of martyrdom (knives, swords) as well as numerous props such as religious dress and bibles. At least one character, the apostle Paul, is represented in more than one painting.

Rembrandt’s spiritual history during the time these paintings were created leads one to believe that the paintings relate to the struggles one faces as life comes to an end coupled with the ensuing questions and uncertainties. Rembrandt, religious or not, must have been looking for answers to the struggles facing his life and as was natural for him, he expressed his pains and questions through art. This last set of paintings was by no means his only attempt to represent Christianity. Religiously themed paintings can be found throughout Rembrandt’s career. The painting illustrating the mother of his illegitimate child, Hendrickje Stoffels, may have been painted to show the agony of not only the social stigmas placed on someone in the situation, but also the perceived scorn from God after having a child out of wedlock. The focus of the painting, as is the case with the others in the set, is on Stoffels' face. With a pursed mouth and face that looks away from the painter, the painting seems to indicate embarrassment and contemplation over how and why the subject became involved in such a socially and religiously unacceptable act.

One oddity concerning The Apostle Bartholomew is that Rembrandt paints him in traditional European clothing. Considering Bartholomew lived in the first century, he lacked the luxury of a nice comb-over haircut or chic European duds. He does carry a knife that represents his religious martyrdom, but Rembrandt gets the viewer thinking by portraying Bartholomew as his contemporary. This painting was probably supposed to parallel a more realistic representation of Bartholomew that Rembrandt painted about a half decade earlier and can be seen by clicking on the earlier link.

Rembrandt’s last paintings are something to marvel over. Not only are they aesthetically appealing, but they allow the viewer to dive into Rembrandt’s past through a significant amount of imagery. Upon learning of Rembrandt's life history during the time of his latter works, one is able to realize where he was coming from and what influenced his paintings. In terms of social and religious questions, Rembrandt probably had a lot of them during this time. Perhaps he wasn’t struggling with religious questions, but only decided to illustrate his emotional uncertainty through subject matter that was familiar to him.

Robinson: From Protégés to Mentor

Theodore Robinson was an American impressionist who was greatly influenced by the French impressionist Claude Monet. In two articles about Robinson, the relationship Robinson developed with Monet is clear and defined. There is no one who would argue that Monet did not have a significant impact on Robinson; however, the first article claims that Robinson eventually became a mentor himself when he returned to America. The second article, however, does not make any mention of Robinson becoming a mentor even though the second article is based on Robinson’s own diary. There are most definitely differences in the tow articles; however, it seams that the second article irresponsibly ignores the fact that Robinson went on to become a mentor himself.

According to the article Lessons Learned: Monet’s Influence on Robinson by Stephen May, there were nearly 60 paintings at a traveling art show that showed the similarities between the two artists. This article focuses on the fact that Robinson eventually became a mentor himself as a result of his relationship with Monet. During his six visits to Germany, Robinson developed a friendship in which they frequently dined together and critiqued each other’s work. Stephen May notes that this was an unusual friendship because Monet did not usually associate with the many American artists who sought his advice. As their friendship developed, Monet asked Robinson to critique his early paintings in the Rouen Cathedral series. This series had such a great impact on Robinson that he decided to paint three landscapes known as the Valley of the Seine. Monet called this series the best landscape he’d seen out of Robinson. One of the most important influences Monet had over Robinson was convincing Robinson to find subjects in America and “devote (his) efforts to immortalizing them.”

After Robinson last saw Monet in 1892, he became a mentor to an artist named Jacques Busbee. The article justifies the relationship between Robinson and Busbee by citing a passage from Robinson’s diary where Busbee is mentioned. Passing on Monet’s advice, Robinson advised Busbee to focus on the wide-ranging picture rather than obsessing over the details. Robinson also stressed the importance of drawing as a foundation for painting. He advised Busbee to focus on making sketches with charcoal, pencil, or crayon before attempting to paint. This he said, “…is necessary for all art-even the most evanescent or amusing, vivacious, or non-serious.” Like Monet, Robinson above all stressed the importance of paining subjects that are of interest and not to make work a “grind”. It is not clear from the article what the extent of Robinson’s relationship with Busbee was. Nevertheless, this author of this article thought their relationship was worth mentioning, most likely because it demonstrates how Monet’s style was spread to great American artists.

Another article, The Diary of Theodore Robinson, an American Impressionist by Sona Johnston summarizes the relationship between Robinson and Monet by making use of Robinson’s diary as its primary source. Unlike the first article, this article does not imply that Monet was not very receptive to American artists. Robinson said that he was “most cordially received” during their first encounter. This article also implies that their relationship was in fact very intimate. Their relationship must have been intimate because Robinson was a guest at Monet’s wedding. Like the first article, this article makes it very clear that Robinson was greatly influenced by Monet’s impressionist style. The two artists were so similar that people claimed they both left their paintings unfinished. The most striking feature about this article is the fact that it makes no mention of Robinson being a mentor to the artist Jacques Busbee. While the first article stresses that Robinson took Monet’s teaching back to American and became a mentor himself, this article makes no mention of Robinson’s relationships with any protégées he may or may not have had. Seeing as how this article is based on his diary, it would be safe to assume that the important aspects of his life were addressed in this article. Perhaps that article chose not to address Robinson’s influence on other artists, or perhaps Robinson did not consider himself to be a mentor. Given the tone of the first article, that is not likely. The first article made it very clear that the relationship between Robinson and Busbee was that of a mentor and a protégés.

After reading each article, there is no question that Robinson developed a serious relationship with Monet. Furthermore, it is clear that Monet’s advice followed Robinson back to America where Robinson attempted to find beauty in his American subjects. In the first article, it is implied that Robinson eventually became a mentor himself, in the same way that Monet was a mentor to him. The second article, which relies on a first hand account of Robinson’s life, his diary, does not make any mention of Robinson becoming a mentor himself.

Heads Rembrandt, Tails Lievens

Art. I generally have no passion for the traditional sense of the word. When a monkey can take a paint brush, make a few lines on a canvas and sell it for thousands of dollars, I just have to question the whole movement. However, there is one style of art that I really enjoy and one artist that really strikes me as having some serious skill. Rembrandt. The guy could paint and the Dutch Golden Age of the 17^th century is really something.

There are many critics, both adoring and critical, of Rembrandt’s work. Naturally, as one of the world’s most revered artists, an opinion of every kind will be had with respect to his work. One area of debate concerns the level to which Rembrandt collaborated with his contemporary, Jan Lievens. Because of the infancy of historical documenting methods during the day, truly knowing the level to which Rembrandt collaborated with Lievens will probably never be known, nevertheless, a number of art scholars have debated the issue.

Within art history circles, there is a developing belief that a number of drawings attributed to Rembrandt were actually drawn by Lievens. Roelof van Straten argues that at least two paintings attributed to Rembrandt (Circumcision, Rest on the Flight into Egypt) were actually painted by Lievens. He also argues that Rembrandt didn’t even begin making prints, as these two drawings are, until 1628, until at least three years after these drawings were created. In his essay, Straten does acknowledge that the two artists were trained in similar styles in relative close proximity, leading one to believe that the similarities between each painter’s creations are a result of this training, however, he notes that the similarities in style between many of Lievens’ drawings and the two mentioned earlier are so similar that there is little chance that Lievens did not draw them. He references the cross-hatchings in the clothing and the tilting of heads as important similarities. Straten sums up his argument by saying “there is no reason to believe that the styles of Rembrandt and Lievens were so close that their hands could possibly be confused” meaning that each artist has certain idiosyncrasies that even a similar stylistic training would overrule.

Straten also addresses the fact that Rembrandt’s name was etched on a number of paintings that he considers someone else’s. He notes that at least once, Rembrandt’s name was misspelled causing one to ask: Why would Rembrandt misspell his own name? He also notes that throughout Rembrandt’s career, dealers/artists would place Rembrandt’s name on their paintings in order to make money off of his fame. Also, the name of a buyer visited by Lievens (historically documented) finds itself on a questionable painting. Straten concludes that Lievens initially took his painting to Berendrecht, was initially rejected, but later the dealer Berendrecht in Haarlem retained the printing plate for the piece, and began printing the piece with Rembrandt’s name on it to cash in on Rembrandt’s fame.

While it is becoming more accepted that some of the drawings attributed to Rembrandt are Lievens’, there is still insufficient evidence to definitively say who really drew them. While Schatborn’s article does agree with Straten’s on some accounts, it is not a full endorsement of Straten’s “evidence” by any means. The thesis is hard to find in this article, but it can be summed up by saying that the evidence does not conclusively attribute Rembrandt’s drawings as Lievens’.

Schatborn relies on the training of the two men to explain why each could have drawn so similarly that the drawings attributed to Rembrandt could actually be his. Because each was closely trained under Amsterdam artist Pieter Lastman, there would have been elements of both artists’ work that would look the same, especially in their earlier drawings when their own idiosyncrasies would not yet have matured. The drawings in question are those of the artists’ earlier careers, so questions will arise more often here than in their later works. Schatborn’s main evidence is in this time difference, in that even though later works by Lievens and Rembrandt resemble one another, certain stylistic differences are apparent. But because these earlier style differences were not obvious, it is hard to assume that the attributed Rembrandt drawings are Lievens’.

Personally, I believe that the argument attributing some of Lievens’ drawings to Rembrandt is entirely possible, if not probable. Both articles reference the fact that art historians are increasingly suspicious of the early Rembrandt drawings and that they are probably Lievens’. Also, the ability for these critics and historians to accurately pick out small peculiarities between each man makes me believe that they know what they are saying. Although the evidence is not conclusive; I think the argument is a strong one, considering the practice of printers to put Rembrandt’s name on works that were not his in order to sell them.

Artibus et Historiae

Master Drawings

Double Identities, Who Are We?

It is habitual for people to stereotype people based on characteristics and ideas associated with race. Some stereotypes label people in ways that lead them to think that something is wrong with the way they are; when it turns out that is not the case at all. Some misconceptions include the thought that Asians are smart in mathematics and can play the piano well. Alternatively, that African Americans love chicken and collard greens and need to be watched closely when they enter into a store. These stereotypes have developed in western society over several years of fallacies. No matter what background, people label someone who looks different from them based on what they have been taught by ones parent or by society in general. Sometimes, the labels that are associated with different categories of people create a sense of double consciousness, for both African Americans and women.


African Americans’ sense of selfhood has always been dominated by the white “gaze.” This mainstream has long been dominated by the western culture leading minorities to think that their only way of being was “incoherent and fractured.” The fact that people are aware of how others view and judge them causes them to view themselves in an entirely different way. According to feminist and postmodern artist Emma Amos, in the same way people are able to make judgments of through a visual, people can make connections and interpret the different stereotypes of race through art. It is easy to determine that art has long been marginalized for male artists. In Emma Amos works, she fixes herself to identify with not only the offended of her culture but that of women as well. Being able to look at herself through someone else’s eyes shows her the racism that has been excluding both blacks and women. As a feminist, she sardonically criticizes the norm by saying that she wants to be a white male artist. However, Amos refuses to accept that art is painted in the medium of a white, male perspective claiming that gender differences in art also need to be acknowledged. Women, she argues has been under the shadow of the male gaze for too long and should viewed as an equal to men in any area.


Involved in politics of culture and feminism, Emma Amos challenges her audiences to think about how these ideas about race, sex and identity are “constructed and disseminated through images.” While art has normally been gendered around a white male perspective, Amos chooses to paint of historical and political ideas that focus around both race and gender. Whether it is etching, monoprints, silk collagrpahs, photography or painting in general, Amos paints of opportunity for women and blacks. In one particular piece tightrope, Amos easily shows how someone tries to balance himself or herself in a demanding society biased upon women and people of color. The American flag leotard shows the woman confidently overcoming all of the demands and negativity associated with her being herself.


However, aside from the creativity of showing the humorous, playful possibility of a double identity, one argues that Amos has failed to realize the dangerous consequences of loosing one’s self in impersonation of art as foreseen by Du Bois. He acknowledges that the two-ness of being American and a Negro does little to contradict the fallacies that have been known to define race. Not only is it a misrepresentation of the truth, but it also leads to internal conflict for African Americans. During the first wave feminist, impersonation was only used to exploit the results of conforming. These false interpretations of different cultures result in a negative outcome for these people in what W.E.B. Du Bois terms as double consciousness. Dividing someone’s identity into several aspects as with stereotypes may cause people to try to conform or change their identity to fit the likings of others. Although the warnings perceived by Du Bois were silenced by the creativity of Amos’ work, some continue to say that the “two-ness” forms of impersonation and identity still punish those who are unsure of their well-beings in society.


Although Du Bois calls for black people to create their own definition of their culture, Emma Amos has found a way to cleverly make Du Bois’ fear of conforming to identity less serious while at the same time realizing that identities in her work is important for herself as well as others. She has used her paintings to show cultural meaning accounts for the generations that have been biased of women and colored artists. Her arguments against the norm in aesthetics and society gives a more colorful look on the multiple views society can have for a person.

Emma Amos. 4 April 2007.
http://www.the-artists.org/ArtistView.cfm?id=EDD13C83%2D95FA%2DCC76%2DFF9F9EC3D7FD9C5A

Gupta, A. Houston. “Double Consciousness: Black Conceptual Art Since 1970.” Art
Papers v.29 no.4. July 2005. 4 April 2007. http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/results_fulltext_maincontentframe.jhtml:jsessionid=FSXMUJTKYKU2XQA3DILCFF4ADUNGMIV0
Patton, Sharon F. “Thinking Paint.” 4 April 2007.
http://www2kenyon.edu/ArtGallery/exhibitions/0001/amos/amos.htm
Percent for Art in NYC. 4 April 2007. Picture.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcla/html/panyc/amos.shtml
Titus, Catherine Wilcox. “The Perils and Pleasures of Double Consciousness: Strategies
of Impersonation in the Artwork of Emma Amos and Sherrie Levine.” Southeastern College Art Conference Review. 4 April 2007. http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/results_fulltext_maincontentframe.jhtml;jsessionid=GPY3HOFDVDUF1QA3DILSFGGADUNFMIV0

The "Stenographic Figure" is a stenographer... whodathunk?

Jackson Pollock’s Stenographic Figure is confusing. All you have to do is take one look at it. So it comes as no surprise to me that there has been ongoing debate about what is even portrayed in the painting let alone what the content may mean. Since the painting was unveiled in 1943 there have been so many theories about the number of figures, the position of the figures, the significance of all the numerical scribblings… pretty much there’s a controversy about anything there could be.

In the article “The Artist in the Analyst” from American Art, the author Sue Taylor, spends the first section detailing many of the arguments of the most prominent art critiques and how they’ve influenced one another. The first sentence of the second section is Taylor’s actual thesis where she details what she herself will be arguing and then how she’s going to refute the arguments of the more prominent and historically important art critiques that she is building on. The thesis reads thus: “Though Lanhorne's reading of Stenographic Figure remains problematic, I believe she is correct in asserting that the painting contains a pair of figures, male and female; I am also convinced that the numbers, letters, and other notations Pollock deploys across the surface of the canvas carry a greater significance than the merely visual interest Rubin ascribes to them.” After reading through the five pages of introductory material that essentially summarized all scholarly analysis of Stenographic Figure to date, I felt it would be helpful to actually put the author’s thesis in her own words. Taylor then launches into a long and in depth examination of two of Pollock’s works (Stenographic Figure and Male and Female) from a Jungian point of view. She quotes extensively from the notes and studies that his two psychoanalysts (both of whom were disciples of the Jungian philosophy) left of him, to show what she believes to be the correct reading of the symbols and shapes as a female stenographer and a man giving dictation. This compelling evidence from Pollock’s own life that she supplies in support of her argument makes it a believable interpretation of a painting that is otherwise one confused jumble of color, shape, and scribbles. (The “Jungian Philosophy,” by the way, believes in the collective unconscious of humanity and the extreme importance of both conscious and unconscious symbols). She also quotes from Pollock’s own scribblings on his influences and the art shows and museums that he was frequenting at the time to glean what she can from the themes and subject matter of the paintings that he was viewing. I enjoyed that Pollock was described as an “extremely inhibited patient” who was nearly impossible to work with and who hardly ever talked or helped the psychoanalyst. He created both paintings when he was just coming out of his years of being analyzed and had Jungian gobbledy-gook exploding out of his ears.

The interesting thing about the contradictory “article” that I’ve found to contrast with Taylor’s interpretations is that it directly references Taylor. It is actually in a section on “art history” one someone’s personal website which makes it a far from credible source given that the people who own and run the site are just your everyday bumpkin with a general interest in the subject, who happens to have taken one or two classes on art history. What is promising about their website is that it has an extensive bibliography to accompany their otherwise amateur articles giving the impression that perhaps they wrote these miniature essays for class. The argument given as to the interpretation of stenographic figure is a compelling one. Whoever on earth has written this article claims that to give a strict reading of Stenographic Figure according to a Jungian model would leave at issue the fact that many of the symbols in the painting were consciously created by Pollock. They claim that the true meaning behind the symbols in Pollock’s painting is that you cannot read too deeply into the symbols. Personally, I find this interpretation so witty that it’s easy to be won over by it, simply from the sheer brazenness attributed to Pollock by creating such an ambiguous painting and allowing art critiques to puzzle over it for decades. Sheer genius.