Is The Possible UIMA Deaccession of Pollock’s Mural A Bad Idea?

by Art Fag City on August 13, 2008 · 33 comments Newswire

pollock-mural.jpg

In response to my previous post outlining the details around a story developing about the University of Iowa’s possible deaccession of Jackson Pollock’s Mural to cover flood damages an anonymous commenter had this valuable information to add:

…I did my Master's at the U of Iowa and so I have a serviceable insider's take on Mural's ontology. As the hearsay goes, the work originally was handled poorly by the museum. I think it came to Iowa via Pollock's Visiting Artist stay in the 40's, but from what the Museum workers said, it pretty much sat in a closet rolled up on the floor. This allegedly prompted Peggy Guggenheim to attempt to get it back, some saying there was an attempt to steal it back. Pearls before swine kinda thing, I guess, as the rolled canvas laid against a Motherwell, also kept in the closet, a long closet.

My opinion is that selling it to a MOCA or MOMA might not be a bad thing. The question comes down to who benefits from the work. The students in painting tend to be figurative and conservative who often dismissed Mural as poorly painted. Motherwell's comment that the painting took Pollock 10 hours to paint was a source of derision, although it's doubtful it was done in only 10 hours. Moreover, the traffic of spectators in the Museum is small, the usual public school kids, occasional art students and openings. Since most people go home for the weak ends, the Museum dies during that time. Placing the work in NY, LA or DC would obviously increase its viewing. The downside to the Iowa Museum, the other works of similar vintage, a fabulous, huge pre-Duco DeKooning woman, a classic all black Rheinhardt and a Joan Mitchel would all be candidates for sale and stick out like sore thumbs. So while Tyler Green's citation of collusion has merit, the outcome might not be so bad.

To add to the Museum's flood damage, I chanced into an art history major at Girl Talk at Lollapalooza who told me the new art building either has been condemned or has to be abandoned for students due to flood damage. This is the one which won all kinds of architectural awards for design and greeness, and was only a year old. This might add to the mix if the Museum is under the control of the Art & Art History Dept. and they desperately need new money.

The issue of museum foot traffic can pretty easily be countered with the argument that people should have access to good art no matter where they are. However, if the work in question isn’t very good or of value to its patrons then these issues need to be considered by everyone involved.

Also see: Art Law Blog

{ 33 comments }

tom moody August 13, 2008 at 9:19 pm

The Guggenheim mural is a major piece–a transition to an allover mode before the final step of the drip paintings.
It should definitely be in NY.
I only skimmed the Tyler Green outragefest–what’s the problem with selling it? It’s a free country. Who has a conflict?

tom moody August 13, 2008 at 4:19 pm

The Guggenheim mural is a major piece–a transition to an allover mode before the final step of the drip paintings.
It should definitely be in NY.
I only skimmed the Tyler Green outragefest–what’s the problem with selling it? It’s a free country. Who has a conflict?

Art Fag City August 13, 2008 at 9:31 pm

There’s some issue about a possible conflict of interest regarding who’s requesting the sale be looked into and their partner being on a potential buyers board. I think those points are a distraction from the real issues though, which is whether the sale will benefit or hurt the University. It’s probably not a good idea to open the asset liquidation flood gates, but by the same token, but if it’s done cautiously I don’t see the problem.

Art Fag City August 13, 2008 at 4:31 pm

There’s some issue about a possible conflict of interest regarding who’s requesting the sale be looked into and their partner being on a potential buyers board. I think those points are a distraction from the real issues though, which is whether the sale will benefit or hurt the University. It’s probably not a good idea to open the asset liquidation flood gates, but by the same token, but if it’s done cautiously I don’t see the problem.

tom moody August 13, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Well there are “assets” and then there’s the Guggenheim mural. It needs to be where it is loved and will be preserved. Since I didn’t attend U of I “what benefits the school” doesn’t matter to me and it shouldn’t matter to you or Tyler. He is being a concern troll but if it takes his energy away from destroying minor New York writers I’m all for it.

tom moody August 13, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Well there are “assets” and then there’s the Guggenheim mural. It needs to be where it is loved and will be preserved. Since I didn’t attend U of I “what benefits the school” doesn’t matter to me and it shouldn’t matter to you or Tyler. He is being a concern troll but if it takes his energy away from destroying minor New York writers I’m all for it.

tom moody August 13, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Well there are “assets” and then there’s the Guggenheim mural. It needs to be where it is loved and will be preserved. Since I didn’t attend U of I “what benefits the school” doesn’t matter to me and it shouldn’t matter to you or Tyler. He is being a concern troll but if it takes his energy away from destroying minor New York writers I’m all for it.

Art Fag City August 13, 2008 at 10:39 pm

Obviously it’s good to have pieces where they can be seen by more people, and maybe it’s an important piece, but frankly, from the reproductions I’ve seen, I’m not overly interested in having it here. Please take my jpg evaluations with the appropriate grain of salt. I don’t see what the issue is here in giving another side of the story a bit of light.

Art Fag City August 13, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Obviously it’s good to have pieces where they can be seen by more people, and maybe it’s an important piece, but frankly, from the reproductions I’ve seen, I’m not overly interested in having it here. Please take my jpg evaluations with the appropriate grain of salt. I don’t see what the issue is here in giving another side of the story a bit of light.

tom moody August 13, 2008 at 11:21 pm

I spent a lot of time with that painting when it was in MOMA’s last big Pollock retro. It’s a perfect interweaving of spidery implied figures stopping just short of articulation, swirling arabesque patterns, and molecular energy fields. It’s an incredible juggling act to keep so many elements going across such a large surface area and to keep every stroke so fresh and “on.” Jpegs don’t do this justice or show the layers within layers of paint that keep your eye engaged when viewing it in person–it is visual music and I do believe it was done in a quick burst of brilliance. The idea that someone out in corn country thought it was a good idea to roll this up is like hearing about a neglected infant.

tom moody August 13, 2008 at 11:21 pm

I spent a lot of time with that painting when it was in MOMA’s last big Pollock retro. It’s a perfect interweaving of spidery implied figures stopping just short of articulation, swirling arabesque patterns, and molecular energy fields. It’s an incredible juggling act to keep so many elements going across such a large surface area and to keep every stroke so fresh and “on.” Jpegs don’t do this justice or show the layers within layers of paint that keep your eye engaged when viewing it in person–it is visual music and I do believe it was done in a quick burst of brilliance. The idea that someone out in corn country thought it was a good idea to roll this up is like hearing about a neglected infant.

tom moody August 13, 2008 at 11:21 pm

I spent a lot of time with that painting when it was in MOMA’s last big Pollock retro. It’s a perfect interweaving of spidery implied figures stopping just short of articulation, swirling arabesque patterns, and molecular energy fields. It’s an incredible juggling act to keep so many elements going across such a large surface area and to keep every stroke so fresh and “on.” Jpegs don’t do this justice or show the layers within layers of paint that keep your eye engaged when viewing it in person–it is visual music and I do believe it was done in a quick burst of brilliance. The idea that someone out in corn country thought it was a good idea to roll this up is like hearing about a neglected infant.

tom moody August 13, 2008 at 6:21 pm

I spent a lot of time with that painting when it was in MOMA’s last big Pollock retro. It’s a perfect interweaving of spidery implied figures stopping just short of articulation, swirling arabesque patterns, and molecular energy fields. It’s an incredible juggling act to keep so many elements going across such a large surface area and to keep every stroke so fresh and “on.” Jpegs don’t do this justice or show the layers within layers of paint that keep your eye engaged when viewing it in person–it is visual music and I do believe it was done in a quick burst of brilliance. The idea that someone out in corn country thought it was a good idea to roll this up is like hearing about a neglected infant.

Hrag August 14, 2008 at 1:22 am

I would simply feel sorry that SE Iowa would lose perhaps their only major Pollock. But to be fair, their museum is chocked full of major works, including a stunning Marsden Hartley, a Max Beckmann triptych to die for and a really lovely Miro to name a few. The MoMA faced a similar conflict of interest with Si Newhouse and Picasso’s “Man with a Guitar” (1913) that Gagosian brokered and no one really lost any sleep over it in New York.

Check out their collection here.

Hrag August 14, 2008 at 1:22 am

I would simply feel sorry that SE Iowa would lose perhaps their only major Pollock. But to be fair, their museum is chocked full of major works, including a stunning Marsden Hartley, a Max Beckmann triptych to die for and a really lovely Miro to name a few. The MoMA faced a similar conflict of interest with Si Newhouse and Picasso’s “Man with a Guitar” (1913) that Gagosian brokered and no one really lost any sleep over it in New York.

Check out their collection here.

Hrag August 14, 2008 at 1:22 am

I would simply feel sorry that SE Iowa would lose perhaps their only major Pollock. But to be fair, their museum is chocked full of major works, including a stunning Marsden Hartley, a Max Beckmann triptych to die for and a really lovely Miro to name a few. The MoMA faced a similar conflict of interest with Si Newhouse and Picasso’s “Man with a Guitar” (1913) that Gagosian brokered and no one really lost any sleep over it in New York.

Check out their collection here.

Hrag August 13, 2008 at 8:22 pm

I would simply feel sorry that SE Iowa would lose perhaps their only major Pollock. But to be fair, their museum is chocked full of major works, including a stunning Marsden Hartley, a Max Beckmann triptych to die for and a really lovely Miro to name a few. The MoMA faced a similar conflict of interest with Si Newhouse and Picasso’s “Man with a Guitar” (1913) that Gagosian brokered and no one really lost any sleep over it in New York.

Check out their collection here.

Art Fag City August 14, 2008 at 5:02 am

Well, your evaluation of the painting sheds some light on this. I think that suggestion is the Hill’s comment as well, since the words figurative and conservative tend not to be used positively when applied to contemporary art making, particularly when talking about programs set away from major centers. I’d have to see it in person to really know though.

Art Fag City August 14, 2008 at 5:02 am

Well, your evaluation of the painting sheds some light on this. I think that suggestion is the Hill’s comment as well, since the words figurative and conservative tend not to be used positively when applied to contemporary art making, particularly when talking about programs set away from major centers. I’d have to see it in person to really know though.

Art Fag City August 14, 2008 at 5:02 am

Well, your evaluation of the painting sheds some light on this. I think that suggestion is the Hill’s comment as well, since the words figurative and conservative tend not to be used positively when applied to contemporary art making, particularly when talking about programs set away from major centers. I’d have to see it in person to really know though.

Art Fag City August 14, 2008 at 12:02 am

Well, your evaluation of the painting sheds some light on this. I think that suggestion is the Hill’s comment as well, since the words figurative and conservative tend not to be used positively when applied to contemporary art making, particularly when talking about programs set away from major centers. I’d have to see it in person to really know though.

The Hill August 14, 2008 at 4:49 pm

I just want to add some qualifiers. Moody is right the value of the piece lies in its formatting the painting logic Pollock was to use later. However, the time of 10 hours remains problematic due to overlays on dried areas. Off record scholars have implied to me that suspicion has it, Pollock may have come back to the work much later in the 50’s. I’m not sure if everyone is satisfied w/ its date in terms of Mural’s lack of crudeness to other works of the time. Really eye brow raising speculation has it Motherwell might know since he helped paint it w/ Pollock. !!!! Convention buzz.

To avoid misunderstanding, by “figurative and conservative” I was referring to the painting majors at the U of I only, grad and undergrad. The painting faculty out of 10 professors let’s say, had only 2 at the most that favorably assessed the Pollock. So, I’m saying I felt that even those who had access to the work, did not value it. And the foot traffic, myself having worked at the Museum, would be on a 10K to one ratio w/ a large Metro Museum. And that’s conservative.

Lastly, rumors have it the Mural may have been damaged in the flooding, as it was always hung low (as your photo indicates) and in a sub atrium section of the Iowa Museum. The museum would flood once every 10 years, but this last apparently came much quicker and w/ way more volume.

The Hill August 14, 2008 at 4:49 pm

I just want to add some qualifiers. Moody is right the value of the piece lies in its formatting the painting logic Pollock was to use later. However, the time of 10 hours remains problematic due to overlays on dried areas. Off record scholars have implied to me that suspicion has it, Pollock may have come back to the work much later in the 50’s. I’m not sure if everyone is satisfied w/ its date in terms of Mural’s lack of crudeness to other works of the time. Really eye brow raising speculation has it Motherwell might know since he helped paint it w/ Pollock. !!!! Convention buzz.

To avoid misunderstanding, by “figurative and conservative” I was referring to the painting majors at the U of I only, grad and undergrad. The painting faculty out of 10 professors let’s say, had only 2 at the most that favorably assessed the Pollock. So, I’m saying I felt that even those who had access to the work, did not value it. And the foot traffic, myself having worked at the Museum, would be on a 10K to one ratio w/ a large Metro Museum. And that’s conservative.

Lastly, rumors have it the Mural may have been damaged in the flooding, as it was always hung low (as your photo indicates) and in a sub atrium section of the Iowa Museum. The museum would flood once every 10 years, but this last apparently came much quicker and w/ way more volume.

The Hill August 14, 2008 at 11:49 am

I just want to add some qualifiers. Moody is right the value of the piece lies in its formatting the painting logic Pollock was to use later. However, the time of 10 hours remains problematic due to overlays on dried areas. Off record scholars have implied to me that suspicion has it, Pollock may have come back to the work much later in the 50’s. I’m not sure if everyone is satisfied w/ its date in terms of Mural’s lack of crudeness to other works of the time. Really eye brow raising speculation has it Motherwell might know since he helped paint it w/ Pollock. !!!! Convention buzz.

To avoid misunderstanding, by “figurative and conservative” I was referring to the painting majors at the U of I only, grad and undergrad. The painting faculty out of 10 professors let’s say, had only 2 at the most that favorably assessed the Pollock. So, I’m saying I felt that even those who had access to the work, did not value it. And the foot traffic, myself having worked at the Museum, would be on a 10K to one ratio w/ a large Metro Museum. And that’s conservative.

Lastly, rumors have it the Mural may have been damaged in the flooding, as it was always hung low (as your photo indicates) and in a sub atrium section of the Iowa Museum. The museum would flood once every 10 years, but this last apparently came much quicker and w/ way more volume.

tom moody August 14, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Thanks, The Hill. Until those scholars are ready to come on record I’ll stick with my interpretation. Based on what I saw in the MOMA retrospective, it looked as if Pollock had a pattern throughout his career of pushing into new territory, then stepping back to familiar ground for the next few pieces, then moving ahead to further develop his “breakthrough.” The Gugg mural seemed very much in line with this and didn’t strike me as out of step with the work before and after except in being one of those “breakthroughs.”

I’m not a big fan of forensic evidence such as algorithmical modeling of drip fling rates and such to “authenticate” Pollocks. Perhaps Peggy Guggenheim asked him to touch up the painting and that explains the “new” marks. In any case the chronology doesn’t matter as it is a great painting. The legend may have to be tweaked somewhat.

Also not a big fan of Motherwell and wouldn’t trust his gossip. “I helped Jack make this picture!” Sure.

tom moody August 14, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Thanks, The Hill. Until those scholars are ready to come on record I’ll stick with my interpretation. Based on what I saw in the MOMA retrospective, it looked as if Pollock had a pattern throughout his career of pushing into new territory, then stepping back to familiar ground for the next few pieces, then moving ahead to further develop his “breakthrough.” The Gugg mural seemed very much in line with this and didn’t strike me as out of step with the work before and after except in being one of those “breakthroughs.”

I’m not a big fan of forensic evidence such as algorithmical modeling of drip fling rates and such to “authenticate” Pollocks. Perhaps Peggy Guggenheim asked him to touch up the painting and that explains the “new” marks. In any case the chronology doesn’t matter as it is a great painting. The legend may have to be tweaked somewhat.

Also not a big fan of Motherwell and wouldn’t trust his gossip. “I helped Jack make this picture!” Sure.

tom moody August 14, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Thanks, The Hill. Until those scholars are ready to come on record I’ll stick with my interpretation. Based on what I saw in the MOMA retrospective, it looked as if Pollock had a pattern throughout his career of pushing into new territory, then stepping back to familiar ground for the next few pieces, then moving ahead to further develop his “breakthrough.” The Gugg mural seemed very much in line with this and didn’t strike me as out of step with the work before and after except in being one of those “breakthroughs.”

I’m not a big fan of forensic evidence such as algorithmical modeling of drip fling rates and such to “authenticate” Pollocks. Perhaps Peggy Guggenheim asked him to touch up the painting and that explains the “new” marks. In any case the chronology doesn’t matter as it is a great painting. The legend may have to be tweaked somewhat.

Also not a big fan of Motherwell and wouldn’t trust his gossip. “I helped Jack make this picture!” Sure.

tom moody August 14, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Thanks, The Hill. Until those scholars are ready to come on record I’ll stick with my interpretation. Based on what I saw in the MOMA retrospective, it looked as if Pollock had a pattern throughout his career of pushing into new territory, then stepping back to familiar ground for the next few pieces, then moving ahead to further develop his “breakthrough.” The Gugg mural seemed very much in line with this and didn’t strike me as out of step with the work before and after except in being one of those “breakthroughs.”

I’m not a big fan of forensic evidence such as algorithmical modeling of drip fling rates and such to “authenticate” Pollocks. Perhaps Peggy Guggenheim asked him to touch up the painting and that explains the “new” marks. In any case the chronology doesn’t matter as it is a great painting. The legend may have to be tweaked somewhat.

Also not a big fan of Motherwell and wouldn’t trust his gossip. “I helped Jack make this picture!” Sure.

tom moody August 17, 2008 at 4:06 pm

According to Naifeh and Smith’s Pollock bio, the mural was painted in 15 hours, not 10 (but estimates varied). Pollock immediately rolled it and trucked it to Guggenheim’s for a party. 8 inches had to be removed to fit it on the wall (the extra inches “weren’t needed for this type of painting,” said Marcel Duchamp, who Guggenheim asked to install the canvas). Given all that, I’d be surprised if there wasn’t some retouching (but photo record shows no alteration in the design).

When was this Pollock residency in Iowa? The book doesn’t mention it–doubtful it happened. Guggenheim donated the work to the U of Iowa when she left America for Europe in 1947, after Yale turned it down. Nothing in the book about her trying to get it back. By 1950, it was hung in the school’s mural studio, up near the ceiling rafters where sparrows shat on it. (p. 629)

Your “scholars” are saying that Pollock traveled to Iowa to repaint the painting years after Guggenheim donated it to the University and after his drip paintings? With Motherwell, no less? Sorry, that just sounds like crap. The Naifeh/Smith book is extensively footnoted and Pollock’s whereabouts are accounted for month to month. The book mentions a driving trip to Chicago to jury a show in 1951 but nothing about a detour to alter the University of Iowa’s painting.

tom moody August 17, 2008 at 11:06 am

According to Naifeh and Smith’s Pollock bio, the mural was painted in 15 hours, not 10 (but estimates varied). Pollock immediately rolled it and trucked it to Guggenheim’s for a party. 8 inches had to be removed to fit it on the wall (the extra inches “weren’t needed for this type of painting,” said Marcel Duchamp, who Guggenheim asked to install the canvas). Given all that, I’d be surprised if there wasn’t some retouching (but photo record shows no alteration in the design).

When was this Pollock residency in Iowa? The book doesn’t mention it–doubtful it happened. Guggenheim donated the work to the U of Iowa when she left America for Europe in 1947, after Yale turned it down. Nothing in the book about her trying to get it back. By 1950, it was hung in the school’s mural studio, up near the ceiling rafters where sparrows shat on it. (p. 629)

Your “scholars” are saying that Pollock traveled to Iowa to repaint the painting years after Guggenheim donated it to the University and after his drip paintings? With Motherwell, no less? Sorry, that just sounds like crap. The Naifeh/Smith book is extensively footnoted and Pollock’s whereabouts are accounted for month to month. The book mentions a driving trip to Chicago to jury a show in 1951 but nothing about a detour to alter the University of Iowa’s painting.

matt lucas August 18, 2008 at 2:09 pm

I’m not a pollack fan, but I appreciate this being brought to my attention. If it’s true that no one sees the work and it isn’t being cared for, there is no problem with moving it.

matt lucas August 18, 2008 at 2:09 pm

I’m not a pollack fan, but I appreciate this being brought to my attention. If it’s true that no one sees the work and it isn’t being cared for, there is no problem with moving it.

matt lucas August 18, 2008 at 9:09 am

I’m not a pollack fan, but I appreciate this being brought to my attention. If it’s true that no one sees the work and it isn’t being cared for, there is no problem with moving it.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: