[AnAmericanMother]

What ruins Pollock for me is that I know he studied under Thomas Hart Benton . . . and when he was actually attempting to paint realistically it was painfully obvious that he had no talent at all. His early works were stilted, talentless copies of Benton's idiosyncratic and lively style.

(I like Benton a lot, even though I generally prefer a more realistic style. He has a nice rhythm and sense of composition.)

[Republicanprofessor]

Re Pollock's early work: I don't see a lack of talent so much as a struggle to deal with his vision and feelings, then unformed. The "bumps and hollows" of Benton's work can definitely be seen in every drip of Pollock's.

As someone who has also struggled to find my own vision, which wasn't pretty realism, I can see how other artists can explore in different ways. I doesn't mean he didn't have talent. In fact, I think it takes more guts and talent to explore beyond realism.

[Atlas Sneezed]

The point isn't whether one likes Pollock's "schtick." (The essence of which is to offend and annoy many, which is still does, admirably.) The point is whether Pollock is/was a master at that genre, better than all the drop-cloth wannabees.

[dighton]

I like Benton a lot, even though I generally prefer a more realistic style.

I like this Benton a lot.

(Warning, contains nudity)

Persephone.

Alfred Eisenstaedt: Thomas Hart Benton Painting “The Rape of Persephone.”

(click on small image to enlarge)