The Anonymous Art Critic
Jackson Pollock was famously described by Clement Greenberg as “the greatest painter this country [the United States] has produced”. I believe this was intended as a compliment. Singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran is another artist to have received widespread commercial and critical acclaim, having been dubbed the “de facto voice of a generation”.
Despite their unlikely pairing, microphone has collided with canvas. Ed Sheeran recently decided to foray into a new artistic discipline with his latest creative pursuit – labelled by some as “Jackson Pollock rip-off paintings”. These paintings are going for over US$1,000, so they are currently cheaper than your average Pollock. In fairness, they are partially raising money for charity, so Sheeran (worth an estimated £300 million) is continuing a noble celebrity tradition of inviting other people to donate money in his name while enjoying a leisurely activity and free publicity.
The fun thing about wanting to be the next Pollock is that it is a fantastically attainable goal. It’s a bit like striving to be the next person to make a cup of tea; as long as you have the right basic materials and assemble them in broadly the correct way, you can’t really fail. The only difference is that you might be able to make a bad cup, given there can be some skill involved. There is no way to do Pollock wrong; the act of bringing the ‘art’ into existence is enough.
However, if anyone could mess it up, it may be Ed Sheeran. This is a man who managed to totally obliterate any sense of immersion during his Game of Thrones season 7 cameo when he sang around a campfire with Arya Stark. Then again, how do you ruin something that is already terrible? Sheeran is really just working within the limits of the source material – much like a child might with a dot-to-dot sketch.
Perhaps this is simply Sheeran’s version of Kaizen, a Japanese philosophy that teaches the virtue of taking continuous small steps that lead to incremental improvement. There are few artistic shoes to fill smaller than Pollock’s, which is why his artistic style is so beloved by pre-school teachers.
In a way, Pollock and Sheeran are kindred spirits. Both name their art terribly – Pollock just numbers most of his paintings, while Sheeran cycles through calculator buttons. They are the standard bearers for unbearably mediocre yet inexplicably successful ‘artists’. Dare I say Ed Sheeran is already the Jackson Pollock of pop music? They are both darlings of easily impressed communities, beloved by those who don’t enjoy the stress that comes with actual thinking.
Jonathan Jones of The Guardian describes Sheeran’s artwork as a “slick con job”. This does a disservice to Pollock as the original conman. Apparently, “a Sheeran splash may ape a Pollock splash but there’s no feeling, no truth. Pollock put his inside self on a canvas, luring you into a web of mental suffering and triumph”. Unless this is suggesting that Pollock literally drew the paint from his body, the truth is that his art reveals nothing more than that he has perhaps a better PR team than Cara Delevingne. Pollock’s art divines the same inspiration as a rogue ketchup squirt might on a dinner plate. He is no Basquiat – there is nothing to learn beneath the flinging of paint.
Jones also suggests that “the body could see more than the mind with his hurled lines of flowing, tangled colours”. Note well the absence of eyes being used to consider Pollock’s work, lest they shatter the illusion of genius that enshrouds his portfolio and enrich those who own his paintings.
Ironically, one of the few Ed Sheeran songs I enjoy is ‘Photograph’. Maybe he would have more luck giving that a go instead. My advice to Sheeran on whether to pick up the paintbrush again can, helpfully, also be taken from another of his hit songs. ‘Don’t’.
Read The Anonymous Art Critic’s Tate Modern review here
