The movie is based on the Stealing Klimt documentary where they interview Maria Altmann. It goes through her life in Vienna and her escape, to her work in recovering the five stolen Klimt paintings. Randol Schoenberg (played by Ryan Reynolds) and Hubertus Czernin (played by Daniel Brühl) were the lawyer and Austrian journalist that helped provide and compile Maria Altmann’s evidence to make her case to retrieve her paintings from the Belvedere Gallery. The movie contains and utilizes all the elements of the documentary and even provides a thank you in the end credits to the Stealing Klimt documentary for providing all the background information and personal interviews that assisted in the making of the movie.

Though this is an art historical movie the artist himself is only shown briefly. We see during the opening credits Klimt manipulating a piece of gold leaf for his portrait of one of his models Adele Bloch-Bauer. Klimt himself was a very famous painter in Austria. So, when Maria Altmann comes asking for her aunts’ portrait, they claim that it is the Mona Lisa of
Austria. This is due to Klimt’s fame and the paintings mysterious roots. We know who the Woman in Gold painting is of now, but in the Belvedere Gallery at the time when the Nazis took the painting, they couldn’t disclose who she was since Adele Bloch-Bauer herself and family were Jewish. Just like the Mona Lisa in the Louvre in Paris, France the people who came to view a famous artist’s work were drawn in by the mystery of who this woman was. Therefore, on the political side, this panting marks an important part of Austria’s past and is regarded very highly. So, despite Maria Altmann’s roots and proof that this portrait is of her aunt the Austrian Government and more importantly, the gallery cannot afford to give up such a famous part of Austrian history.

This movie is deliberately highlighting the contrast between political versus personal meaning in artworks. Besides the Belvedere Gallery not being able to relinquish such a prevalent work of art, the younger generation also had their own thoughts about this art restitution hearing and the events of the Holocaust. In the movie, Maria Altmann is leaving the building after the art restitution hearings and is confronted by a man. He comments on how “she gave a moving speech”, but that “not everything is about the Holocaust”, and that “people like her never give up do they?”. This shows that the Austrian public views these works as a part of Austria now and no longer part of a personal collection or of a family member in this case. Klimt’s fame as an Austrian artist made this artwork a staple of the Belvedere Gallery’s collection and resonated with the younger generation of Austria. This left Maria Altmann questioning whether it was worth it to get her aunt’s portrait and other paintings back. All this back and forth about what is right for the sake of the Belvedere Gallery or for Maria Altmann leaves the viewer to think about their own moral compass. Whether the viewer sides with the political or the personal, the viewer must see what they think is right. There are many descendants of those who survived the Holocaust who could influence whether you as a viewer think what Maria Altmann is pursuing is worth it.

Woman in Gold overall is extremely powerful and will resonate with everyone. It challenges your beliefs and brings to light the prevalence and need for art restitution following the Nazi occupation of many other countries.

The film does a fantastic job at explaining the collection that Mr. Barnes was able to acquire over his lifetime. It went on to explain exactly how he was able to attain this massive collection and showed how he would go over to France and buy paintings that were deemed “not professional” and from a “terrible time period of artwork”, this was surprising to me as I felt that modernist and post-impressionist artwork was always considered to be a higher class of art that was a world-renowned style.  The movie taught me however, that this is not the case and that this form of painting was highly criticized for its style and didn’t have near the value it does today which is why Barnes was able to acquire so many of them.  The film goes on to discuss what exactly modernist artwork is. This is positive because it explains the area of artwork that is collected and displayed.  The main thing that I enjoyed about this film is how it depicted Barnes as a passionate art collector who wanted to preserve his collection and use it teach young artists and educate other collectors.

The film did a great job of depicting how the collection was gathered by Barnes and was very informative about his life and lifestyle.  He was a pharmaceutical genius who made a fortune from selling drugs, to which he used to fuel his art collection that was located in Lower Marion, near Philadelphia.  The film then switches gears and gets to the main conflict of the event which is what to do with the artwork when Barnes had passed away.  In his will he claimed he wanted all of this art to remain where it was and to never be separated or made accessible to the public.  This started a huge controversy amongst many parties who felt that keeping the artwork from the world was a crime.  There were others who argued that it was Barnes collection and that his will should be followed exactly, preventing the artwork from going on display. Mr. Barnes really wanted to keep the painting as a form of education for those who had a keen interest in art and could gain insight and meaning from the painting and not only that but learn from it rather than the average person just paying to see it without any intentions of using it fuel their own creativity.  The aspiring artists would be able to view the gallery through approval from the foundation which would also present a cost, much like the way a university is set up charging fees to use their facility and receive and education.

The film is interesting in that it does focus on the artwork and goes on to explain that Barnes collection in a remote area of Philadelphia is worth an estimated twenty-five billion dollars, making it one of the most valuable of all time.  He was able to acquire over 9000 paintings including 181 Renoirs, 69 Cezannes, 60 Matisses, 44 Picassos and 14 Modiglianis.  These are huge names in the art community as Picasso and Modigliani painting sell for hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars for original works.  This is what caused the huge controversy as making these painting available to the public could generate a huge revenue for museums and the city of Philadelphia in general. It is obvious that people wanted to exploit this collection and hoped to make a fortune off it but Barne’s will prevented it from being moved, sold, or viewed by anyone other than a student of the art community.

The main focus of the film begins to unfold as the director describes the various lawsuits and court hearing that take place in order to make these works visible to the public and to buyers and in turn going against the wishes of Barnes.  The other aspect that allowed for this is the fact that his education center or private museum, for lack of a better word, was drowning in debt and could not support themselves any longer making it even more difficult to respect Barnes wishes.  The lawsuits continued until finally the will was broken and the artworks were separated and began to travel all over the world to different museums and put on public display.  The film talks about possible conspiracies involved where they thought that huge donations and other funding helped come to a final court hearing of allowing the artwork to be moved.

The movie attempts not to take sides and just give facts about what had occurred in terms of physical events that had taken place. However, they are biased in the end and feel that the wishes of Barnes should not have been disrupted, meaning they should have stayed in their original collection not sold or viewed by the “average” person.  They do this by explaining the results of hearings and the destiny of the art in a mundane fashion.  I enjoyed the back and forth debate that the viewer is faced with in terms of would you want your wishes disobeyed and on the other hand should these works really be private and not be allowed to be enjoyed by everyone regardless of education background or even financial background.  I think that overall I enjoyed learning about this case and it taught me a great deal about the true value of art, as a 25-billion-dollar collection was something I didn’t even know was possible.  It also informed me about the process of the art trade in general, I didn’t know so much goes into this community which was evident at the number of people and lawyers who were involved in this case.

Although I wouldn’t want my death wishes disobeyed I don’t believe it was right of Mr. Barnes to keep his collection from the world as they have a huge impact on the art community as a whole.  His collection has so much to offer for those studying modernism and wish to see famous artwork of the time period, and along with this, artists made their work for the people to enjoy most importantly and I think keeping it from society was wrong of Barnes to do. Overall, I disagreed with the view point of the film-makers and instead choose to side with the decision to make the artworks open to the public even if this meant separating the collection.

Many people who aren’t involved in art don’t understand that it could be so much more than just a piece of work. However, movies can give viewers a better understanding of aspects of art history. Art history movies can show the importance of famous artists, what they went through, and how they used art to escape reality. These movies can also make the interest in art increase the emotional power for viewers. Because of certain movies, a general audience can watch and learn more about art history, in a fun way.

The Art of the Steal (2009), directed by Don Argott is an example of this. Is about a group of men who created their own business, stealing art. The main character, known as “Crunch Calhoun,” got in trouble for attempting to steal and resell a famous painting to Stash Bartkowiak who is known as a rich, corrupt and most definitely dangerous man. He got caught at the beginning of the movie and was sent to jail due to his brother, Nicky Calhoun. His brother was offered a deal to snitch and give the original painting back in order to avoid jail time for 20 years. So, his brother snitched and sent him to jail instead. He then came out and wanted to do nothing with his life other than dirt bike riding. He felt that nothing was going right for him anymore. One day he decided to do one last job, by stealing a famous painting by George Seurat and getting revenge on his brother. He went through a series of events starting from his bike accident just to get everything correctly in place to sell his brother out for “stealing” the famous painting. His brother “Crunch Calhoun” set his brother up to make it look like his brother stole the original painting by getting a second copy of the painting and sold him out to the police. The movie ends with Crunch being successful and ending up with a ton of money.

This movie was all about George Seurat’s painting. Seurat had excellent knowledge of art in the past. He also studied many different cultures and the nature of human body. He was the founder of the 19th-century French school of Neo-impressionism. He played with the technique of light using tiny brushstrokes almost seen as dots contrasting into colors, known as Pointillism. His famous painting that was brought up in the movie is called “Model From the Back” and was made in France in 1887. This painting was one of his best and describes the silence of the work of a naked woman modeling from behind. This painting is made with many dots contrasting into a woman, which I find very interesting. The dots contrast different shades such as blue, white, yellow, orange and black. The blue and orange are used everywhere. The more you look into the body of the woman, the more you see that contrast of her pale skin. You can see the naturalism in this painting of a woman being structured with dots forming into a body of a woman. This painting fascinated me with the different shades of dots and never in my life had I seen a painting of a woman created out of dots. Learning about this painting would have never been brought up if it weren’t for the movie and Seurat’s excellent work.

Another painting that was shown and talked about was the “Mona Lisa”. This painting was briefly brought up in the movie, in a scene where the characters discuss when “Mona Lisa” was stolen. The “Mona Lisa” has been used for commercials, memes, t-shirts, hats, socks, etc. She is famously known as having a mysterious smile of a random woman who is over proportioned compared to the background of the painting. She was also placed in a very weird setting and people love the mystery behind “Mona Lisa”, and why she was this mysterious woman no one ever knew was posing in this mind mystery painting.

From watching this movie I didn’t know that art could be handled in so many ways, and how much it could cost you to steal famous artwork. The reason behind this is that people go to great lengths for a piece of art, such as, for example, making forgeries.  People who aren’t so much into art probably don’t know how much famous artworks are worth. What the viewers think about an artwork explains why people go through so much just to steal it. Another thing is, not many people also understand that art is very important because it helps people create problem-solving skills like motor skills for young children, language skills, and social skills. This movie shows important paintings that not many people would have known about if it weren’t for the movie. Movies dealing with art help give you a better idea as to why particular paintings are so famous. Movies that create background knowledge with art are a great way to start learning about the history of art.

When Barnes began to look at the paintings for his collection, he had many different options. Nobody could put a price on it because it was so valuable and many of them are one of a kind, and there will never be anything like them. Many critics have sharply criticized the type of art in his collection, and he wanted it to be kept out of the wrong hands. Barnes set out after creating the collection to build a school and lead the way in modern education through the artwork. When he created the gallery, he treated every artwork the same and in its fundamentals. He wanted every painting to be treated the same, and no work of art would stand out more than another based on the set up around it. Dr. Barnes was very critical of the people who wanted to see this art and didn’t care for the wealthy trying to buy the painting and hang it in their homes and kept it closed to the public for that reason. The Barnes art gallery includes artwork from some of the greatest artists like Van Gogh, Monet, Matisse, Cezanne, and Picasso. 

Later in Barnes’ life, he set out to stop anyone from taking the art from the foundation when he wrote his will. He wanted to keep it from being sold, moved, lent out to anyone or any other foundation. Soon after, Barnes died in a car accident in 1951, which lead to many questions on what was his intentions were for the collection in the future. The control of the foundation was then passed down to Violette De Manzia who was passionate and ran the foundation just like Barnes. Barnes wanted to keep the foundation a school and a learning institution, not a museum. After his death, many people began to set out to attack the foundation which leads to the opening of the foundation to the public, in spite of Barnes’ wishes. Many museums started to contact the foundation to ask to borrow the paintings and Manzia would not allow it just like the will said. Mrs. Manzia then died at 89 which lead to the power of the foundation being given to Lincoln University which was a predominantly African American institution. Then the University appointed Franklin Williams to be the president of the Collection.  Williams then established a committee to keep the collection together. 

Then comes along a lawyer, Richard Glanton, who had very ambitious ideas for the Barnes Foundation. He wanted to start making money for the foundation and put it on the map. Glanton believed that for 50 years the foundation was being mismanaged. Glanton began working with multi-millionaire Walter Hinneberg about the future and the long term preservation and restoration of the art collection. Glanton came out and said that they would start to sell the collection and everyone who objected was fired. He began to show reporters that the building was falling apart and need to be closed down to be fixed and undermined Barnes will. The collection was then taken on a tour around the world to show everyone’s works that many had never seen before. 

Glanton then begins to try to develop the property to get a parking lot in a residential neighborhood. He then began to sue anyone who tried to stop him like the people in the community which wasted a considerable amount of money and by doing this many people in the committee began to believe he was incapable of running the foundation. 

In this documentary, they tell the story of the journey of the Barnes collection in a fantastic way. Throughout the documentary, they interviewed people who played a significate role in the foundation and some of the people who tried to dismantle the foundation. They used lots of footage of the foundation to show just how it looked and how Barnes wanted it to look he made it perfect and wanted it to stay that way. This documentary told the story of the Barnes collection in a unique way, and overall I enjoyed that. It was fascinating to see how it began and how over time it got passed along and how some attempted to destroy it, but it held together and is a cool place for modern art. 

Barnes became a doctor and medical researcher by working hard and remaining persistent. He went on to become a millionaire by becoming the founder of a new pharmaceutical firm, as well as importantly finding a treatment for a rare disease back in his time. It wasn’t too long after that where he became extremely interested in art and as time passed, he put together one of the world’s most impressive collections of original paintings. His collection was filled with hundreds of paintings from Impressionists, Post-Impressionists and modernist masters. Rather than grouping these paintings by artist or era as in most art galleries, he displayed these works in his own personal preference as a way to express his own artistic vision. He also had other types of art such as sculptures, ancient artifacts, and highly crafted objects which range from different time periods. The paintings, however, were from some of the most prestigious artists ranging from Cezanne and Renoir to Picasso and Van Gogh.

When Barnes bought the paintings, he often relied on his own instincts rather than the advice from art experts. He didn’t much concern himself with the opinions of Philadelphia’s art collectors. As time went on, Barnes decided to start his foundation in 1922 due to the bitter terms that he was on with the rest of the city’s art community. This foundation was named after himself, the Barnes Foundation, and was where he kept his collection of paintings in private, rather than sharing it with some of the art institutions, one being the Philadelphia Art Museum. Because of Barnes’ unique individualism, he created many supporters, yet also many adversaries.

The Foundation was opened as an education institution and only allowed people to view the collection through strictly invitation only. Barnes preferred his collection of art work to be seen only by students and those who had a passionate love for art. There were early educational programs at Barnes’ Foundation in which were taught in partnership alongside Columbia University & the University of Pennsylvania. The classes in the Foundation included activities such as experiencing original art works, participating in class discussions, examining the artist’ use of line, color, light, and spacing, as well as reading philosophy and learning about the traditions of art. Barnes believed that through these teachings, students would be able to develop their own critical thinking skills along with broadening their imagination for art. Barnes didn’t want people whom he felt did not appreciate his paintings to be able to view his collection, which was the reason he created the Foundation in the first place.

Albert C. Barnes died in 1951 and made it firm in his will that he wanted his collection of art to stay in the Barnes Foundation. He made a statement to never allow his collection of art work to be lent to other museums, nor especially be sold to anyone else. He made one exception for Lincoln University, one of the first African-American universities in the United States, and gave trustees partial control over his collection. After years of legal challenges, changes were made which allowed visitors regular access to the Foundation. Public access was upgraded to 2 and a half days per week, as well as a maximum of 500 tourists per week!

Overall, I feel as if the movie over-exaggerated for the most part, but that’s what I expect in a movie. The story behind it though was neat to me as I found it interesting how they happened to actually pull the heist off. All in all, I’d say the movie was a good one as it maintained to hold my attention pretty well, on top of giving me a little insight about how the heist just may have gone down!

In 1922, a man by the name of Albert Barnes established the Barnes Foundation. The Barnes Foundation is one of the most controversial and valuable collections of Post Impressionism and modern art in the entire world. Albert Barnes helped invent Argyrol which is where he acquired his fortune to buy these works of art. There are 181 Renoirs, 69 Cézannes, 59 paintings by Matisse, 46 by Picasso, 7 by Van Goghs, and 6 paintings by Seurat. He kept this collection in a twelve- acre conservatory in Merion, Pennsylvania. Barnes was said to be way ahead of his time artistically, intellectually, and politically. He wanted his collection to be used solely for educational purposes and only by his students.

In the beginning, many critics, and newspapers talked down on this collection saying it was, “primitive, debased art.” Barnes knew that these statements were false and took this to heart. He used this hatred towards the main goal of his foundation. He did not want this art in any museums, or newspapers where the city of Philadelphia or anyone could make profit off them. Barnes quotes, “The main function of the museum has been to serve as a pedestal upon which a clique of socialites pose as patrons of the arts.” He only wanted people who really understood the value of his art and that could truly appreciate it. Years later when his collection became well known as important and valuable, everyone hated him. It was a battle between him and the city of Philadelphia.

Albert Barnes was very stubborn when it came to his ideals and the opinions of others. He understood that keeping his collection from the public would bring along hatred towards him and his legacy, but he did not care. Before dying in 1951 from a horrific automobile accident, Barnes, being the smart man he was, created a will in order to protect his prized possessions. Although Barnes was married, he had no children to take over his dream. He left his foundation to his protégé Violette De Mazia. She was one of the first teachers at the school who was one of Barnes main supporters, who he could trust to run it the same way he would. He sought this art to be forever held in his possession without it ever being sold, loaned or moved, and she kept it this way for 30 years until her passing. After this no one knew who would take over the establishment, because Barnes never told anyone he had changed his will to leave control to Lincoln University.

Lincoln University was a college for black males in America to receive a good education. He knew they were the farthest thing from being involved with the social drama that surrounded the art. For Barnes, he knew this would be a slap in the face to the city of Philadelphia. For years they protected the art until funds for the school started to diminish, and that is when the current president at the time, Richard Glanton, created an art advisory board. They collected very well- known art critics from around the country to be trustees. At this time, the building in Merion where the paintings hung started to deteriorate, and would soon be unfit to hold them anymore.

Unfortunately, instead of raising money through charity to restore the gallery they decided to rent the paintings out to museums across the world. This was not a bad idea to raise money, but it was the exact thing that Barnes wrote in his will that he did not want to happen. The advisory board did not support this idea, and that is when Glanton took to the press and showed a reporter everything that was wrong with the building including leaky roofs, and a broken climate control system. This is just what he needed in order to get the judge to sign off on the closing of the foundation for a couple years and allowing the paintings to be rented out while it was being redone. They interview and include Glanton in many parts of this movie, they let him explain his side of the story and show us why he did what he did. Glanton warns us that removing him from the board was the worst decision they could have made. The directors come back to him after all is said and done to prove that he was correct in making that statement.

The documentary gives great insight from both sides of this controversy and lets the viewers see directly into the eyes of both without being biased. They do this by interviewing people who supported keeping the Barnes foundation in Merion, and by interviewing the other side who wanted the art in museums. I think the directors did this on purpose so it was not single sided and would keep people second guessing themselves on which side to take. While watching this I first sided with Barnes, but as it continued I began to question my decision. I really respected Barnes perspective of keeping these priceless paintings for educational purposes only, and I hated the opposing side trying to compromise them just to bring tourism and profit. But there are so many people in the world that love art for the way it is, and would do anything to be able to learn more about these paintings created by the most iconic artists of all time. With these paintings being kept in a residential neighborhood not open to the public; how can you not try to fight to let the world in on the most famous Post Impressionism and modern art. I enjoyed watching this documentary because it gave a story line to follow and kept me interested without knowing any prior knowledge. Until the end of it I thought that the Barnes Foundation would stay at its home when in fact the complete opposite happened.

The film includes Joseph and Armand Roulin who are based on real members of the Roulin family. Vincent painted group portrait paintings of the Roulin family members which included postman, Joseph Roulin, his wife Augustine and their three children: Armand, Camille and Marcelle. During Vincent’s childhood, the film briefly addressed that he “couldn’t fit in.” Vincent had a stillborn brother and he felt like, in his mother’s eyes, he could never measure up to his deceased brother. However, Vincent and his younger brother, Theo van Gogh, were close and Theo became very depressed and withdrawn after Vincent’s death. In real life, it was described that Theo was very fascinated with Vincent and admired him. However, their communication was difficult because of distance,which probably resulted in the exchange of letters. However, the letters were away for the brothers to be able to keep up with each other’s lives. One year after Vincent van Gogh’s suicide, Joseph Roulin asks his son Armand to deliver Van Gogh’s last letter to his brother, Theo. However, it is later revealed that Theo died six months after Vincent. 

In my opinion, even though Vincent’s life was complicated, his death, which was fairly the focus of the movie, was even more difficult and mysterious. It seemed like everyone had a story to tell about his death, and I still feel like it is a mystery because there was no suicide note stating why he chose to kill himself. Also, the film includes the idea that Vincent didn’t kill himself. Rene Secretan was a local bully who used to flash his gun and harass Vincent. After hearing a few people talk around,Armand began to suspect Rene shot Vincent. Equally important, his items were removed from the field where he shot himself. Throughout the film, many people were confused as to why Vincent killed himself because they said he seemed “fine.” I don’t know how true these details are but the movie did make me question a lot about his death. For example, who moved his items, why were they moved, and why did he kill himself? Also, the movie briefly pays attention to Vincent’s real life mental illness. The film includes Dr. Gatchet, who was a subject in one of Vincent’s real portraits. Dr. Gatchet took care of Vincent during his final moments (this was also displayed in the film). Towards the end of the film, Dr. Gachet said Vincent suffered from melancholia, meaning he would be joyful one minute and in the next few hours he would be in deep depression. To me that sounds like bipolar disorder, but this just goes to show that you never really know what disturbing challenges some people have to face even though they may appear to be okay. Furthermore, Dr. Gachet told Armand that he told Vincent that the burden of him is killing his brother, Theo, who was in bad health. Dr. Gachet knew he shouldn’t have said that to Vincent and if this is true, I think, aside from other issues in his life, Vincent killed himself because he no longer wanted to be a burden and stressor to his brother and in result, be a contributor to his death.

Loving Vincent may cause viewers to feel sorry for Vincent because he didn’t have a happy, “normal” life. He only seemed content when he was painting for hours. The film may have an effect on what viewers think about Van Gogh’s work because instead of looking at his work as something “beautiful,” the film makes you think about Vincent’s mental state while he was doing a painting or did his mental health contribute to his creativity to produce such paintings.Also, according to the film, it is sad that the last known news he heard was that he was a burden to the only person who truly believed in him and admired him.

In one scene a reporter from Life Magazine asked Jackson Pollock “Howdo you know when you’re finished with a painting? He then replied “How do you know when you’re done making love” I think this shows how truly insane he was.He was brutally miserable and made everyone around him miserable. A lot of Jackson Pollock’s bad times revolved around his alcoholism. In the movie he is noticeably happier during the period he stopped drinking. His alcoholism also led to his death in a drunk driving accident that also took the life of an innocent woman. I think this movie is more about the work rather then the art.Meaning it shows how much work he put into his artwork. It also shows how hard everyday life was for Jackson Pollock. There is a point made in the movie that it takes more for an alcoholic to get out of bed in the morning then it does fora normal person to go through their day. Pollock is sluggish and tired at most times in the morning suggesting he is hung-over.

The movie starts in post-war setting. You can tell because everyone is smoking cigarettes and the rent is very cheap. The time period matches perfectly with post World War 2. It even says in the movie Pollock was turned down from the military for being mentally unstable. Jackson Pollock is married to Lee Krasner who just happens to be an art critic. Many would say if she didn’t poke her head through his door his career would have never took off. Lee Krasner helped her husband land a meeting with a very famous art critic Peggy Guggenheim. He almost misses the meeting, showing his knack for just simply messing everything up. She is immediately impressed with his work. In the film it shows her pressing her hands against the paintings to see the temperature.

Jackson Pollock is a painter like most that had tremendous confidence in his work. In one scene where is he is painting a mural for Peggy’s town house he shows how confident he is in his work. This mural is truly amazing and was an earlier work of Pollock where he did not use is signature drippy action. In this mural he instead used a controlled swirl forum. Pollock uses a bunch of different vibrant colors but he makes it looks they are all one. The mural was 20 feet high by 8 feet high. Pollock initially thought the mural was too big. During the unveiling of the piece Jackson Pollock was bragging how good his art work was. He was wasted, he then walked over to the fire place and started urinating. Once again showing how bad his alcoholism was. Pollock uses surrealist abstraction in this work, which was the largest he ever made.

I think Jackson Pollock used his art to escape from his depression. His artwork brings him happiness. I think it brought him joy that his artwork brought others happiness. He could escape the everyday life and just get away and paint. His success was also his downfall.He became known for gloating about his work and telling everyone how great he was. In the movie he was very verbal about his hatred for Picasso but they have a lot of similarities with their depression. They both use Art to cope with their depression and both are considered the greatest of their respected generations. I do not know if Ed Harris can actually paint but he makes it appear that he can really paint and makes sure it is very historically accurate in showing how Jackson Pollock painted. He uses a progressing, doggedly form of brushstrokes. The film also shows his use of dynamic dripping and spattering. It shows how he paints with gradients and many vibrant colors.

I think this movie does a great job of showing the life of an artist in New York City in the 40’s and 50’s. There was not a true American art Star before Jackson Pollock and I think he did a great job of cementing his name as one of the great American painters. This was a time in New York with a lot of great artists with great ideas but Jackson Pollock is truly remembered more than all of them.