The choice of parrot rather than chicken is not easy. The movements of a
chicken are perhaps more suggestive of the repetitive nature of these works,
but the word chicken has other inappropriate connotations. So, of course does
the word parrot. But the fact that a parrot has actually produced successful
paintings somehow decrees that this will be the name. Jackson Pollock did the
most famous and best examples of parrot paintings, and they influenced a lot
of other painters. Pollock is said to have walked around on his canvases,
becoming almost a gesture in his own paintings. It is exactly thus that we
visualise our parrot fussing around on the surface flicking a charged brush
around in his beak, subject to numerous involuntary but fairly regular avian
jerks. We easily understand that the range of its brush at each hop or pace
will encompass the scale on which the repeating accidents occur. Anyone
involved with scientific aspects of images will readily believe that a
statistical process could easily mimic the final results, although I think
they would be disappointed if they tried to do it. This does not merely say
that they would be unlikely to approximately repeat a parrot painting by a
human (or a parrot), but that they would not produce a painting that would be
more than superficially like a real parrot painting to the most cursory
examination. In fact a careful examination of No. A1 seen above soon
reveals that it does not conform to our defining characteristics as set out
below. The red blobs in the bottom left hand corner of the screen are not in
the right idiom - a parrot could not easily reproduce these coherent oval
blobs. But other painters influenced by Pollock are even less perfect as
parrot painters. Mark Tobey's work White Journey (not shown) is
superficially parrot-like, but other works of his, like Coming and Going (right)
are not. The repetition is there, but the individual marks are far too well
formed and deliberate. And a parrot could not have done the blue and red
underpainting.
Characteristics of parrot paintings.
There is a feeling of
repetition without any actual matches.
The individual marks
appear careless and uncontrolled.
The painting is largely
produced in a single idiom - fairly uniform brushstrokes or paint spatters of
similar lengths.
The detailed activity is
on a rather small scale, although it may stretch over a large canvas.
Parrot painting has been produced by some outré methods. A student at the
Royal College of Art in London in the fifties used to cycle around the
corridors before entering the studio where his tubes of paint were arrayed
alongside the canvas. He would ride skillfully around flattening the open
tubes and sending explosive jets of paint across the work. As I recall the
results were classic parrot-painting if scale were ignored. Those who actually
see a Pollock - at eight feet or more in diameter - will find the parrot
metaphor harder to sustain. Scale is significant in this matter.
connotations. So, of course does
the word parrot. But the fact that a parrot has actually produced successful
paintings somehow decrees that this will be the name. Jackson Pollock did the
most famous and best examples of parrot paintings, and they influenced a lot
of other painters. Pollock is said to have walked around on his canvases,
becoming almost a gesture in his own paintings. It is exactly thus that we
visualise our parrot fussing around on the surface flicking a charged brush
around in his beak, subject to numerous involuntary but fairly regular avian
jerks. We easily understand that the range of its brush at each hop or pace
will encompass the scale on which the repeating accidents occur. Anyone
involved with scientific aspects of images will readily believe that a
statistical process could easily mimic the final results, although I think
they would be disappointed if they tried to do it. This does not merely say
that they would be unlikely to approximately repeat a parrot painting by a
human (or a parrot), but that they would not produce a painting that would be
more than superficially like a real parrot painting to the most cursory
examination. In fact a careful examination of No. A1 seen above soon
reveals that it does not conform to our defining characteristics as set out
below. The red blobs in the bottom left hand corner of the screen are not in
the right idiom - a parrot could not easily reproduce these coherent oval
blobs. But other painters influenced by Pollock are even less perfect as
parrot painters. Mark Tobey's work White Journey (not shown) is
superficially parrot-like, but other works of his, like Coming and Going (right)
are not. The repetition is there, but the individual marks are far too well
formed and deliberate. And a parrot could not have done the blue and red
underpainting.
There is a feeling of
repetition without any actual matches.
