I am quite sure I have seen this painting in real life, and part of the reason that I am not certain whether or not I have seen it is that it is boring and dull second grade level abstract art. I suppose the reason this painting frustrates me ks it is pure chaos and doesn’t even appear to be some form of “order within chaos.” The size didn’t seem to make much of a difference as I saw it most likely because it is chaos, and chaos either is or isn’t. The extent of chaos is not really relevant. I am not very sure why it is such a prominent painting. This probably has something to do with Pollock’s position in the art world at the time or perhaps the tech ique he used was particularly innovative.
The commentator seems to be saying that the painting is so complex and it must have a point, but she cannot pinpoint what it is, she cannot provide an answer to his question let alone realize what question Pollock is asking. She makes this point by saying that the painting is pure paint (um, duh?) and that the painting is essentially a maze that cannot be understood. There are no symbols , but this painting must mean something.
Perhaps she is overlooking the possibility that the painting means absolutely nothing and Pollock’s only goal was to relive his elementary school days in art class. She seems to be so bent on the idea that this painting has deeper meaning that even though she says it is a maze of pure paint and is no simile, she cannot help herself when she finishes the passage by claiming that the painting msu be so deep that she cannot even fathom what Pollock could be asking let alone what the answer is.