Jackson Pollock
<b>Jackson Pollock</b> indeed is the pioneer of abstract expressionism, and his painting Number 1 (Lavender Mist) is a wonderful example of this art movement. Pollock is a modern artist, and his style of painting, as well as many other’s painters, was influenced by some other artists’ artworks. I think that in order to come up with such a style that Pollock concocted, one must be tremendously impressed with some modern artworks. And Marcel Duchamp played an important role in influencing Pollock as a painter. 
It is obvious that Pollock’s works of art do not resemble paintings of Van Gogh or Stacy Brown. His artworks have nothing to do with impressionism or realism, but rather with modern expressionism and dada. Marcel Duchamp, being the founder of the dada movement, was one of the first modern artists who introduced chaos and absence of beauty. I think his unique artworks profoundly influenced Jackson Pollock, because Pollock avoids any standards just like Duchamp, and presents his beauty, not the conventional beauty of Leonardo. I believe Pollock, just like Duchamp, was expressing his own feeling and perception of the world. Hence, he simply expressed his feelings and spirituality. Just like Duchamp, Pollock did not care about whether his artworks were beautiful or not, I reckon, but rather he just did what he felt like doing. 
There are traces of surrealism in Pollock’s Number 1 a well. Absolute detachment from reality I what the picture constitutes. Since he used drips of paint rather than strokes, it is apparent that he could not fully control the picture he was working on. He could only know the approximate size, shape and place of the spot, which means that he did not have full control over the picture. I believe he was working on Number 1 in a state of trance or nirvana, and completely followed intuition and spirituality turning to psychic automatism. This part of Pollock’s style, I reckon, is a trace of a Frenchman Paul-Emile Borduas (or some of his loyal followers). The works of this painter are great chaotic pieces, and Pollock, although not much younger than Paul-Emile, must have borrowed his automatism.
All this flammable mixture of surrealism, psychic automatism, and dada resulted in one of the most important American art movements, abstract expressionism. Just like expressionists Pollock expressed his feelings and perception of the world through his own unique prism, highlighting aspects that he thought to be important. However, his style was distinct from simple expressionism because there were no defined objects, no shapes, no shades, and no light. He simply used color, and spots, expressing himself. 
To me personally, Number 1 resembles a city view from a satellite. And it still remains unknown for me what exactly he attempted to express. Was it his appeal? Or was it his call for action? Or maybe he simply dripped paint of a canvas and wanted to see whether naive critics and collectors would buy his trick? Many viewers consider Number 1 beautiful (I make such a statement because otherwise <i>Jackson Pollock</i> would not be so well known), but I see no beauty in it at all. I think I can do the same composition of drips and spots, only people would not buy it because they do not know me as a painter. So, maybe it is his famous name that art lovers buy, and not the painting (which they actually dislike)?