Jackson Pollock’s Number 1, painted in 1949 via his revolutionary “drip” method, is essentially incomprehensible. As it hangs on the wall at The Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) in Downtown Los Angeles, countless visitors stare at its incredible depth. Rich, layered details of varying colors form a multitude of shapes, intertwined to create a work that is considered art.

The typical visitor, unfamiliar with this highly complex arrangement of abstract symbols, attempts to reach some conclusion of its meaning and purpose. Attempts to investigate a smaller region of the work fail to provide insight. Many likely conclude that the work is simply random splattering of paint onto a canvas. If the visitor feels obliged to offer an interpretation of some sort, discussion of randomness, intention, destruction, hope, or countless other entirely unrelated things may occur. But the point of Pollock’s work, and its uselessly numerical title, remains elusive. In Number 1, Pollock achieves a level of richness so great that the work cannot be immediately understood. It mesmerizes, puzzles, enrages, captivates, and perplexes museum-goers but it does not enlighten them.

At MOCA, an adjacent wall features a series of three binary compositions in black and white. While the forms remain abstract, this language of symbols is orders of magnitude simpler than Pollock’s. Binary compositions are often referred to as “figure/ground;” where only two colors, most commonly black and white, are arranged, usually forming objects. Each object can be read as either the “figure”—the symbol that is most critical to the understanding of the work—or the less-important background.

The simple power of figure/ground compositions lends itself to basic comprehension by most viewers; viewers may even consider the work to be overly simple. Even when the figures within figure/ground works are abstract, the ability to see a figure allows the viewer to attempt to associate that figure with a familiar symbol. For example, take the following figure:

At first glance, this figure looks like a strange collection of abstract shapes. But after a bit of thought, it is clear that it is a figure of a dog. In this mental process, we subconsciously search for a familiar symbol with which we can associate the image we see. While this process occurs when viewing figure/ground compositions such as those presented adjacent to Pollock’s Number 1, a figure/ground reading of Number 1 is not directly possible due to its use of color.

Even though the balance of lighter and darker colors in Pollock’s work suggests a potential for figure/ground analysis, the complexity of the figures and the fact that the painting is in color prevent even a grayscale reading from being successful. However, it is possible to convert a photograph of Number 1 into a binary (two-colored) image, by applying an image processing algorithm that converts each pixel of the image to either white or black based on the intensity of the pixel’s original color.

Examining this image at small scale, there is a shocking revelation: Pollock’s work is so detailed that the layers of small, intersecting objects blend, giving the illusion of a grayscale, not a binary image at small scale. Because the work is so complex, it therefore cannot be analyzed in binary form at small scale, and rather must be investigated using alternate means to reduce its complexity.

An alternate approach for simplifying digital images is to detect edges within the image. There are a variety of applications for such methods, such as monitoring retaining wall movements automatically based on regularly taken photographs. After an edge detection algorithm is performed on an image, the result is a binary (black and white) image that displays white at the pixels that are parts of edges and black everywhere else. This allows the viewer (or in most cases the next step in a large computer process) to visualize the edges of objects without the objects themselves getting in the way.

Applying a standard edge-detection algorithm to Pollock’s Number 1, the results are, once again, shocking. The anticipation of the result during the processing of the algorithm, which takes several seconds to run, is not unlike the anticipation encountered when approaching a museum gallery, preparing to explore its contents. Initially, the edge-detected image looks even less useful than the binary version, visually comparable to static noise. But when scaled larger, the results are incredible:

The complete depth of Pollock’s work can only begin to be comprehended when looking closely at the edges of the objects present in his painting (figure 6). The sheer detail and magnitude of the objects is breathtaking, providing an entirely new view of the work and invalidating any argument that it is entirely random. A brief analysis of a few selected figures will provide a sense for the scope of the potential analysis of the work.

Figure A, with an isolated object highlighted in red, appears to be a sleeping animal. Turn it upside down, and a similar conclusion can be reached. Zooming in even closer on another part of the image, we see a form that resembles a boot in figure B. At a wider view, elsewhere on the painting, the collection of objects in figure C could look like a map of Great Britain, a man riding a bull, a map of Asia, or a variety of other things depending on how you look at it.

The magnitude of smaller figures that can be identified within the painting’s edge-reduction could lend itself to detailed analysis at several scales; for example, searching for “centers” as Steinberg does with Las Meninas, or segmenting clusters of objects within the image. Smaller objects together form larger objects which can all become inter-related and shaped into a narrative to assert the true meaning of the work. Because we are capable of associating objects within this simplified image with familiar symbols, analysis of this version of Pollock’s work is somewhat more objective and informative.

With the incredible level of detail that can be analyzed and interpreted in search of meaning in this edge-detected reduction of Number 1, Pollock’s work presents another question: where do we go from here? Should we analyze a simplified version of the painting such as the edge-detected version presented here? Such a task could take years and opens the door to countless conflicting interpretations. Should we try to find meaning in the original painting, where the forms and figures are beyond our comprehension?

Perhaps we should follow the advice of Pollock himself:

“I think they should not look for, but look passively—and try to receive what the painting has to offer and not bring a subject matter or preconceived idea of what they are to be looking for.”

Jackson Pollock interview with William Wright, 1950

If we “receive what the painting has to offer,” we stand the risk of not fully understanding the work’s intent. But considering Pollock’s methods, many of the figures present in his painting are not formed by the intention of his paint-dripping but by the mechanical behavior of his materials. Therefore, any analysis of Pollock’s Number 1, either of the original or of algorithmically altered versions, must step back and appreciate the work for what it is before attempting to discern meaning from figures created primarily by laws of nature.

This essay was originally written for the course "Symbols and Conceptual Systems", with Professor Roberto Díaz at the University of Southern California. The image edge detection algorithm used in this analysis was concurrently being investigated for mechanically stabilized earth retaining wall monitoring applications in a research study in the Civil and Environmental Engineering department.