Over-Splatter and Photographic Support While the concept of using splotches and drips, on front and backs of Jackson Pollock’s painting, to ascertain the sequence of creation may seem intuitive at best, photographic evidence supports the veracity of the over-splatter tool. Three specific paintings photographed during their sequential creation provide a baseline that makes clear the numbering method used to assign inventory control is clearly not an indicator of sequence. Both photographic evidence offered by the Namuth images and examination of over-splatter establish the following order of creation. The numbers assigned to the paintings by Parsons are 30, 31, 32. 30 is the MoMA (Number One) painting, 31 belongs to the MET (Autumn Rhythm), and 32 is in Dusseldorf. Not only is it irrefutable in the Namuth images, but supported by the over-splatter on the completed works that the order in which these three artworks were painted is: 31, followed by 30, and lastly 32. Since...

  Jackson Pollock's  Over-Splatter,   How They Happened, Where They are Located, Why They Went Unnoted for More than Fifty Years, and How They May be Understood and Put to Use By Sandy Kinnee and Lauren Kinnee, Ph.D. Once You See the Drips You will Always See them PRELUDE What Prepared Me to See Pollock's Over-Splatter I believe part what prepared me to notice the stray drips in Pollocks paintings was my fascination with Al Hirschfeld's caricatures which appeared every Sunday in the Arts and Leisure section of the New York Times. Each Sunday I looked forward to see how many times the name of Hirschfeld's daughter, Nina, was hidden in his caricature. The number next to his signature indicated the number of times NINA could be found. I was good at it and it was fun. Finding Nina was a game. In a black and white line drawing certain areas would be prime NINA hiding places, week after week. Any type of hair and fold in clothing were where I would search first. Anoth...