TL;DR
Get art and craft supplies delivered free — and shop member deals
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Access to Prime Big Deal Days deals on October 6–7
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s “Krasner and Pollock: Past Continuous” brings Lee Krasner’s and Jackson Pollock’s work and shared history together in a carefully designed exhibition. A Hyperallergic review argues that the show redirects attention toward Krasner’s art and the questions raised by her marriage, rather than treating her primarily as Pollock’s spouse.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art is presenting “Krasner and Pollock: Past Continuous,” an exhibition that places the work and shared history of Lee Krasner and Jackson Pollock in the same galleries. In a review for Hyperallergic, critic Valentina Di Liscia describes the installation as strikingly designed and argues that its central effect is to make viewers confront Krasner’s art and experience, not just her identity as Pollock’s wife.
Di Liscia reports that the exhibition occupies mostly windowless galleries in a less accessible section of the museum’s second floor. Visitors enter through a narrow corridor showing silent collaged film and photographs of the artists and their Long Island cottage before reaching the rooms of paintings. The review praises the exhibition’s design while describing its presentation as restrained rather than overtly explanatory.
The works named in the review include Krasner’s “Re-Echo” (1957) and “Combat” (1965), both oil paintings. Di Liscia frames the show around questions that can arise when artists’ work is viewed through their marriage: how Krasner made her varied paintings, how she lived alongside an artist who became exceptionally famous, and what Pollock’s death meant for her life and art.
Pollock died in a car crash on August 11, 1956, while driving under the influence, according to the review. Krasner survived the crash; Edith Metzger, another passenger, did not. The source offers no further account of the accident or of the museum’s curatorial arguments, so those details should not be inferred from the reviewer’s framing.
Krasner Beyond Pollock’s Shadow
The exhibition’s significance lies in its invitation to consider Krasner as an artist in her own right while acknowledging how closely her public story has been tied to Pollock. Di Liscia suggests that visitors arrive with curiosity about the couple’s marriage, but the artworks complicate a reading centered only on biography. The review’s emphasis on Krasner’s paintings turns that curiosity toward her artistic choices and the work she made across different periods.
That framing matters for museum visitors because the way paintings are installed and interpreted can shape whose work receives attention. A shared exhibition can risk making one artist an adjunct to the other; the reviewer sees this show as an opportunity to question that imbalance. This is the critic’s interpretation, not a claim that the exhibition has settled debates about Krasner’s reputation or the couple’s relationship.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
A Marriage Framed Through Art
Krasner and Pollock were both artists, and the exhibition’s title, “Past Continuous,” connects their work with a relationship that remains part of how many viewers encounter them. The review notes that Pollock’s fame can dominate that story, even as Krasner’s career includes paintings with distinct scales and styles. The show’s pairing therefore supplies biographical context while leaving room to look closely at the works themselves.
Di Liscia also describes the viewing conditions around the exhibition, including busy Saturday crowds and a corridor of archival-style images before the galleries. These observations are part of the review rather than independently verified visitor data. The supplied source does not include the Met’s exhibition description, a full checklist, or statements from the curators.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Review Leaves Open
The supplied report does not state the exhibition’s opening and closing dates, list all the works on view, or include responses from the Met or its curators. It also does not provide attendance figures or evidence about how visitors are responding beyond the reviewer’s account of one visit. Di Liscia’s judgments about the show’s design and its effect are clearly critical interpretation, not institutional findings.
The review raises questions about the relationship’s place in Krasner’s artistic story but does not claim to offer a complete account of the marriage or establish a single explanation for how Pollock’s death affected her work. Readers should distinguish the exhibition’s presentation, as described by the critic, from the reviewer’s analysis of what that presentation means.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Exhibition’s Run and Reception
The immediate next step for readers is to consult the Met’s current exhibition information for visit dates, access details, and the complete checklist; those particulars are not included in the supplied review. Further reporting could also establish how the museum describes the show’s curatorial aims and whether it plans related programming.
As the exhibition continues, reviews and visitor responses may offer a wider picture of how audiences engage with the pairing of Krasner and Pollock. No additional events, announcements, or future milestones are confirmed in the source material.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What is “Krasner and Pollock: Past Continuous”?
It is a Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibition pairing work by Lee Krasner and Jackson Pollock with elements of their shared history. The supplied review describes galleries on the museum’s second floor.
What does the review say about the exhibition?
Hyperallergic critic Valentina Di Liscia praises its design and restrained installation. She argues that the show encourages viewers to look at Krasner’s art and life, rather than viewing her only through her marriage to Pollock.
Which Krasner paintings are mentioned?
The review identifies “Re-Echo” (1957) and “Combat” (1965), both oil paintings. It does not provide a complete list of works.
When can visitors see the exhibition?
The source describes the exhibition as on view but does not give its opening or closing dates. Check the Met’s current listing for scheduling and visitor information.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
