Here’s some humbling news for anyone who’s ever looked at a Jackson Pollock and thought “I could do that.” Well, actually, you probably can’t (even after reading our best art techniques guide). But your five-year-old might have a better shot.
A study from the University of Oregon has found that when it comes to recreating Pollock’s famous drip paintings, children produce work that more closely resembles the abstract expressionist master than adults do. Even more intriguingly, viewers find the childlike paintings more visually appealing.
The research, published in Frontiers in Physics, began with an experiment where 18 children aged four to six and 34 adults aged 18 to 25 were asked to channel their inner Pollock. Armed with diluted paint and sheets of paper, participants splattered, dripped and flung paint across the surface, mimicking the technique that made Pollock famous.
The researchers then subjected these amateur artworks to rigorous mathematical analysis. Using fractal analysis and lacunarity measurements, they studied the patterns, complexity and spacing of paint clusters in each piece.
For the uninitiated, fractals are patterns that repeat at different scales. They’re everywhere in nature, from clouds to mountains. Think of how a tree branch mirrors the shape of the whole tree, or how a coastline looks similarly jagged whether viewed from space or ground level. Lacunarity, meanwhile, measures the gaps and clustering within patterns.
The results were striking. Adults created paintings with higher fractal dimensions, denser patterns and richer, more varied paint trajectories. Their lines twisted, changed direction frequently and filled space with intricate detail.
Children’s paintings, by contrast, showed simpler, more one-dimensional trajectories with less frequent directional changes. Their work featured smaller-scale patterns and more gaps between paint clusters.
But here’s where it gets interesting. When the team analysed Pollock’s actual painting Number 14 (1948), they found its mathematical properties fell within the adult range… but only just. The values hovered close to the children’s distribution, suggesting Pollock’s technique shared more with the younger artists than you might expect.
The biology behind it
The explanation may lie in biology. Art historian Francis O’Connor documented that Pollock suffered complications at birth involving his umbilical cord, which resulted in lifelong balance and dexterity challenges. These physical limitations likely influenced his painting style, constraining his movements in ways that paradoxically became central to his artistic signature.
It’s a pattern we see time and time again in the history of art. Van Gogh’s eyesight famously deteriorated towards the end of his life, softening edges and intensifying the halo-like glow around lights; quirks that became integral to his late style. Matisse, slowed by illness and confined to a wheelchair, reinvented himself entirely with his cut-outs, turning physical limitation into a bold new visual language that still looks radical today.
The list goes on, but you get the point. If you ever face a physical or mental challenge to producing your creative work, never give up. It could well become the thing that actually makes you.
Why kids do better
Perhaps most surprising is what happened when the research team showed some of these amateur paintings to viewers. When asked to rate the adult-created works for complexity, visual interest and pleasantness, viewers consistently preferred paintings with simpler patterns and more spacing between paint clusters… you guessed it, the children’s work.
So the next time, someone says that you need to “grow up” or that your creative work needs to be “more mature”, maybe take that criticism with a pinch of salt.
And more specifically, the next time someone dismisses abstract expressionist art with “my kid could paint that,” you can confidently reply: “Actually, your kid would probably do it better than you.”