Ally, Post 5

Ally Best

post 5

The fact that Abstract Expressionism played a significant role during the Cold War is indisputable. However, what could be and, in fact, was disputed is what exactly this role was.

Through the Abstract Expressionist art and several clever propaganda ploys, the CIA attempted to convey to cultures abroad that the U.S. was “a free ‘society’ as opposed to the ‘regimented’ communist bloc” (Cockcroft, 150). Artists of this “new” style ignored the classical techniques, and even subject matter, to create truly unique pieces of art. As Eva Cockcroft explained, they were able to create a new artistic movement, “by giving their painting an individualist emphasis and eliminating recognizable subject matter.” They accomplished this artistic “freedom” in a variety of ways. Some artists, such as Willem de Kooning, took a common image and created it in a very different and abstract style. Willem’s painting titled “Woman V” depicts the basic outline of a human body. However, while the image certainly has a “womanly” chest, the figure’s shoulders are broad and masculine. Far from the conventional stereotypes of female beauty and delicacy, the face of the woman in this painting is distorted and almost grotesque. The random, bright splashes of color give the painting a somewhat chaotic feeling, as if the painting itself were actually radiating energy. Other pieces of artwork, such as Barnett Newman’s “Vir Heroicus Sublimis” or Mark Rothko’s “White Center,” were even more abstract, depicting large areas of solid color. These paintings, though simple in design, were oftentimes meant to provoke strong emotions in the reader through their clear and uncomplicated style. Critics who argued that Abstract Expressionist art was a symbol of America’s freedom of expression were, in general, politically motivated. In fact, the Museum of Modern Art proudly announced that the aim of its foreign program was “to let it be known especially in Europe that America was not the cultural backwater that the Russians, during that tense period called ‘the cold war,’ were trying to demonstrate that it was” (Cockcroft, 149). Through this “new, fresh and creative” style of art, politically minded individuals could boost the United States’ cultural status in the eyes of foreign countries by, for example, proving that the U.S. was “culturally up-to-date in competition with Paris” (Cockcroft, 151).

However, not everyone agreed with this liberal interpretation of Abstract Expressionist art. The other side of the argument “involved opposition on political rather than esthetic grounds” (Mathews, 156). This view was based on the reasoning that “rejection of traditional ways of seeing form and space inherent in vanguard style of painting implied rejection of traditional world views” (Mathews, 156). Unconventional works of art such as the harsh, jagged, and boldly vibrant paintings by Clyfford Still and the abstract, oddly robotic sculpture “Becca” by David Smith throw away the “traditional” concepts of artwork. Therefore, some might argue that these pieces of art were, in a way, unpatriotic because they suggested views very different from the norm. A few people even went as far as arguing that this movement “threatened not only art but the fundamental freedom of our American way of life” (Mathews, 164). To look at the difference in opinions between the supporters and opponents of Abstract Expressionism, one could consider Kooning’s “Woman V” from the more conservative viewpoint. Congressman Dondero explained that he “opposed modern art as ‘Communist’ because it bred ‘dissatisfaction’ by virtue of the fact that it was unintelligible to ordinary Americans whose ‘beautiful country’ it failed to ‘glorify,” and he “emphasized its distortion, grotesqueness, and grotesqueness of the painting as a freedom of expression, the conservative view was appalled by its lack of aesthetic appeal. Dondero went as far as claiming that this style of work was “nauseating” to him (Mathews, 165).

In reading articles about Abstract Expressionism and examining the two different viewpoints, I read a passage that seemed to clarify the controversy for me and that I feel is important to take into account. Eva Cockcroft notes that, “The artist creates freely. But his work is promoted and used by others for their own purposes” (154). The artists who created these works may or may not have had political aims. However, their artwork was interpreted by critics who more than likely had never even met them. Many of these critics of the works, unlike most of the artists who had created them, almost always had ulterior motives. Whether they were politicians attempting to improve the U.S.’s cultural image or traditional artists angry with the effect modern art had had on the popularity on their own type of art, they had something to gain by the success or failure of the art movement. As Mathews mentions, most Americans could simply “take it or leave it” and would not "confuse their esthetic judgment or preferences with political commitments" (156). Perhaps the American Federation of Arts' trustees said it best when they stated that art, "should be judged based on its merits as a work of art and not by the political or social views of the artist" (Cockcroft 152).