Amy Iarrobino

Post 5

When referring to the varied responses to the expressionist modern art, one may agree that most controversy occurred due to political ideologies and even Cold War hysteria. In America all, opinion-lenders had one thing in common, support for their nation.

Those in favor of removal of the American expressionist art argued that “modern art was part of the Communist conspiracy” (Mathews, 162). At a time in United States history known as the Red Scare, anti-Communist feelings ran rampant, allowing such radicals as Joseph McCarthy to take control of the Senate. In such a setting rose the groups that saw vanguard art as a form that promoted chaos and “the demonic that they so easily identified with communism” (Mathews, 162). When fearful Americans saw that non-logical abstract works were being considered art and being sold for large sums of money, they thought to themselves “What next? What is our world coming to?” and thus became even more fearful of change and anything unprecedented in society. Of those against the display of American modern art, the Representative of Michigan, Dondero, was quite outspoken. Dondero demonstrates the zeal of the opponents to modern art who considered such art as a destructive force. He stated in August 1946 that “Modern art is shackled to communism” (Cold War Power Point, 9/24/07). Dondero continued by stating that “Abstraction aims to destroy by the creation of brainstorms” (Cold War Power Point, 9/24/07). Ironically, these super-patriot opponents believed in freedom and independence as a basic principle of the United States, but were against free thoughts that did not coincide with their own. Opponents argued that the art promoted communism as some were the works of communist/Marxist artists despite the fact that “Artists… retained little or no control over the disposition of their works [and] generally refused to recognize or accept their role as producers of a cultural economy” (Cockcroft, 147). In other words, the artists did not force any particular political opinion on the viewer but rather expressed their view of reality then let the viewer interpret.

To supporters of abstract expressionism, the art represented complete individuality and autonomy, a shift in power from the government and public to the artist. In other words, the art represented the “power to the people.” Those who supported the display of the modern art focused on its representation of freedom in direct opposition to the Soviet Union where “artists were judged on their political views” (Mathews, 158). Thus, they argued that the United States should allow and present such art to indicate the nation’s stark contrast to the USSR and promote the U.S. as a place of freedom. The actions of MOMA support such a claim. MOMA was a “key institution in the cold war” (Cockcroft, 149) whose mission was “to let it be known especially in Europe that America was not the cultural backwater that the Russians, during the tense period called “the cold war,” were trying to demonstrate that it was.” (Cockcroft, 149). A supporter of abstract art, Howard Devree, “noted a dangerous parallel between the practices of totalitarian regimes under Hitler and Stalin and the current attacks on vanguard art as ‘degenerate’ stuff deserving suppression and censorship” (Mathews, 164). It seems that the main idea in support of the abstract art was not necessarily the message that each individual work embodied but rather the implications of presenting such art to the world saying “The United States is not oppressive like the evil Communists and Fascists.” Ironically, it is on the same motive that Hitler presented the degenerate art exhibit to show how much better his Germany was as opposed to the chaotic and destructive world of the degenerate art.

As with the paintings below, the main arguments of those that would oppose these images is that the artwork does not display reality, defy artistic standards and promote chaos. Thus, these images represent the social breakdown and by the same token “degenerate” artwork. On the other hand, advocates such as the CIA would argue that the works are based on personal expression and as Americans these artists have the right to have freedom of expression and portray their views of the world and individuality.

These paintings defy the norm of realistic art and are the complete opposite of the forced paintings of Stalin with idealized images of roses or tractors. Rather, in these images it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what they represent upon initial inspection, especially of the middle three works. Unlike mimesis, these abstract expressionist works often feature ideas and images that the artists simply make up. Often times, as with the drawing of the red square, if the image had no label or title, there would be no direction as to how to interpret the works or where to begin looking. However, perhaps that is the point. When the title says one thing and the image another, it questions everyone’s view of reality.