Ashley C. Post 5

Ashley Cannaday

Most Americans during the Cold War Era saw American Abstract Expressionist art as completely harmless, whether they liked the style or not. Some argued that Abstract art even promoted American values, as opposed to the belief that it was subversive and Communistic. Abstract Expressionism showed the “American Way” of freedom, creativity, originality, cultural superiority, and anti-totalitarianism. Although some Expressionist artist may have previously had affiliations with socialist organizations, there art could be judged separately from the artist, and this was the ultimate freedom. It reinforces the fact that you don’t have to like or agree with a form of art, but you can fight to defend the artist’s right to create. This is, after all, what America is all about.

Modernism was far from accepted in dictatorial regimes. Hitler labeled this art as degenerate, created by artists who “God has denied the grace of truly artistic talent,” (Hitler Speech Inaugurating the Great Exhibition of German Art, Pg. 2). Abstract Expressionist art and artists in Germany were vehemently persecuted. Ironically, Communist Russia denounced modernist art, and instead promoted social realism. Although it seems odd that on one hand Abstract Expressionism was thought to stand for Communism, and on the other hand, the Communists themselves rejected it, it makes sense when you look at what Communism really stood for. It was dangerous to allow any individual expression, especially abstract expression, as this was the antithesis of Communism. The only acceptable reality was the group or collective. No individual thinking or expression was allowed, as anything else would make the masses think and that was dangerous to Communism. Modernism in America supported the idea that it was the Land of the Free, unlike those nations behind the Iron Curtain.

Modernism promoted the notion that creativity and new ways of thinking not only were accepted in America, but flourished. Abstract Expressionism showed America as culturally superior and artistically up-to-date. During this Cold War Era, many art exhibitions were sent overseas which included modern art. 19 exhibitions were showcased in Latin America, and numerous more were sent around the world, to locations that included London, Paris, Sao Paulo, and Tokyo, all sponsored by the Museum of Modern Art (Abstract Expressionism, Weapon of the Cold War Pg. 149). The aim of these international programs was to show that “America was not the cultural backwater that the Russians… were trying to demonstrate that it was” (Russell Lynes, Weapon of the Cold War Pg. 149). It was used to show that our nation was more culturally sophisticated than Russia. The showcases represented America as the exact opposite of Soviet Russia’s socialist realist narrow, regimented style.

Critics of American Abstract Expressionist art argued that it was dangerous and subversive. Michigan Congressman George Dondero was a very strong opponent of Modernist art during the Cold War. There were three main reasons why people such as Dondero saw this form of art as subversive. The first is the social commentary in the message of some works of modern art. The second was the fact that some Expressionist artists had previous connections with Communist organizations. The last reason was that they saw the art itself as Communist conspiracy (Mathews). It was said to be un-American.

These opponents to modern art objected to their content that sent a message of social past and presents wrongs. For example, Refregier’s murals in the San Fransisco Rincon Post Office depicted the history of California. Some of the scenes included were the California fire and earthquake, Chinese labor, and a strike. Opponents of the murals argued that it emphasized violence, struggle, and controversy, and showed California in a bad light. There seemed to be a theme in many of the works that centered on the worker or proletariat. During the Cold War anything pandering to this was objectionable. The Scudder Resolution to remove the murals argued that they included Communist propaganda (Mathew). A past or even present connection to any organization deemed to be undesirable, such as the Communist Party or any Socialist organizations was excellent ammunition for opponents of Abstract Expressionism. Refregier, as well as many modern artists, was connected to organizations and publications that were listed as subversive. The thought was that if the artist had communist sympathies, his art was bound to portray this. Many argue that all art has an imbedded message, and it is often said that art imitates the artist’s feelings and emotions, so communism would be inherent in the works of artists who supported its ideals. It was also believed that these modernist artworks were subversive because they aided Communism economically. With their works showcased in prestigious museums, Expressionist artists experienced a degree of wealth. This money could be given to Communist organizations (Mathew). The fact that this art was tied to subversive artists and had themes that were socialist in nature led many to believe that this art was Un-American. To critics, Modernist art also represented chaos and rejection of traditional norms. While America relied on certitude and control, abstract art represented a complexity not always understood by the average citizen and was ever-changing. By expressing these un-American values in their art, the artists were obviously promoting their views and beliefs, so it follows that the art itself is a tool of the subversive and therefore is itself subversive.

1) Another Storm by Lee Krasner

Lee Krasner was married to Jackson Pollock, and her abstract artwork has certain similarities to his. When looking at this painting, there is no immediately perceivable subject. The meaning of the painting is open for interpretation and analysis. On one hand, this painting could promote freedom and creativity in America. It would show America has culturally advanced and innovative, and it promotes the freedom of the artist to create works of art that may go against the current norms. It also allows for the viewer to make their own interpretation. On the other hand, Krasner’s painting could be dangerous and subversive. There is an abundance of red in the artwork, a color which is associated with Communism. If one looks closely at the painting, it could be said that it appears to be a mass of writhing people. The critic could surmise that this is an attempt to show the tortured existence of the masses. The ambiguous meaning of the painting could also be dangerous. What does the title, Another Storm, refer to? Could it be a social commentary of some kind? Could it mean that the there will be another uprising of the working class, or is it simply a clash of weather and some sort flora or fauna? Part of the danger inherent in abstract art is that its underlying meaning is not easily determined.

2) Cathedral by Jackson Pollock

Jackson Pollock was perhaps one of the most famous Abstract Expressionist painters of the Cold War era. What isn’t apparent in this picture of the painting is its enormity. It would have easily taken up an entire wall in a museum gallery. The only guess we have as to the subject in the painting is its title: Cathedral. As with the previous Krasner artwork, this painting can be said to represent ingenuity and artistic freedom that define and glorify America. However, from the title it can be said that this artwork deals with religion, or perhaps it is a definition of the enormity of the painting itself. It could also be described as being painted in a very chaotic style, with no apparent rhyme or reason behind it. This could be seen as promoting chaos and going against the traditional order. The message of the painting isn’t clear, and it could lead to the interpretation that Pollock is depicting a negative message about religion. Once again, the danger lies in the various meanings of the painting that can be thought up.

3) Sand Lot Riots Mural by Anton Refregier

Refregier painted this, and many other murals, on the walls of the San Francisco Rincon Post Office Annex. The murals depict the history of California. This in itself is patriotic. The art shows how America has progressed into the nation it is today. It shows all the turbulent events that California managed to overcome and grow from. Refregier’s style of painting is very unique, and for this form of modernist art to be displayed in a public building shows America’s acceptance and praise of new and inventive forms of art. However, it can also be said that these murals are detrimental to America. Many of them depict controversial scenes. This mural depicts the anti-Chinese Sand Lot Riot. Critics would no doubt point out the fact that it shows the Caucasian Americans in a bad light. There are many of them which shows a mob mentality and the painting itself shows the Chinese in a better light, with more definition. The mob has less detail, less humanity, which may be what the artist is trying to portray. It is clearly a look at an ugly time in America and critics could ask why focus on the negative. Another clear them is that of the worker being exploited/violated. This is a central theme of many socialist/communist movements. This could lead to more criticism from those yearning for more “American” art. Many believe that this mural takes away the glory of America, bringing its dark past to light. Critics argued that this mural promoted chaos and violence.

4) Untitled by Mark Rothko

Mark Rothko was known for creating numerous paintings of this same style, with two or three solid colored blocks. As with most abstract art, it promotes the artistic freedom granted in America. This form of art would simply not be accepted in Cold War Russia. However, it could have a subversive meaning. In many of Rothko’s paintings, there is a solid block of red, which is associated with Communism. And once again, danger and subversion can lie in the unknown message of the artwork. The real problem most critic have with anything they are against is they do not understand it. Americans like to understand what they are presented with and when they don’t, some react in a defensive manner. This style of painting completely goes against our preconceived notions of traditional art, and I know many people who would not call these painted blocks art at all. It can be harmful because it can be seen as devaluing American standards of ‘good art’.

5) Vanzetti and Sacco by Ben Shahn

Many of Ben Shahn’s works depicted Vanzetti and Sacco, two Italian-American anarchists who were tried and convicted of murder, and sentenced to death by electrocution. Shahn seemed to sympathize with Sacco and Vanzetti in his artworks. By presenting the two ‘convicts’ in a positive view, this painting represents the idea that opposing views are accepted in America. Thinking outside of the majority is not shunned. On the other hand, this could be seen as pro-anarchist, anti-American propaganda. The critic could muse about why the artist chose these two subject when there are many more appropriately acceptable subjects to broach. Let’s not focus on the negative, think of positive things.