Brynne Piotrowski post 5

Brynne Piotrowski

In Volume Two of her Art History textbooks, Marilyn Storkstad explains that Abstract Expressionists “sought the universal themes within themselves” (1131). This concept helps clarify why some Americans thought Abstract Expressionist art a great means of showing creativity, while other citizens saw the art as a dangerous threat. The Abstract Expressionists attempted to portray ideas that any individual could understand (“universal themes”), but the products reflected the way each idea manifested itself to the individual artist. Therefore, works of Abstract Expressionism were often left open to viewers’ interpretations and thus caused much controversy.

Some Americans found Abstract Expressionism creative in the sense that it moved away from traditional representational art. The observer was not necessarily shown what he or she should see in or take away from the artwork. Interpretation was left up to the faculties of the viewer—his or her own ideas, beliefs, senses and intuition. Artistic freedom was evident in the very fact that such works were being created within the United States. To certain Americans, the production of Abstract Expressionist art proved that the artists were not limited (by themselves, others, or organizations such as government) to traditionally accepted representational art with recognizable forms and clear purpose or theme. Even though acceptance of Abstract Expressionism was at times construed as anti-American or pro-communist, it also was twisted into a means of exporting American values. Ironically, the combination of creativity and artistic freedom was also valuable “as a propaganda weapon in demonstrating the virtues of ‘freedom of expression’ in an ‘open and free society’” (Cockcroft 151).

On the opposite side of the argument were the Americans of the opinion that Abstract Expressionism was decadent and dangerous. One reason the art was able to elicit this response was the ongoing fear of subversive communism in the US. Americans were on the lookout for any persons connected with socialist or communistic beliefs (past or present). As such connections were readily visible with some Abstract Expressionists, the anti-communism of the era became directed at the artist and then towards his or her professional work. Irony again presents itself in the fact that, “Abstract art…is feared and prohibited by the Hitlers and Stalins” (Cockcroft 153).

The interpretational nature of Abstract Expressionist also accounted for part of the problem. Gone was the relative safety of representational art where themes and purposes were evident; now viewers shouldered this responsibility. Who could be certain that a viewer would indeed see a message of creativity and artistic freedom instead of communism or declining American artistic culture? Furthermore, without a clear representation, one could not be certain of purpose and thus a fear of decadence arose. While this seems a bit of a stretch in modern society, post-WWII America was particularly sensitive to the idea of self-indulgence, self-absorption or waste (as demonstrated by two of the three American WWII posters shown to the class at the Cornell Fine Arts Museum).

Additionally, an acute paranoia dispersed throughout America abetted the spread of anti-Abstract Expressionism. Jane de Hart Matthews noted how “the inability to tolerate new esthetic values and modes of perceptions reveals much about the psychological sources of antiradicalism” (156). In hindsight, anti-communism in art and the actions of Congressman George Dondero and others seem overzealous. However, in the atmosphere of post-WWII America, with a building and very real communist threat from Russia, such actions were justified and legitimate.

Let us now briefly examine some works of American Abstract Expressionism and their places within the context of the above arguments.

Song of Orpheus
Newman, Barnett
1944

Newman’s Song of Orpheus certainly displays the interpretational nature of Abstract Expressionism. It is a confusion of shapes with no clear and definitive forms that requires the viewer to project upon the work his or her own understanding of it. Another interesting aspect I thought of when examining this work is that one might find it dangerous because of its title. “Song of Orpheus” has definite classical mythological roots, so the work could be construed as either: a) deriding the classical theme or b) portraying a lack of skill on the part of the artist to show the scene in a representational, detailed manner. Either one of these possibilities could server as the basis as labeling this painting dangerous—especially in the 1950s when America was trying particularly hard to demonstrate democracy’s social and cultural superiority over communism.



Mountains and Sea
Frankenthaler, Helen
1952

Frankenthaler’s work exemplifies Storkstad’s idea of “universal themes” within individual artists. On one hand this work could be heralded as depicting the relatively universal concepts of mountains and seas while letting the observer maintain his or her personal ideas of these geographic features. It shows the creativity of the artist but avoids projecting her specific ideas upon the viewer. Conversely, “Mountains and Sea” might be threatening in the sense that it is perhaps a distorted view of reality, with no clear and defined purpose. (Plato anyone?)

Cat Image
Krasner, Lee
1957

Out of the five images I chose, this selection by Lee Krasner was the one where I could sort of “see” what I was looking for. To me, the bottom left is the back paw (albeit three-toed) of a cat and the white spots at the right are the front paws projecting off the cat’s pink legs. An interpretational nature and departure from representation once again are the dangerous aspects of the work. However, “Cat Image” definitely displays artistic freedom and creativity in its composition. An important side note is that Lee Krasner was one of the Abstract Expressionist artists who could be linked with Trotsky-esque sympathies. (See “Left-wing politics” section at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/poll-m31.shtml) This caused her and her work to be considered threatening because there was a definitive connection between the artist and the communist ideology.

Asheville
de Kooning, Willem
1948

de Kooning’s “Asheville” is another prime example of the interpretational nature of Abstract Expressionism. Various lines and shapes interspersed with color present no clear forms to the viewer. Creativity is present in the sense that the artist created based on his faculties, and de Kooning’s departure from representation demonstrates artistic freedom. I find the “threatening” nature of this work to be simply a matter of: What is it? Dondero and other concerned citizens might find “Asheville” dangerous because they would not be able to control the message viewers receive from the work. What if the message to an individual observer became declining cultural and/or social order or, even worse, chaos? Then certainly the work would be dangerous in a time where art (and almost every other cultural aspect) was waging a “war” for superiority over communism.


Vir Heroicus Sublimis
Newman, Barnett
1950/51

My final selection is another Newman work and an example of “color-field” painting, where (generally) large canvases were covered with solid areas of color. I would venture to say this work is completely devoid of typical subject matter. It is an expression of the artist, and nothing further. On a different note, it is incredible in demonstrating artistic freedom—the work is art without traditional representational or compositional qualities. As color-field painting was not exclusive to Newman (e.g. Rothko is known for his color-field works), the work is not as creative as some other works of Abstract Expressionism, but still maintains its uniqueness. The danger in “Vir Heroicus Sublimis” is decadence and the potential to induce questioning of American artistic culture. Essentially: What is the purpose and why is a work that seems so easy to create considered art? In a sensitive post-WWII society that was tutored in principle and purpose, Newman’s work might seem wasteful or a sign of a retrogression in American artistic talent.