Christopher Post 5

Christopher McCauley

“The whole thrust of totalitarianism…is to destroy the boundaries of individual personality. The moral balance of power is always with the party and against the person.”

—Arthur Schlesinger, The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom, 1950.

The genre of American Abstract Expressionist Art appeared during the Cold War as a reaction to show that the US was not similar to the totalitarian, dictatorial and communist governments, such as the USSR and Cuba, at the time. The above quotation of Arthur Schlesinger’s explains just why this type of art appeared. Communism basically destroyed individuality. The abstract art was nothing but individuality—nothing like it had ever been seen or created before. This type of art has no boundaries, nor does it have limitations. Therefore, it can be created and interpreted in any way. This ideal is the opposite of communist and dictatorial ideals, in which the individual was, or is the state, and the state is the individual. In communism there is no room for individuality or interpretation. However in abstract American art, and more importantly in America, there was.

However, some people believed that this type of art was hideous, profligate, and dangerous. Representations in this genre are completely interpretive—the art does not directly show what it represents. I would say that the abstract art was named very well, because the best word to describe it is, abstract. Many people were not fond of this because of its non-conformity. There was no precedent for this kind of art. “Most Americans, to be sure, probably did not…understand modern or abstract art…” (Matthews, 156). Because people could not understand the art, they did not like it. I think that is this type of art had appeared a few decades earlier, and in Germany, it would have been represented in the Nazi Degenerate Art exhibition, because of it’s similarities to the art shown there. The abnormal colors, distorted shapes, and extreme divergence from typical, classical art are all shared characteristics of the two different periods of art.

One American Abstract Expressionist artist was Robert Rauschenberg. Rauschenberg’s paintings were very peculiar. They often looked like collages of nothingness all toppled on to one another with vibrant colors, or just one color smeared onto a canvas in a very primitive, or even child-like way. One painting, entitled Untitled (Red Painting), 1953 is a prime example of Rauschenberg’s typical work, and of Abstract Expressionist art. It represents well the genre because of how radically different it is. To me, it looks like a red-orange stucco wall, and nothing else (I do not believe, however, that this interpretation is what Rauschenberg was hoping for). The color red can also make the viewer believe that the artist had a lot of passion when he painted this work. However, when looking at the historical context at the time of its creation, the color red was not very well liked. “Red” was associated with communism, and especially Russia. Some people who grew up during the Cold War have said “I grew up being afraid of Russia.” This painting could have incited fear of communist Russia to a viewer during this time period, which totally negates the whole purpose of the movement.

Another famous artist of the later Cold War era was Willem de Kooning. de Kooning’s paintings are usually characterized by bright colors and irregular shapes, but unlike Rauschenberg’s, they tend not to overlap. His painting, Untitled XIII, is very simple looking, with bright yellow red and green shapes. It somewhat resembles a child’s finger-painting. However, when you look more closely, it seems to resemble a horse. It is kind of a fun, comical interpretation of a horse. Unfortunately, people may not have liked this painting very much. As Drs. Libby, Levis, and Musgrave would say, a farmer would look at this painting, and proclaim that it is not of a horse.

A third example of a piece of American Abstract Expressionism is Robert Moskowitz’s painting, Untitled (Empire State Building). This painting exalts one of the biggest symbols associated with New York City, and also with the United States. It shows the might and strength of the American people, and the glory of the advancement of our society. Such paintings like this one are very good for our society. However, “the United States was not a nation of materialists who ran afoul of people who were themselves devoted opponents of Communist aggression, but who believed that this effort, in the visual arts especially, contained disturbing evidence of domestic subversion.” (Matthews, 155). This painting could be interpreted as dangerous because when you stuffy the painting, it looks as if the building is in a state of disarray. The orange color emanating from the top of the building alludes to fire in the building. There is also an eerie glow cast by the building against the black background, which causes a sense of foreboding in the viewer.

One of the most famous artists of this movement is Jackson Pollock. I personally do not see a difference between any of his paintings, other than the colors. Autumn Rhythm, painted in 1950 is a prime example of Pollock’s typical style. The colors in this particular painting are dark, and dull; by no means are they vibrant, like the previous three examples. However, the painting itself is vibrant because it draws the viewer into itself—it is somewhat hypnotic. Pollock’s work was cool and avant-garde, and that is why people liked it. However, his work can be interpreted as representing disorder and chaos. There is no form or shape in the painting—there are just splats of paint. There is no organization, which to some, represents the opposite of American democracy.

Jasper Johns’ painting, Device, painted in 1930 is very similar to Pollock’s. Although it does not look like it was created with a toothbrush, it does have a very messy disorganized appearance. It is just as visually captivating and hypnotic—especially with the wheels at the top of the painting. However, like Pollock’s work, this could be interpreted as disorder. The title, Device, is rather sketchy as well. Devices can allude to the industrial workers of a communist society, which would make Americans feel very unsafe.