Abstract Expressionism, social realism, surrealism, modern art; all of these genres have a few things in common. For one, none of them attempts to capture reality exactly as the eye sees it. All of these forms of art try to convey some sort of emotion or message along with the scene, not just a pure representation of the subject matter. This is not to say that there is any undue bias towards on interpretation of the work or another, but there is usually some way of reading each painting other than the literal. This could mean that the works of art also have an undue sense of politics and/or that each painting is trying to do something other than “be art”. This last possibility is what makes non-realistic art so problematic. Either side of the political spectrum can claim that the art pertains to their message or can claim that the art is “degenerate”, unpatriotic or subversive. These are all possible because the message is not clear. If art is literal it can be understood more easily, not to say that realistic art cannot have deeper meaning, but it is often easier to read realistic art and easier to give it an everyday, mundane sort of meaning, whereas non-realistic art usually takes on some sort of political message.
The two camps that wrestled over the meaning of abstract art were the CIA, the Museum of Modern Art, the USIAA, and the artists themselves against the Conservative, right wing politicians and art critics. The former saw abstract art as a slap in the face of the Totalitarian, communistic regimes that required strict realism and literalism in the work of their artists, theysaw Abstract Expressionism as a waving the flag of artistic freedom and liberalism. Meanwhile the latter considered abstract art a homage to the communist organizations which some of the artists belonged to and which some of the subject matter “seemed” to pertain to, and they saw the rejection of traditional esthetics as a rejection of traditional American values.
On the liberal side of things, Eva Cockroft mentions the “similarity between “American Cold war rhetoric” and the way many Abstract Expressionists phrased their existentialist-individualist credos.” (Cockroft) The abstract expressionists were looking for a way to be independent, unhindered by the restraints of realism or of politics. Cockroft says of A.E., “It was the perfect contrast to the ‘regimented, traditional, and narrow’ nature of socialist realism. It was new, fresh and creative, “artistically avant-garde and original.” (Corckroft) These qualities, this ability to create without restriction, and steer away from the realism that was mandated by Hitler or Stalin gave abstract art a very powerful ability to display the freedom of America. The MOMA capitalized on these qualities when they sent exhibition abroad to show the world how free and creative American art was. Crockroft says, “CIA and MOMA could provide the well-funded and more persuasive arguments and exhibits needed to sell the rest of the world on the benefits of life and art under capitalism.” (Crockroft) Clearly, to these organizations, Abstract Art was the answer, not the problem, due to its freedom of form, content and style. Yet this very freedom was what made some people so uncomfortable. A collection of work portraying sporting events was cancelled “because the patriotic Council had objected to the exhibition on the grounds that four of the artists included had once belonged to communist-front groups” (Crockroft). This example demonstrates one of the problems that conservatives had with art of the period. They thought that if any artist was connected to any sort of left wing or communist group then that person was a danger to the country. Matthews explains the fear that, “exhibitions in a leading museum gave the artists standing that could be translated into monetary terms. And money, of course, could be contributed to Communist causes that in turn would harm America” (Matthews). Apart from having problems with organizations the artists were in, Dondero and other right-wingers also had trouble with the subject matter. They saw any content depicting racial strife, worker strikes, past conflicts, and any sort of discontent as “disloyal” or “subversive”. In a way, they were advocating a sort of unquestioned patriotism. This element is not necessarily unique to Abstract Expressionism. Realism could easily be as critical of American culture as Abstract Expressionism, but the latter chose to be when the former tended not to.
The third element of A.E. that certain people objected to was the very subjectivity of the form, “the assumption was that rejection of traditional ways of seeing form and space inherent in vanguard style of painting implied rejection of traditional world views.” (Matthews). To conservatives, a movement away from controlled structure, form, content, etc was a movement away from capitalism, democracy, and other things American. Thus, abstract expressionism was a movement that embraced chaos, anarchy, and communism, simply because it did not use a traditional set of esthetics, and as Matthews points out, “politics not only became esthetics but esthetics became politics.” (Matthews) So, anything with differing esthetics ideals was deemed to have different political ideas, and was thus, subversive.
So, Abstract Expressionism, due to its very desire (in some cases) to avoid overtly realistic, political, and literate meanings became ammunition for liberals trying to fight against communist and totalitarian regimes and became the very epitome of communism against which to fight, for the conservatives. It was simultaneously the a beacon of freedom and the enemy.
In the following 5 paintings I will look at elements that could allow the works to be interpreted as either liberal examples of the freedom of art in the US, or examples of communistic art.
. This piece is called “Homeless”. Completed in 1938 by William Gropper, this piece is more
realistic and easily interpreted than most abstract expressionism, however it fits some of the criteria that caused the conservatives alarm. The subject matter here is 4 homeless men wandering the countryside, and the piece is a perfect of example of social realism. Gropper is depicting the strife and struggle of Americans during the 20th century. This subject matter was considered disloyal and unpatriotic by the conservatives, who thought that such a scene would evoke anger and unrest in people who saw it. However, to the liberals, the fact that such a piece could even be produced is a testament to the fact that America was a free country where artists had the ability and the right to create art however they saw fit. The fact that artists were allowed to comment on homelessness and other social problems shows that censorship was not as big a problem in America as in Russia or Germany. The very existence of the piece is a blow against such totalitarian ideals.
Martial Memory, by Philip Guston, (1941) is another example of social realism. In this scene a group of boys stands around what looks like a trash heap. They are wearing paper bags over their heads, they carry sticks and trash can lids as weapons and shields, they are barefoot, and one has no shirt. Any clothes they do possess seem tattered and dirty. The buildings surrounding the boys look like tenements or lower class housing; they are al the same and have dark unadorned windows set in boring brick. The sky in the very back is grey and smoky. The scene in general is dismal and depressing and the boys look violent and neglected. Like Homeless, this piece comments on a social problem. The boys should be at home or be with an older person, yet they are allowed to wander the streets and seem set for a life of crime and violence. This could again, be seen as disloyal and unpatriotic, or merely as an example of freedom, depending on who is analyzing the piece.
This piece, 1951-N, by Clyfford Still (1951) is very subjective with no recognizable subject matter. Although, to me, the piece is aesthetically pleasing, it doesn’t depict anything recogniazable. The red streak could be a crack, the background could be wood of some sort, or earth. The colors are natural and seem to fit together, while the red streak adds interest, variety and a focal point. The slight yellow at the top also draws the viewer’s eye, but it is not overwhelming. The irregularity of the whole thing holds the viewer’s attention and makes it very visually interesting. However, the lack of recognizable subject matter would cause conservatives to say that this piece “rejected conventional norms and traditions of art” and thus probably rejected traditional American ideas of acceptable behavior and politics. This piece would not have been allowed in Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia, and so too, if they had had their way, in the conservative’s America.
This piece, Light in August, by Willem de Kooning (1946) follows some of the same criteria as does the previous work. It is almost entirely lacking in recognizable subject matter. However, like much of de Kooning’s work there are elements of it that look like objects. In the bottom right hand corner there are two shapes that look like wings or a pair of swinging door. There are circular elements, things that could be bugs, nails, crescent shapes, etc. The whole piece is a jumble of layers, textures and different weights of lines and forms. Although nothing is entirely evident and recognizable, the fact that certain shapes could be read as objects keeps the viewer’s attention. This, like the previous piece embodies a break from the norms of artistic esthetics and again would be objected to due to this break from the norm. Also, like many other artists, de Kooning could have had ties to Communist organizations or left wing organizations, in which case the Conservatives would have complained that any support of this piece was funding leftist causes.
The final painting I chose is Pagan Void, by Barnett Newman (1946). This piece could be seen as threatening for a number of reasons. The colors are threatening, the title is threatening, the vaguely implied subject matter is threatening. Or, at least, all of these elements could be construed as threatening. Paganism, a rejection of the Christian religion, would seem very dangerous to Cold War Americans looking to preserve their way of life and their values. Thus, the title alone, even if it does not condone paganism, would scare many conservatives. The red in the middle of the black circle, which looks like an eyeball, could also be seen as a sinister
element. The blue elements look like “degenerative” creatures or molecules and the shape of the lighter blue/green blob also looks organic (indeed, the whole thing could be some sort of cell with a nucleus and mitochondria). This sort of micro made macro look may be visually disturbing and definitely is a rejection of the accepted norms of painting. The red in the bottom left corner of the “blob” also contrasts highly with the other colors and is visually jarring. All in all, this piece displays many formal characteristics that could be seen as threatening to the American idea of esthetics and American values concerning religion, science, politics, etc.
So, these 5 works all contain elements that would lead to objections from the Conservative right, but they all could also be used by the liberal left to show how free American art is and how liberal the American government is in allowing this art to be exhibited, produced, and purchased.
The two camps that wrestled over the meaning of abstract art were the CIA, the Museum of Modern Art, the USIAA, and the artists themselves against the Conservative, right wing politicians and art critics. The former saw abstract art as a slap in the face of the Totalitarian, communistic regimes that required strict realism and literalism in the work of their artists, theysaw Abstract Expressionism as a waving the flag of artistic freedom and liberalism. Meanwhile the latter considered abstract art a homage to the communist organizations which some of the artists belonged to and which some of the subject matter “seemed” to pertain to, and they saw the rejection of traditional esthetics as a rejection of traditional American values.
On the liberal side of things, Eva Cockroft mentions the “similarity between “American Cold war rhetoric” and the way many Abstract Expressionists phrased their existentialist-individualist credos.” (Cockroft) The abstract expressionists were looking for a way to be independent, unhindered by the restraints of realism or of politics. Cockroft says of A.E., “It was the perfect contrast to the ‘regimented, traditional, and narrow’ nature of socialist realism. It was new, fresh and creative, “artistically avant-garde and original.” (Corckroft) These qualities, this ability to create without restriction, and steer away from the realism that was mandated by Hitler or Stalin gave abstract art a very powerful ability to display the freedom of America. The MOMA capitalized on these qualities when they sent exhibition abroad to show the world how free and creative American art was. Crockroft says, “CIA and MOMA could provide the well-funded and more persuasive arguments and exhibits needed to sell the rest of the world on the benefits of life and art under capitalism.” (Crockroft) Clearly, to these organizations, Abstract Art was the answer, not the problem, due to its freedom of form, content and style. Yet this very freedom was what made some people so uncomfortable. A collection of work portraying sporting events was cancelled “because the patriotic Council had objected to the exhibition on the grounds that four of the artists included had once belonged to communist-front groups” (Crockroft). This example demonstrates one of the problems that conservatives had with art of the period. They thought that if any artist was connected to any sort of left wing or communist group then that person was a danger to the country. Matthews explains the fear that, “exhibitions in a leading museum gave the artists standing that could be translated into monetary terms. And money, of course, could be contributed to Communist causes that in turn would harm America” (Matthews). Apart from having problems with organizations the artists were in, Dondero and other right-wingers also had trouble with the subject matter. They saw any content depicting racial strife, worker strikes, past conflicts, and any sort of discontent as “disloyal” or “subversive”. In a way, they were advocating a sort of unquestioned patriotism. This element is not necessarily unique to Abstract Expressionism. Realism could easily be as critical of American culture as Abstract Expressionism, but the latter chose to be when the former tended not to.
The third element of A.E. that certain people objected to was the very subjectivity of the form, “the assumption was that rejection of traditional ways of seeing form and space inherent in vanguard style of painting implied rejection of traditional world views.” (Matthews). To conservatives, a movement away from controlled structure, form, content, etc was a movement away from capitalism, democracy, and other things American. Thus, abstract expressionism was a movement that embraced chaos, anarchy, and communism, simply because it did not use a traditional set of esthetics, and as Matthews points out, “politics not only became esthetics but esthetics became politics.” (Matthews) So, anything with differing esthetics ideals was deemed to have different political ideas, and was thus, subversive.
So, Abstract Expressionism, due to its very desire (in some cases) to avoid overtly realistic, political, and literate meanings became ammunition for liberals trying to fight against communist and totalitarian regimes and became the very epitome of communism against which to fight, for the conservatives. It was simultaneously the a beacon of freedom and the enemy.
In the following 5 paintings I will look at elements that could allow the works to be interpreted as either liberal examples of the freedom of art in the US, or examples of communistic art.
. This piece is called “Homeless”. Completed in 1938 by William Gropper, this piece is more
realistic and easily interpreted than most abstract expressionism, however it fits some of the criteria that caused the conservatives alarm. The subject matter here is 4 homeless men wandering the countryside, and the piece is a perfect of example of social realism. Gropper is depicting the strife and struggle of Americans during the 20th century. This subject matter was considered disloyal and unpatriotic by the conservatives, who thought that such a scene would evoke anger and unrest in people who saw it. However, to the liberals, the fact that such a piece could even be produced is a testament to the fact that America was a free country where artists had the ability and the right to create art however they saw fit. The fact that artists were allowed to comment on homelessness and other social problems shows that censorship was not as big a problem in America as in Russia or Germany. The very existence of the piece is a blow against such totalitarian ideals.Martial Memory, by Philip Guston, (1941) is another example of social realism. In this scene a group of boys stands around what looks like a trash heap. They are wearing paper bags over their heads, they carry sticks and trash can lids as weapons and shields, they are barefoot, and one has no shirt. Any clothes they do possess seem tattered and dirty. The buildings surrounding the boys look like tenements or lower class housing; they are al the same and have dark unadorned windows set in boring brick. The sky in the very back is grey and smoky. The scene in general is dismal and depressing and the boys look violent and neglected. Like Homeless, this piece comments on a social problem. The boys should be at home or be with an older person, yet they are allowed to wander the streets and seem set for a life of crime and violence. This could again, be seen as disloyal and unpatriotic, or merely as an example of freedom, depending on who is analyzing the piece.
This piece, 1951-N, by Clyfford Still (1951) is very subjective with no recognizable subject matter. Although, to me, the piece is aesthetically pleasing, it doesn’t depict anything recogniazable. The red streak could be a crack, the background could be wood of some sort, or earth. The colors are natural and seem to fit together, while the red streak adds interest, variety and a focal point. The slight yellow at the top also draws the viewer’s eye, but it is not overwhelming. The irregularity of the whole thing holds the viewer’s attention and makes it very visually interesting. However, the lack of recognizable subject matter would cause conservatives to say that this piece “rejected conventional norms and traditions of art” and thus probably rejected traditional American ideas of acceptable behavior and politics. This piece would not have been allowed in Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia, and so too, if they had had their way, in the conservative’s America.
This piece, Light in August, by Willem de Kooning (1946) follows some of the same criteria as does the previous work. It is almost entirely lacking in recognizable subject matter. However, like much of de Kooning’s work there are elements of it that look like objects. In the bottom right hand corner there are two shapes that look like wings or a pair of swinging door. There are circular elements, things that could be bugs, nails, crescent shapes, etc. The whole piece is a jumble of layers, textures and different weights of lines and forms. Although nothing is entirely evident and recognizable, the fact that certain shapes could be read as objects keeps the viewer’s attention. This, like the previous piece embodies a break from the norms of artistic esthetics and again would be objected to due to this break from the norm. Also, like many other artists, de Kooning could have had ties to Communist organizations or left wing organizations, in which case the Conservatives would have complained that any support of this piece was funding leftist causes.
The final painting I chose is Pagan Void, by Barnett Newman (1946). This piece could be seen as threatening for a number of reasons. The colors are threatening, the title is threatening, the vaguely implied subject matter is threatening. Or, at least, all of these elements could be construed as threatening. Paganism, a rejection of the Christian religion, would seem very dangerous to Cold War Americans looking to preserve their way of life and their values. Thus, the title alone, even if it does not condone paganism, would scare many conservatives. The red in the middle of the black circle, which looks like an eyeball, could also be seen as a sinister
element. The blue elements look like “degenerative” creatures or molecules and the shape of the lighter blue/green blob also looks organic (indeed, the whole thing could be some sort of cell with a nucleus and mitochondria). This sort of micro made macro look may be visually disturbing and definitely is a rejection of the accepted norms of painting. The red in the bottom left corner of the “blob” also contrasts highly with the other colors and is visually jarring. All in all, this piece displays many formal characteristics that could be seen as threatening to the American idea of esthetics and American values concerning religion, science, politics, etc.So, these 5 works all contain elements that would lead to objections from the Conservative right, but they all could also be used by the liberal left to show how free American art is and how liberal the American government is in allowing this art to be exhibited, produced, and purchased.
No comments:
Post a Comment