It is important to note that unlike other genres such as realism, regionalism, etc., the art I have selected shows how American Abstract Expressionist art does not follow any particular theme or pattern. The fact that these pieces fall together under the umbrella of Abstract Expressionism is not a confinement to the content or the portrayal of the art, but instead it is the recognition that each of these pieces is instead quite the opposite of restrained. These paintings and sculptures are created by the individual artist with the respective artist’s own ideas of how and what to create. Each artist is expressing personal views. As I discussed with Professor Libby, this shows a power shift between artists and viewers throughout history. Previously, art had been used as a mode to capture and glorify the values of society (e.g. the Great German Art Exhibition, regionalism, etc.). During this time of the Cold War, however, Abstract Expressionism rises in
It is in this individual freedom of expression that we find the dissecting opinions of the work as creative versus dangerous. Those who viewed pieces of Abstract Expressionist art as creative saw pieces of art such as these as representations of the freedom the American people valued. Chairman Whitney of The Museum of Modern Art saw that this type of art can be used to “inspire” free men to appreciate and utilize “their own freedom” (Cockcroft). Not only was this art seen to glorify the values of liberty within
As far as connections to communism, supporters of Abstract Expressionism saw the artistic creativity as a manifestation and adoration of the freedom in American society, rather than the “regimented” and confined communist art within dictatorial regimes. Pieces such as these were “the perfect contrast to the regimented, traditional, and narrow nature of socialist realism” (Cockcroft). McCray and others of his time and rank in the art world used pieces of Abstract Expressionism in international affairs in order to exhibit this freedom of the mind present in
Those who viewed Abstract Expressionist art as decadent or dangerous, however, often made a connection to communist ideals. With the rise of communism came new ideas about power and freedom, and thus the rejection of older, traditional views. This new form of art was a “rejection of traditional ways of seeing form and space,” and so the conclusion was that it must also be a “rejection of traditional world views” like communism was endeavoring upon. Many held on to the idea that the purpose of art was to be “pleasing and uplifting,” and criticized art that did not produce these feelings. The 29 murals done by Refregier depicting the history of San Francisco, for example, was even condemned as “disturbing” and the images were referred to as “Frankenstein monsters” by those who were disappointed in the work’s lack of pleasurable appeal.
5 comments:
The idea of abstract expressionist art as a catalyst for the shift in power in art is a very interesting observation. It also seems that, with the advent of American Abstract Expressionism, more power is given to the artist in his or her creation as well as the transfer of responsibility, since the artist no longer feels bound by the conventional rules of mimetic art. This allows him or her to make use of artistic freedom and simultaneously demonstrating democratic principles in action. Because of this, it is easy to understand how some Americans, such as the Rockefellers, MoMA, and CIA worked hard to display the abstract works both at home and overseas. It came, as Morgan says, to represent “individual freedom” internationally through showing other nations the values of freedom and democracy that the US tries to promote. Also, by showing this artwork, some hoped to dispel the spreading of communism into other European states because of what it represented. Morgan also explains this through pointing out the differences between the realistic, “regimented” art of communist nations and the free-form, abstract works of the American Abstract Expressionist movement. However, as Morgan points out, there were others who did not see abstract art as free or positive. In fact, they found it to be communist in itself, as the pieces broke away from the traditional and orderly and instead became a jumble of emotion. This parting was enough to make some Americans fear the new art movement as a promoter of chaos and the “breakdown of order” that anti-communists often associated with communism. Thus, the art of this new movement was just as dangerous and threatening as it was democratic and free. The differences in responses all seem to grow out of personal opinion and bias when viewing the pieces that comprise American Abstract Expressionism.
I also found your point about the shift of power from the artist to the viewer to be very valid and was something I did not consider to the extent you did. I think what is also interesting is that even in America, there was support for a traditional approach to art in which everything was designed to represent the truth as closely as possible. This idea closely mirrors that of Hitler's about degenerate art not being easy to understand and figure out. The idea that the spread of communism influenced America to such a great extent that individuals started accusing actors , artists, etc of supporting communism shows how suceptible a culture can be to become vulnerable in threating times especially when individuals went as far as to try to limit free expression when they had no proof that it was in any way upholding communist values. So in this way, I think that the power given to the viewers to interpret this art was in some ways abused by individuals who were looking to accuse others of communist involvement.
I agree that responsibility shifted more to the viewers in Cold War America, as artists fought for an unprecedented level of freedom in their creations. In the tradition of Immanuel Kant, the mantra among the enlightened was “art for art’s sake.” Viewers of Abstract Expressionist art had to construct meaning from it, as there was nothing obvious or realistic present. In the 19th century and earlier, viewers had the power and artists had to serve their wishes. Their purpose was to create for patrons, and to follow established styles. The abstract would not have been popular amongst mainstream patrons, so artists had to conform to certain techniques and strictly realist products. After World War II, this system was obsolete, and art critics began to favor the avant-garde movements like Abstract Expressionism. Now the artists could do as they pleased, and were not responsible for copying reality any longer. The artists gained the freedom of deciding what to create that the viewers once wielded, and viewers gained the responsibility of constructing meaning that only the artist once had.
The United States was deeply concerned that communism would spread throughout Europe and Asia and democracy and liberty would despair. It used multiple medias to educate the public on the evils of the Red Ideology. As Morgan discusses, it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that one of the anti-communist medias that the United States used to push other countries into the direction of democracy was art. Abstract Expressionism in itself is liberty. There are no rules, boundaries, or laws of interpretation. There is simply the artist, his paintbrush or artistic view, and the audience's free-flowing interpretation. It's almost like in elementary school where no answer is wrong and no question is stupid. All Abstract Expressionism paintings and sculptures are accepted as one individuals portrayal of something they view. Without those rules and boundaries, this is simply an analogy for all of the individual aspects of democracy: freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
You made a good connection concerning the power shift between artist's and the audience throughtout history, but I thought you could dig a little deeper concerning Abstract Expressionism's role in this shift. Abstract expressionism represented a growing sense of individualism and the artist's freedom of expressions as you stated. But it also represented a complete shift in techniques. Abstract expressionism was free-flowing and spontaneous. It strayed from the traditional sense of realism and mimesis. Gone were the days of simple recognition and control. The artist's creation was a reflection of his artistic freedom and creativity. The quick brush stroke's and Pollock's drip technique could easily be equated with a "lack of thought" so to speak. It was more than a shift in control, but also a shift in technique.
Post a Comment