The discrepancy in how individuals view art on a personal level is philosophically interesting for several distinct reasons. The first, and perhaps oldest, way of seeking a reason for different responses to art looks to the art itself. To the Greeks the study of aesthetics was no matter of beauty being in the eye of the beholder; rather, there were distinct qualities that made a certain work of art beautiful or not. In this conception the different responses that various people have to art depends upon their grasp of aesthetics and their level of sophistication. To a certain extent, this view is still with us. When anyone finds a certain work or style of art to be less than stunning, one proven defense is to insist that the malcontented viewer simply “doesn’t get it.”
The idea of aesthetics has given way in modernity to a different conception; this time, the emphasis is placed on the individual rather than the art. We each bring our cultural context with us whenever we examine certain images, and therefore our views are shaped by our backgrounds. In the post-modern variety of this view, all that remains is the struggle to dismantle our own frameworks and the framework of the artist and see what remains.
The reaction of various different individuals to the abstract expressionist movement of art that arose in the United States following the second world war can be interpreted through either aesthetics or differing background. For the purposes of this blog, I’ll focus on the latter. The different backgrounds led two major groups of individuals to view abstract expressionist art in very different ways. Due to their divergent viewing of the art, they saw two markedly different uses for the art. One group, represented by everyone from the Rockefellers to the CIA, was interested in using the art as a means of cultural propaganda. They believed that the art represented that height of American ingenuity, freedom, and creativity. The art was avant-garde and cutting edge, and it allowed the
Another group of Americans, however, did not see the art in the same light. They had no knowledge that it was being supported by their own government (even when, as was Dondero’s case, they were part of the government themselves), and they viewed abstract expressionism as a kind of Communist threat. They believed that the art was degenerate (heard it before), and they feared the lack of reality and confusion that it caused. They associated it with Communism (just as Hitler associated art he did not like with Jews and Communists; those Communists can’t seem to catch a break), and believed that the artists were in some kind of conspiracy to bring down the entire
The artists, meanwhile, were in neither of these camps. As far as they were concerned, they were pushing the boundaries of art and experimenting with new ways of depicting images and emotions. On a whole they did not care about the political power their images were being made out to have. The point here is that the images could be used by either group despite having no real political content. Interpretation was everything. As such, feel free to disagree with however I interpret the following images.
This image seemed, in and of itself, benign. However, if I were to be interpreting it, I would have trouble seeing both sides of the debate. The picture seems almost exclusively pro-American. The bright, neon-esque lights, the designs, it all seems to almost be reflective of a drive down the strip in
This image is a great deal more complicated. It is fairly clear how this painting could be interpreted by both sides of this debate to suit their own agenda. The mechanical man that is the focus of the picture could certainly be seen a Communist symbol. Communism got a lot of mileage out of the image of the people as the cogs and parts of the machine that kept it running, and this painting could easily be viewed as such. Given that there is a Communist symbol displayed there, those opposed to abstract expressionism would see this as a subtle piece of propaganda trying to convince us to be robot-like.
On the other hand, it is possible (although perhaps harder) to make a case for the opposite position as well. Maybe the machine man is there to ridicule the Soviets. Maybe the fact that it is open is a hint that the machine is broken. Also, the robot appears to be playing a diabolo (a type of musical instrument). Maybe this isn’t a political picture at all, but rather a comment on the state of the arts.
This is an interesting piece that can be taken in both directions at the same time. There is a whole series of these painting of
The con-art side, on the other hand, has a little less to work with. They have to demonstrate that the contrast of these two styles of painting, the realism and the abstract expressionism, is harmful. The combination of the two will lead us to accept fantasy as well as reality, to doubt our own experiences; these are the kinds of arguments that might come from this camp. They too could focus on the smear as the spread of Communism, this time thinking that the picture seeks to promote this spread. It’s a stretch, but some of the other points about throwing sanity out with the bathwater might work a little better.
This painting might be the most nebulous of the four. At face value (no-pun intended), it is simply a young woman with a black line blocking out where her eyes should be. Could this painting be interpreted both ways? Maybe. It is fairly easy to see how it can be seen by the con-art gang. The young woman is, in many ways, a perfectly average, stereotypical American woman (other than the whole no eye thing). The blacking out of her eyes could certainly be seen as a kind of attack on standard American values. How exactly this relates to Communism is hard to see. The best explanation is that at this point the American populace had been so trained to think of the Soviets as the omnipresent enemy that they might subconsciously associate any threat with the Russians.
Coming at it from the perspective of those seeking to defend abstract expressionism as a viable means of cultural propaganda, there isn’t very much to say. They could argue that it isn’t Communist in any way, but there doesn’t appear to be much of a good way to actually use it as pro-American. I guess this is one where you just have to say art doesn’t apologize and hope for the best.
Just as the first piece was fairly one-sided in its potential interpretations, so too is this one. There just isn’t much of a way to look at this as a piece that propagates American interests. The only possible argument that you could make (that I can think of, at any rate) is that the picture is useful for showing people that Americans can be flexible enough to replicate fairly Communist looking images. Not much of a defense.
There is so much about this image that makes it look just like a Communist propaganda poster. The style of the art, the clothing of the man, the way in which he is depicted, it all seems to scream Communist revolution. Here is a man with a very bourgeois tie who looks like he’s joining up with the workers and helping Marx’s revolution get going. This could be seen as seriously undermining American values, and I’m sure that’s how Dondero saw it.
No comments:
Post a Comment