Shea Post 5

Explain how this art could produce such varied responses? Well, by being so weird I suppose. Modern art, as the name implies, was something altogether new for the American people and for people in general. Having been exposed exclusively to styles of art that portrayed recognizable subjects or scenery, people were intimidated by Abstract Expressionism. It was outside the realm of connotation and familiarity. “readily identifiable subject matter was rejected.” (Mathews ,170) Without the luxury of a body of prior knowledge with which to approach and by which to judge this art the responses had to vary. No one knew what to think and so popular reaction was split into a dichotomy.

Assuming that art is not an “extra moral area”, the immigrant or revolutionary status of many of Abstract Expressionists did no good for their cause. “Communism itself had become for many a symbolic issue that had less to do with foreign ideology or even the realities of international politics than with the forces of change.” (Mathews, 172) The idea that some of these artists came from different countries or took interest in societal change was interpreted as a rejection of the conventional American lifestyle. This notion was compounded by “the assumption that rejection of traditional ways of seeing form and space inherent in vanguard style painting implied rejection of traditional world views.” (Mathews, 156) They were trying to change the way things worked. In this way Abstract expressionism was un-American. Furthermore, by looking at a Mark Rothko painting one cannot, without extensive training or one-on-one access with the artist, draw definite meaning. Admittance to the like or dislike of such a work could be dangerous depending on what the creator was hoping to communicate. It is also difficult to extract the artist’s degree of manual skill. “Gone were the pleasures of easy recognition and the enjoyment of technical dexterity…” (Mathews, 170) And what kind of American would condone the financial and popular promotion of one who does no observable hard work?

Those in favor of the art also focused exclusively on its political power. The meaning was not particularly important in comparison to its capacity to “present a strong propaganda image of the United States as a ‘free’ society as opposed to the ‘regimented’ communist bloc.” (Cockroft, 150) This opposition to communism was similarly evident in the art’s vast formal contrasts to Socialist Realism. Even the controversial activism and heritage of the artists were even embraced, as they portrayed the US as an “open and free society” (Cockroft, 151) that even allowed for dissent! Condoning the Abstract Expressionists was a way for America to present itself to other countries as an advocate of ‘individual freedom’; “to let it be known especially in Europe that America was not the cultural backwater that the Russians, during that tense period called “the cold war”, were trying to demonstrate that it was.” (Russell Lynes).

Some would argue that Clifford Still's 1951-N isn't art at all. It's really just a couple different shades of red isn't it? But that is not under debate here, only the work's political potency. It must be noted, as is already had been, that the painting is red. Whether or not red means communism is important because the color seems to be all the painting has to offer to the untrained eye. Mine is an untrained eye, but outside the cultural context of American cold war mentality I am able to see beyond the color's connotation. As a representation of the American people this painting does no harm. It is difficult to extract negativity from texture and shading alone but it can be done by those who fear what they don't understand. The subject and purpose of this painting are extremely unclear and so it is easy to say that Still strives to promote Socialist/Communist ideas by presenting the color red in such a favorable light.





Hibernation by Morris Graves is pretty, I think. Concentric circles juxtaposed with ovals over a muddled background and clean back light gives the scene an unearthly tone. Simultaneously though, The egg shape of the bird within a matching earth-toned outline in combination with the title suggests a connection with nature. This creature alone seems to have access to some natural force, foreign to the viewer. The paintings visual attributes and seemingly wholesome undertones would represent America favorably; a people concerned with its origins and with beauty. But what is that pink circle doing there? Critics might call it an unnecessary intrusion, comparable to that of foreign political influence in America. The meeting between the two shapes also resembles that of sperm and egg in the very moment of conception. If this is to be taken seriously then it is important to know what it being conceived. We do not and so in a mind like George Dondero's this painting would present the imminent birth of communism as a world power.

Willem De Kooning was not an American born artist, but at the time of this painting's creation he had been living in the states for 20 years and so it can be said that this is a work of American Abstract Expressionism. It is called Light in August. Immediately, the Faulkner book by the same title comes to mind. His novel was published in 1932 to a welcoming and enthusiastic audience which responded with rave reviews. For once there is a cultural reference from which to draw perspective for an abstract painting. Whether or not the artist meant it to be so is not clear. The book's popularity, though, ensures that a number of people would have approached this painting with the story in mind. It is a story of personal triumph and determination. This work seems to contradict those themes. There is quite a bit of darkness for a painting whose subject claims to be light. The bust of a figure can be made out within the black. He or she does not appear to be triumphing over the obstacles presented but rather drowning in them. Not only would American Faulkner fans have opposed this painting, but American idealists would have as well. There is apparent suffering within the tone, an air of hopelessness. This is not the American way. It embodies the lack of control that was so threatening to our country during such a tense time. Supporters of the artistic movement would probably not be able to deny the painting's gloominess. They would argue, however, that it is the American way to allow its citizens the individual freedom to feel and express suffering through such creative means.


Grace Hartigan's Self Portrait has an aspect of turmoil to it as well. He is very evidently troubled. On top of troubled, he is ugly. His complexion is uneven, his nose is asymmetrical and his eyelashes are white. Obviously this would not be the prime choice as the portrayal of a conquering American culture, free from the oppression and struggle of Communist rule since Hartigan does not seem to be rejoicing in or even contented with his life.








Arshile Gorky's Eye Spring does not seem like it was particularly difficult to create. This would be a primary concern of those who think the painting is un-American. So would the fact that Gorky was born in Armenia. Why should we pay attention, much less money, to something that probably took no more than an hour to make? Americans value skill and hard work. "The government should not sponsor examples of our creative energy which are nonrepresentational."(USIA spokesperson, Mathews, 166) The painting doesn't make immediate sense and so it is labeled as meaningless. This lack of "democratic accessibility" was another criticism of Abstract expressionism. Others would argue that this work demonstrated, instead, "private visions, insights...the subconscious...metaphors and symbols that somehow possess universal meaning." (Mathews, 170), that the artist was striving to reach everyone, just going about it in a new and unfamiliar way.