Culture Wars: Tawny N post 5

Tawny Najjar

Art has always been used as a tool either to define and capture reality, or to twist it and transcend from reality. The American Abstract Expressionism movement took what people knew to be true, and transformed it into something that was unfamiliar, unusual, and distinct. This movement brought about much controversy; in some instances, people saw this form of art as a means of freedom of expression, a break from the regulations and ordinary. Others found the art to be confusing, offensive, and even dangerous. The art work had different implications to people, further severing ties between what is acknowledged, and what is acceptable.

In American Abstract Expressionist art, the artists apply paint rapidly and with force to convey their feelings and emotions. They are ruled by spontaneity, accident, and chance, though they too can have their artwork be highly planned and deliberate. This avant-garde form of art brought about the drip painting, as well as “white writing.” Abstract Expressionism was viewed as rebellious and idiosyncratic, going outside of former categories of styles of art. As Eva Cockcroft stated, the artists “defiantly reject the conventional values of the society which surrounds them” (Abstract Expressionism 153). These abstract expressionists instead turn to “private visions, insights, and most especially the subconscious.” The content “consisted of ambiguous forms with loosely defined, perhaps even subliminal, multivalent associations arrived at not through prior determination but in the actual process of painting” (Mathews 170). An expressionist artist, Jackson Pollock, supports this, stating, “When I am in my painting, I’m not aware of what I am doing…the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through" (wikipedia).

There were many who supported this movement, characterizing it as creative, innovative, and artistically free. Abstract Expressionism was a new twist, a rebellion against the ordinary and widely accepted. Certain groups tried to use this artwork to influence and inspire others. MOMA (Museum of Modern Art) was a major supporter of this movement, and had international programs to exhibit Abstract Expressionist art in London, Paris, Sao Paulo, and Tokyo (Cockcroft 149). MOMA was once quoted as the “largest and strangest recruit in Uncle Sam’s defense line-up,” instigating the idea that the Museum could serve as a weapon for national defense to “educate, inspire, and strengthen the hearts and wills of free men in defense of their own freedom” (Cockcroft 148). The CIA also supported the Abstract Expressionist movement, using it to demonstrate the image of the United States as a “free society as opposed to the regimented communist bloc.” The artwork was essential to propaganda movements during the time of the Cold War because it was a contrast to the “regimented, traditional, and narrow nature of socialist realism. It was new, fresh, and creative…it could show the United States as culturally up-to-date” (Cockcroft 150). Many people in the general public supported this movement as well because it deviated from normalcy. Abstract Expressionism made people open their minds to new ideas and concepts; it developed their ability to think outside of the box, and to consider the concept that not everything is what it seems to be. Many of the titles of the artworks either did not explain, or almost contradicted the content of the paintings. Abstract Expressionism focused more on the journey to get to the finished product – the emotional intensity, the relinquishing of one’s power to spontaneity, the battle between the controllable and the uncontrollable – rather than the actual painting. These artists did not always create their paintings with intention, or a message to get across, yet the fact that they were not trying to paint a certain object or idea has a message of its own. The message is about opening one’s mind to the idea that not everything has to be controlled and classified. There is a certain insanity in nature, an irregularity, and to truly understand it, one must also try to let go of reason and cold, hard logic.

However, many people feared and detested this new form of art. This was more of an attack on the world that they knew, rather than an advancement or interesting, new way to experience art. The Abstract Expressionist movement was opposed by people both in the government, as well as the general public. Many people did not want to accept these new pieces as works of art. Before, there had been an ideal work of art, one that was beautiful, deliberate, and easy to interpret. The viewer would be able to look at it and honestly acknowledge that the artist had a great talent, one that the viewer could never replicate. However, as Truman once said about a piece of Expressionist art, “If that’s art, I’m a Hottentot” (Mathews 166). This implies that people thought that this new movement lowered the standards of art. Viewers now had the feeling, “Well, I could do that!” As said in Art and Politics in Cold War America, “these canvases with their static masses of color or tangled surfaces of dripped paint provided no indication of the artist’s talent.” The public also disliked the paintings because there was no longer any easy interpretation. The meaning was no longer black and white. As Mathews stated, it was frustrating to people because their “bafflement reminded them that esthetically they had not yet arrived after all, and might never make it…they were simply unprepared for the sheer effort required in the process of visual analysis” (Mathews 171).

This movement was also considered to be detrimental and dangerous to the government, especially one ruled by totalitarian ideals. “The whole thrust of totalitarian government…is to destroy the boundaries of individual personality” (Cold War Power Point 9/24/07). Abstract Expressionism was viewed as “evidence of domestic subversion” (Mathews 155). Even in a democratic society, the government must keep a firm control over the people, and maintain order. This movement was characterized by complete chaos and freedom. There were no rules, no boundaries. The artists had the power to paint what they wanted, and express whatever emotion ruled them at the time. One man, George Dondero, especially detested Abstract Expressionism. In his mind, “expressionism aims to destroy by aping the primitive and insane. Abstraction aims to destroy by the creation of brainstorms” (Cold War Power Point 9/24/07). Those against this movement were determined to keep American art easily recognized as “American.” They wanted to maintain control by imposing an ideology and esthetic conformity, by having a standardization on what was considered art, and what was considered nonsense. The Expressionist movement defied these social norms, because the very purpose of the art was in fact, to have no purpose, no pre-determined meaning. It gave total control to the artist and to the artist’s emotions. The artists were free to create whatever inspired them.

These five paintings represent the lack of definable meanings. The artists twisted and redefined reality, using colors and brushstrokes that were unfamiliar and unconventional. These five paintings represent the very essence of what a totalitarian government was trying to avoid – a lack of control and order, indecipherable meanings, and unusual use of color. In societies, like the one ruled by Stalin, artists were confined to painting works of art that would be approved by the government, such as paintings of tractors, or of children giving flowers to Stalin. In these Abstract Expressionist paintings, the artists were free to paint what they wanted, and to give their paintings any kind of meaning and interpretation. There is complete and utter chaos, a total lack of order and control. This freedom and chaos would be deemed dangerous to the government.

Abstract Expressionist art was interpreted both as a means of expressing artistic freedom, and as a dangerous weapon against the government, especially a totalitarian government. Instead of trying to capture reality in a clear, discernible way, these artists took what they saw and knew, and turned it into an unrecognizable, seemingly meaningless, chaotic mess of colors, lines, and shapes. While some praised this artwork for being symbolic of freedom and spontaneity, others opposed it, unwilling to accept a change, or to open their minds to different concepts and ideas.