The gift/curse of abstract art is that it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Observers of such art can view the same Jackson Pollock painting and can either experience a deep, inner connection within themselves or experience a dizzy sensation along with confusion. At the time when abstract expressionism was emerging, this style of art was forbidden in Russia as well as other communist countries; moreover, people who created this form of art may have even been imprisoned, exiled, or killed. The ability for Americans to produce this type of art, then, was truly a great freedom of expression and creativity.
On the other hand, opponents of abstract art labeled this still novel form of art as a product of communism promoting communism. According to Jane de Hart Mathews, many Americans, such as Senator Dondero, linked communism and abstract art together because they viewed communism as chaotic and “demonic” and they also regarded abstract art as being chaotic and “demonic”; therefore, it made sense that abstract art was communist (162). In addition, many Americans believed that if an artist rejected tradition in art forms, then they must also reject tradition in world views (de Hart Mathews, 156). This idea, then, made abstract art seem even more communist.
When it appeared that critics such as Scudder and McCarthy could find no real evidence of communist propaganda within the abstract artwork (which may have been often, for if a work is abstract, how can a definite message be ascertained?), they attacked the artist instead. If the artist had been involved in any “pro-communism” organization no matter the extent, their artwork would be immediately deemed as communist, anti-American, and unfit for exhibition.
Man in Space II
Jonathan Borofsky
Jonathan Borofsky
(can be viewed on http://www.artstor.org/artstor/mainFrame.jsp)
This work presents many bizarre and disturbing images, few of them being three dismembered figures; also, it appears as if there is blood and ink splattered throughout parts of this piece. One figure looks hypnotized while the other two have empty eyes. Advocates of abstract art would claim that Borofsky is freely articulating his emotions through this work; however, opponents would argue that this work is extremely unsettling and that it does not represent “real” American values. It would be seen as “demonic” and thus un-American.
According to ARTstor, “the shapes and hues hint at a landscape, ocean vista, open sky, or even a curving body part”; however, for the untrained eye, this work simply appears to be multi-colored, curvy shapes that weave together on a white canvas. Supporters of Kooning and abstract art would allege that this painting is beautiful because it allows viewers to interpret it any way they wish. Challengers of this art would state that this work has no form and is not beneficial to America in furthering her values.
Autumn Rhythm
Jackson Pollock
It is often difficult to find the true beauty of this painting amidst the abundant drizzles of a few colors. Perhaps Pollock experienced a sort of emotional release in the process of this work’s creation. Supporters of Pollock and other abstract art would deem this painting a masterpiece, for it achieves something that previous art forms have not. It is an outlet for Pollock’s creativity and may have the potential to inspire. Opponents, though, would say that Pollock’s work is mere child’s play and does not mean anything; furthermore, they would argue that anyone would be able to splatter a few drops of paint over a canvas and give it an “artsy” title. They would label it as chaotic and worthless.
Jackson Pollock
It is often difficult to find the true beauty of this painting amidst the abundant drizzles of a few colors. Perhaps Pollock experienced a sort of emotional release in the process of this work’s creation. Supporters of Pollock and other abstract art would deem this painting a masterpiece, for it achieves something that previous art forms have not. It is an outlet for Pollock’s creativity and may have the potential to inspire. Opponents, though, would say that Pollock’s work is mere child’s play and does not mean anything; furthermore, they would argue that anyone would be able to splatter a few drops of paint over a canvas and give it an “artsy” title. They would label it as chaotic and worthless.
This painting shows what appears to be a poster of an American flag split down the middle and placed on opposite sides of the canvas. There are a couple of pots and jars in the painting along with an unidentifiable object. Promoters of abstract art would state that this work along with other similar works embody the American ideal of freedom of expression. The artist is not afraid of painting whatever he wants, for he knows that he will not imprisoned or killed. Challengers of this work would say that it is meaningless because viewers cannot distinguish the significance of this painting.
Untitled (Empire State Building)
Robert Moskowitz
Robert Moskowitz
Although this work is untitled, a skyscraper can clearly be seen in this work; however, despite the dark tones of this work, Moskowitz brings out a sense of “grandeur and intimacy” (ARTstor) with its few spots of bright colors. Advocates of this work would assert that Moskowitz does not need to conform to realist ways; rather, he has the ability to work against what has been previously accepted and forgo depth. Opponents, however, would argue that this work is dark and primitive, so therefore it is communist and should not be displayed.
additional sources:
4 comments:
I completely agree with Theresa’s analysis that abstract expressionism represented freedom in the United States in comparison to the oppressive policies of the Soviet Union. The way Theresa worded her argument highlights the way in which the hysteria of the times moved from one minute detail to radical generalizations. For example, the fact that the art seemed chaotic expanded to the art being communist and finally the art representing untraditional world views. The Red Scare and historical context of the art led to officials simply looking for ways in which a work was even remotely communist. Ironically, if communism is represented by these abstract works, why would they be banned in the Soviet Union? Rather, the most orderly and strict images were the only ones allowed under Stalin’s rule; so I must agree that abstract expressionism represents the complete freedom of the artist to create an image and of the viewer to derive any meaning from the work.
I like the way Theresa commented that the multiple interpretations of Abstract art can serve as both curses and blessings. In argument for these multiple interpretations to be viewed as blessings, one could say that the freedom of each individual viewer to see the artwork in their own, unique way adds a certain universality to the art. Each person can take away from the art what he or she wishes because the art can affect different people in different ways.
However, this freedom of interpretation also comes as a curse. Critics and even average viewers make assumptions about the art's message that may or may not be the true intentions of the piece.
It is interesting to read the different interpretations of the same works of art by different students. I like the way Theresa simply came to her conclusions about the Untitled painting by Moskowitz. It is a very simple painting. I, myself, felt like I had to look much deeper into the painting to find its meaning.
I would like to comment again on how dangerous the painting seems because of the sense of foreboding against the bleak, stark black background, and the eerie glow cast by the colors. I think this would make Americans feel unsafe about such a great American symbol, and this is where communism comes into play.
I’m really fond of the way you explained some of the opposition to abstract art. Isn’t it ridiculous? I find the equation of communism and abstract expressionism pretty faulty. Communism is a social system based on order, control and synchronicity. It requires the willingness of its participants to accept the interdependency and responsibility of contribution. The people’s actions must be directed toward production for the good of the whole. Abstract art does not manifest concepts such as these. One of the very slanders against it claimed that it was purposeless. As you said, it is “chaotic”. Certainly, in order to take such a vitriolic position against the abstract movement the attackers must have been aware of the political system’s conceptual foundation.
It must be mentioned that the communist ideals were not fully realized in Russia but then why attack communism instead of the abusers of power and shortcomings within their version of the system? Of course it was fear. Both were threats to tradition and it is always easier to maintain a habit then to replace it. So, in this way, new became evil. Abstract expressionism and communism became comparable.
Post a Comment