Justin Wright post 5

Justin Wright

Post 5

Abstract art has been inflammatory in fascist, communist, and democratic nations. Interestingly, Americans who disliked Abstract Expressionism blamed a communist conspiracy for its prevalence and the Nazis called it Bolshevist, but the Soviets actually feared it. There was a small group of influential Americans who supported the Abstract Expressionist movement, a small group of antagonists, and the majority of people were completely apathetic. The Rockefeller family, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Museum of Modern Art were all linked together in a sort of conspiracy to champion Abstract Expressionism during the start of the Cold War, and to showcase these types of works abroad as America’s culture. This would be a way of impressing the communist bloc with the culture that flourishes under democracy. But this had to be done quietly, because Congress feared Abstract Expressionism and was still mired in the McCarthyist hunts for traitors. The CIA allotted funding for overseas art shows that included Abstract Expressionist art. By diverting funding through itself, the CIA was able to allow these exhibits to tour that otherwise would not have been funded. Congress itself, and a good deal of the nation, was in favor of censorship of any work by an artist with “subversive” ties, regardless of content or how unfounded the claims. The scandal over Anton Refregier’s murals in the Rincon Annex was likely to have been the result if Congress was asked to make appropriations.

The reason that some Americans feared abstract expressionism was because of two unrelated reasons that they attempted to link. One was that some, but far from many, artists of Abstract Expressionist works had communist leanings. The other reason was that they were just plain disturbed by the works. The disproportional, the psychedelic, the abstract, and the cryptic were all frightening to most Americans who could not understand this new art, for the same reasons it bothered the Nazis. They questioned the skill of the artists because the technical skill needed for representational art was no longer needed. It looked like children could do this art, and this upset Americans who were fearful of the Soviets gaining the lead over them in any field. A loss of artistic talent was devastating. According to Jane de Hart Mathews, “the rejection of traditional forms and the commitment to abstraction that characterized vanguard art seemed to impart to their highly structured world the quality of chaos and the demonic that they so easily identified with communism.” (Art and Politics in Cold War America, page 162) Simply because Abstract Expressionism was “ugly,” that was enough to make it communist in the eyes of people like Senator George Dondero.

Abstract Expressionism was a deeper movement intellectually than representational art. Those viewing abstract art had to solve it because it was like a riddle; the meaning was not explicit. For a citizenry accustomed to traditionalist, realist art, this was not something they were expecting. People had not encountered the avant-garde before on such a scale. For post-World War II conservatives, the rejection of the traditional and the established was treason. This is another reason it was so easily identified with communism, because it ran contrary to established American culture.

This new art also required interpretation, and therefore originality. Some perceived the avant-garde as the efforts of communist traitors trying to force this new art upon an unwilling public, but others, including the CIA and MOMA, saw the potential of the art to champion the individual over the state. In Socialist Realism, the art was so representational that it could only mean one thing, and this was what the Soviets wanted in order to get the party message out to illiterate masses. Educated American capitalists, on the other hand, were capable of producing art that freed the artist from governmental restrictions and even the restrictions of reality itself, with at least a longer version of censorship’s leash than the communists allowed.

Censorship was a hot issue in the 1950’s and 60’s. The Rincon Annex fiasco scored a victory for Refregier’s murals and artistic freedom, because the changes recommended to be made to them failed. The murals were accused of being examples of Socialist Realism, another form identified (correctly) with communism. Whether or not they were Socialist Realism is debatable, since they were historically accurate about the plight of labor and events in San Francisco, but this would place them as Social Realism. The public feared anything that could have ties to communism, including Abstract Expressionism. Somehow the fact that abstract art was banned in Soviet Russia escaped declaration, and numerous groups always rose to protest anything done by an artist who had dubious ties, like Refregier. Several art exhibits scheduled to go overseas were canceled, because the directors refused to remove art by such artists solely for that reason, and this led to the government action. The exhibit “Sport in Art” was scheduled to go to Australia for the 1956 Olympics, but because four works by artists with subversive leanings were not removed, the USIA director reversed the decision to send the exhibit overseas.

Mountains and Sea

Helen Frankenthaler

Here, Helen Frankenthaler has depicted an abstract scene of mountains adjoining a sea. Discerning either of these things is difficult, especially since there are colors used for the mountains such as red and green, mixed with traditional grey and brown. Interestingly, this painting is so abstract that picturing the mountains from top down as well as a side view is possible. This demonstrates how abstract art can be interpreted, and relies on these interpretations for meaning rather than mimesis, much like a Rorschach test. For some people this art is meaningless, because nothing can be easily discerned. The sea exists as patches of blue without coherence, instead of a single body, and the mountains blend together into an amorphous mass rising out of the center. This landscape does not easily show the titular mountains and sea, and that is why this painting could be frustrating or disturbing to some.

Little Spanish Prison

Robert Motherwell

What exactly is in Motherwell’s painting? It appears like it could be three doors, two of them in a pair. The two conjoined ovals on the right look like a pair of hollow eyes staring within. It does appear frightening, and the title confirms this. This prison is devoid of any detail, a prison for the eyes, withholding stimulation. Since the painting just does not clearly depict anything, the viewer is at a loss of information. What else is going on? In a prison, the prisoner is subjected to the same deprivation about the outside world.

This painting is an example of Abstract Expressionism that does not clearly represent anything. It requires arduous, in depth contemplation to understand. Such contemplation can only be done by the intellectually free, and in this way abstract art is a show of artistic freedom. Others may view it as purely frightening, like a nightmare, but for its own sake and not for its message.

Onement IV

Barnett Newman

Apparently just a white line, Newman’s painting is the epitome of abstraction and simplicity. What this could represent is the single strand of time, the continuity of all that has ever happened, combined into one form, superimposed over the twilight of the abyss. In this, there is a separation between all being one, and oblivion. This separation is emphasized by the line dividing the backdrop in half.

The most obvious criticism to the painting would be “that’s it?” since there is only a line. The “my dog could do that” logic is the strongest argument against such abstraction. But also, total abstraction frees the artist of any responsibility to depict anything in particular. There can be no objection to the subject matter because it is indescribable. The only objection is due to how simple it really is.

R-no. 1

Clyfford Still

Another totally abstract painting, there is not even a title to explain what the representation could be. There is mostly crimson, with dashes of orange yellow, and what appear to be holes eaten through the reddish areas. It almost resembles paper degraded by insects. This painting recently went for over $21,000,000 at auction, which is totally inexplicable to most people. A painting that does not clearly represent a subject seems like it could not possibly be worth so much money, especially since many think they can make art of the same quality. Some could contend that the high price of Still’s work is evidence of a lack of taste on the part of art critics. But this is more strongly evidence of artistic freedom in a capitalist economy, where artists are free to produce what they like and the cultural value of the work is represented by its monetary worth to museums and collectors.

Hyena Stomp

Frank Stella

Frank Stella’s painting of a squared spiral appears to have more order than it actually does. The colors of the segments change randomly, sometimes as a gradient into a similar color, sometimes an abrupt shift. However, the colors do proceed in the same order when looking closely. Inevitably the viewer will follow this spiral, either inward or outward, as it is the only thing to focus on. The effect is somewhat hypnotic. Disappointingly there are no hyenas as the title implies.

This is another example of Abstract Expressionist art that is nonrepresentational and cryptic. This is frightening to those who “just don’t get it,” as well as a triumph of the individual, in the form of the artist as well as the viewer who is free to interpret the art, or to dismiss it.

Morgan, Post 5

Morgan Frost

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 America, and the responsibility shifts to the audience, who is no longer being fed material, but must interpret the art as presented by the artist.

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 America, but many saw the opportunities this art provided of spreading this individual freedom around the world. Polish artist Cantor, for example, moved away from objective painting, and was welcomed into the arms of the MOMA with exhibitions (Cockcroft).

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 America (Cockroft.)

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. California’s Congressional representative Scudder directed the murals to be removed on the grounds that they were “derogatory” and “communist propaganda.” Anti-communists claimed that the modern works were a “conspiracy conceived in Russia” and were a “threat…to those loyal American artists who sought to protect their cultural heritage from the new forms”(Mathews). Thus any new form of art, in this case Abstract Expressionism, infringed upon the traditional values Americans were trying to uphold, and therefore must be communistic and decadent.

Ally, Post 5

Ally Best

post 5

The fact that Abstract Expressionism played a significant role during the Cold War is indisputable. However, what could be and, in fact, was disputed is what exactly this role was.

Through the Abstract Expressionist art and several clever propaganda ploys, the CIA attempted to convey to cultures abroad that the U.S. was “a free ‘society’ as opposed to the ‘regimented’ communist bloc” (Cockcroft, 150). Artists of this “new” style ignored the classical techniques, and even subject matter, to create truly unique pieces of art. As Eva Cockcroft explained, they were able to create a new artistic movement, “by giving their painting an individualist emphasis and eliminating recognizable subject matter.” They accomplished this artistic “freedom” in a variety of ways. Some artists, such as Willem de Kooning, took a common image and created it in a very different and abstract style. Willem’s painting titled “Woman V” depicts the basic outline of a human body. However, while the image certainly has a “womanly” chest, the figure’s shoulders are broad and masculine. Far from the conventional stereotypes of female beauty and delicacy, the face of the woman in this painting is distorted and almost grotesque. The random, bright splashes of color give the painting a somewhat chaotic feeling, as if the painting itself were actually radiating energy. Other pieces of artwork, such as Barnett Newman’s “Vir Heroicus Sublimis” or Mark Rothko’s “White Center,” were even more abstract, depicting large areas of solid color. These paintings, though simple in design, were oftentimes meant to provoke strong emotions in the reader through their clear and uncomplicated style. Critics who argued that Abstract Expressionist art was a symbol of America’s freedom of expression were, in general, politically motivated. In fact, the Museum of Modern Art proudly announced that the aim of its foreign program was “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” (Cockcroft, 149). Through this “new, fresh and creative” style of art, politically minded individuals could boost the United States’ cultural status in the eyes of foreign countries by, for example, proving that the U.S. was “culturally up-to-date in competition with Paris” (Cockcroft, 151).

However, not everyone agreed with this liberal interpretation of Abstract Expressionist art. The other side of the argument “involved opposition on political rather than esthetic grounds” (Mathews, 156). This view was based on the reasoning that “rejection of traditional ways of seeing form and space inherent in vanguard style of painting implied rejection of traditional world views” (Mathews, 156). Unconventional works of art such as the harsh, jagged, and boldly vibrant paintings by Clyfford Still and the abstract, oddly robotic sculpture “Becca” by David Smith throw away the “traditional” concepts of artwork. Therefore, some might argue that these pieces of art were, in a way, unpatriotic because they suggested views very different from the norm. A few people even went as far as arguing that this movement “threatened not only art but the fundamental freedom of our American way of life” (Mathews, 164). To look at the difference in opinions between the supporters and opponents of Abstract Expressionism, one could consider Kooning’s “Woman V” from the more conservative viewpoint. Congressman Dondero explained that he “opposed modern art as ‘Communist’ because it bred ‘dissatisfaction’ by virtue of the fact that it was unintelligible to ordinary Americans whose ‘beautiful country’ it failed to ‘glorify,” and he “emphasized its distortion, grotesqueness, and grotesqueness of the painting as a freedom of expression, the conservative view was appalled by its lack of aesthetic appeal. Dondero went as far as claiming that this style of work was “nauseating” to him (Mathews, 165).

In reading articles about Abstract Expressionism and examining the two different viewpoints, I read a passage that seemed to clarify the controversy for me and that I feel is important to take into account. Eva Cockcroft notes that, “The artist creates freely. But his work is promoted and used by others for their own purposes” (154). The artists who created these works may or may not have had political aims. However, their artwork was interpreted by critics who more than likely had never even met them. Many of these critics of the works, unlike most of the artists who had created them, almost always had ulterior motives. Whether they were politicians attempting to improve the U.S.’s cultural image or traditional artists angry with the effect modern art had had on the popularity on their own type of art, they had something to gain by the success or failure of the art movement. As Mathews mentions, most Americans could simply “take it or leave it” and would not "confuse their esthetic judgment or preferences with political commitments" (156). Perhaps the American Federation of Arts' trustees said it best when they stated that art, "should be judged based on its merits as a work of art and not by the political or social views of the artist" (Cockcroft 152).

Fatema, post 5

Fatema Kermalli

American Abstract Expressionist art was able to produce a wide range of responses due to the fact that it was, indeed, abstract. As such, the interpretations of different people for the same piece of artwork could differ, depending on what type of previous knowledge and experience and prejudices each one brought to the viewing itself.

Also playing a role was the time period. In essence, the debate which raged regarding the art during the time of the Cold War is the same debate that raged in that time and rages still today regarding other forms of media. It is a debate about the concept of patriotism itself, and whether one can be questioning and “American” at the same time. Such debates often spring up around wars, when the nation is seen as being pitted against another force and the need for strength through unity becomes even more apparent.

On one side are those who say that questioning itself is democratic; it pushes the county forward towards positive change. Such was the interpretation by some of modern art; it was different, and thus an excellent example of American freedom… the freedom to challenge norms and express oneself. The style of Abstract Expressionism itself was “…the perfect contrast to ‘the regimented, traditional, and narrow; nature of ‘socialist realism’” (Cockcroft 151), and that fact of its allowed existence in the states would be the “perfect contrast” to censorship in the Soviet Union.

On the other hand were those who looked at modern art and saw disloyalty to American traditions and values… “visual evidence of disloyalty” (Mathews 168). It was unrecognizable. To them, the fact that it was different did not make it valuable; rather, it was almost seen as evidence of “foreign” intervention into American society. It was unpatriotic. And during the time of the Cold War, all of this equated to being Communistic. Also it is possible that the style of art itself was disconcerting to some people. “Complex, cosmopolitan, and ever-changing, it was intrinsically at odds with the need for certitude and control” (171), both of which many people may have already felt a lack of due to the Cold War itself. Their insecurity and lack of real stability perhaps translated into a need for the stability in that which they could control. The appearance of steadiness, even in art, may have been remotely appeasing.

Note: All images were found by searching for “American Abstract Expressionist” in the ARTstor Image Gallery (other websites are given here due to terms considerations).

http://www.artsconnected.org/toolkit/images/grace_hartigan.jpg

Billboard, by Grace Hartigan; 1957.

This image, created with a wide variety of shapes and colors, lacks the presence of many definable forms. The arrangement and feeling is rather chaotic; parts of the image seem to overlap each other instead of being placed into a specific form. The colors themselves are also quite “loud”; they grab the audience’s attention. The art is, in this sense, quite an active force as compared to many realistic paintings were championed in comparison at the time. Once again, stability here comes into play. With the lack of a quality of “definiteness” in the world around them (due to the perceived dangers of the Cold War itself and the constant perceived threat of Communism in America), predictable art-with dull colors and constant form-would have been valued. On the other hand, pieces such as this one which defy the norm, though threatening to some, would have been a sign of hope for others… a reason to believe in the permanence of democratic freedoms in America. Both groups, though totally different in outcome, were in this sense evaluating the same piece of art in relation to the same background: the threat of Communism and the Cold War.

http://www.beatmuseum.org/pollock/images/cathedrl.jpg

Cathedral, by Jackson Pollock; 1947

This painting, primarily black, white, and grey/blue, also conveys a sense of great commotion. It is easy to get lost within the work of art, so numerous are the layers of color and so intricate the overlap between paint strokes. There is a complete lack of definable form. Because of this, besides evaluating the response of the audience based on the time period, it seems natural to apply the idea of a “hierarchy of taste” to Pollock’s work as well. The piece has the ability to frustrate, as Mathews puts it, “…viewers whose very bafflement reminded them that esthetically they had not yet arrived after all…” (171). Their inability to understand the work of Jackson Pollock due to its lack of traditional form and style may have been extremely disconcerting. The confusion/wonder created in the viewers could technically go either way; towards intrigue and approval for the freedom expressed therein, or towards anger and resentment, and the connection between the work itself and an outer threat (because people fear the unknown).

http://www.jackson-pollock.com/autumnrhythm-1950.jpg

Autumn Rhythm, by Jackson Pollock; 1950

This painting is quite similar in form, color, and tone to the image Cathedral discussed above. These types of images are explained to be the visual expression of “…private visions, insights, and most especially the subconscious… metaphors and symbols that would somehow possess universal meaning” (Mathews 170). Thus, really experiencing the pieces would entail finding a connection between one’s inner being and the artwork, or finding the self within the artwork. This is an act of questioning, which brings us back to the political debate discussed above regarding patriotism. How far do one’s freedoms go when the country is perceived to be in danger? Which aspect of the country is most important? The varied responses issue from varied priorities and ways of understanding the surrounding world. The deep thought encouraged by such artwork as this was welcomed by some. At the same time, the “confusion” with which it was presented caused some mistrust.

http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue8/images/makinghorse_becca.jpg

Becca, by David Smith; 1965

As opposed to the confusing nature of the other artworks we have looked at so far, this piece is really much less chaotic and more simply hard to understand for the general population. It is very geometric… simple, yet still with overlapping features. Unlike the other artworks, there is form, but it is not easily recognizable or comparable. It is not symmetric. The pieces do not snugly fit together. Instead, they are intentionally staggered and “imperfectly” arranged. To those who termed such work communistic, these tendencies are evidence of the intention to “destabilize” the American people. It is an inner threat that must not be allowed to pervade the stable society of the United States (as it had been used against government in the past: “Dondero argued that modernism had been used against the Czarist government…” (Mathews 162).)

http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/images/ma/images/ma1995.234.r(2).jpg

The Flesh Eaters, William Baziotes; 1952

Just like the last piece discussed (by Smith), this work of art is not really chaotic; the tone is rather peaceful due to the lack of harsh lines and colors (the colors are more dull than some of the other pieces, and they tend to blend into one another). Yet the lack of really easily definable forms once more offers a place for Communist concerns to nest. While some simply may have seen this as allowing for the democratic individual interpretation and understanding of art, others (such as Dondero), saw a threat in the change that was occurring in art during a time when stability was greatly desired and valued. The new was also connected to that which was foreign, and as it was a time of war, “American” things (such as traditional realist works of art), held a higher place in society, and the foreign was looked down upon… by some.

Rob H, post 5

Rob Hoffman

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 United States to claim that they were the cultural equivalents of other centers for art and culture, such as France (Cockcroft).

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 United States.

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.

http://www.artstor.org/artstor/nexaweb/popUpViewer.do?numRows=551&imagePos=54&q=null&vo=SearchAdvanceThumbNailView&id=ARTSTOR_103_41822001540366&side=right&openwindow=false&contentType=4&contentTitle=Multiple+Collections&title=Circuits%3A+Talladega+Five+I++++++++++++++++++++++++++&cid=103&dviewer=null

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 Las Vegas. There is something very glitzy, very Great Gatsby about the whole image. It also feels very technologically oriented, almost futuristic, with an emphasis on industry rather than agriculture or physical work. The image seems almost impossible to analyze from a Communist view point. If Dondero or the others who thought like him had been able to find ways of claiming this image undermined American values, than they should have been working for the propaganda department in Moscow, because that is a rather hard sell. It seems to epitomize much of what the United States is about (or at least the portion that separated it from the USSR).

http://www.artstor.org/artstor/nexaweb/popUpViewer.do?numRows=551&imagePos=83&q=null&vo=SearchAdvanceThumbNailView&id=ARTSTOR_103_41822000665156&side=left&openwindow=false&contentType=4&contentTitle=Multiple+Collections&title=Diabolo+Player&cid=103&dviewer=null

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.

http://www.artstor.org/artstor/nexaweb/popUpViewer.do?numRows=551&imagePos=144&q=null&vo=SearchAdvanceThumbNailView&id=ARTSTOR_103_41822003762224&side=left&openwindow=false&contentType=4&contentTitle=Multiple+Collections&title=Florence%3A+19.1.2000&cid=103&dviewer=null

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 Florence; they are all half-covered with rather wild, abstract smears of paint. It is possible, and in fact even highly probable, that the artist simply wanted to explore the contrast between realistic looking depictions of Florence and abstract expressionistic depictions of the same scene. This might suit the pro-art side; a simple, innovative work that highlights the artist’s creativeness and ingenuity. If they really needed to find some kind of hidden, empyrean meaning in the work, they cold focus on the brightly painted smear as the taint of Communism trying to spread across the world.

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.

http://www.artstor.org/artstor/nexaweb/popUpViewer.do?numRows=551&imagePos=248&q=null&vo=SearchAdvanceThumbNailView&id=ARTSTOR_103_41822003758354&side=right&openwindow=false&contentType=4&contentTitle=Multiple+Collections&title=Large+Girl+with+No+Eyes&cid=103&dviewer=null

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.

http://www.artstor.org/artstor/nexaweb/popUpViewer.do?numRows=551&imagePos=290&q=null&vo=SearchAdvanceThumbNailView&id=ARTSTOR_103_41822000643393&side=left&openwindow=false&contentType=4&contentTitle=Multiple+Collections&title=New+Type&cid=103&dviewer=null

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.

Theresa C., Post 5

Theresa Chu

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

(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.

Untitled XIII
Willem de Kooning
(can be viewed on http://www.artstor.org/artstor/mainFrame.jsp)

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.

Ventriloquist
Robert Motherwell
(can be viewed on http://www.artstor.org/artstor/mainFrame.jsp)

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

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:

www.artstor.org

Christopher Post 5

Christopher McCauley

“The whole thrust of totalitarianism…is to destroy the boundaries of individual personality. The moral balance of power is always with the party and against the person.”

—Arthur Schlesinger, The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom, 1950.

The genre of American Abstract Expressionist Art appeared during the Cold War as a reaction to show that the US was not similar to the totalitarian, dictatorial and communist governments, such as the USSR and Cuba, at the time. The above quotation of Arthur Schlesinger’s explains just why this type of art appeared. Communism basically destroyed individuality. The abstract art was nothing but individuality—nothing like it had ever been seen or created before. This type of art has no boundaries, nor does it have limitations. Therefore, it can be created and interpreted in any way. This ideal is the opposite of communist and dictatorial ideals, in which the individual was, or is the state, and the state is the individual. In communism there is no room for individuality or interpretation. However in abstract American art, and more importantly in America, there was.

However, some people believed that this type of art was hideous, profligate, and dangerous. Representations in this genre are completely interpretive—the art does not directly show what it represents. I would say that the abstract art was named very well, because the best word to describe it is, abstract. Many people were not fond of this because of its non-conformity. There was no precedent for this kind of art. “Most Americans, to be sure, probably did not…understand modern or abstract art…” (Matthews, 156). Because people could not understand the art, they did not like it. I think that is this type of art had appeared a few decades earlier, and in Germany, it would have been represented in the Nazi Degenerate Art exhibition, because of it’s similarities to the art shown there. The abnormal colors, distorted shapes, and extreme divergence from typical, classical art are all shared characteristics of the two different periods of art.

One American Abstract Expressionist artist was Robert Rauschenberg. Rauschenberg’s paintings were very peculiar. They often looked like collages of nothingness all toppled on to one another with vibrant colors, or just one color smeared onto a canvas in a very primitive, or even child-like way. One painting, entitled Untitled (Red Painting), 1953 is a prime example of Rauschenberg’s typical work, and of Abstract Expressionist art. It represents well the genre because of how radically different it is. To me, it looks like a red-orange stucco wall, and nothing else (I do not believe, however, that this interpretation is what Rauschenberg was hoping for). The color red can also make the viewer believe that the artist had a lot of passion when he painted this work. However, when looking at the historical context at the time of its creation, the color red was not very well liked. “Red” was associated with communism, and especially Russia. Some people who grew up during the Cold War have said “I grew up being afraid of Russia.” This painting could have incited fear of communist Russia to a viewer during this time period, which totally negates the whole purpose of the movement.

Another famous artist of the later Cold War era was Willem de Kooning. de Kooning’s paintings are usually characterized by bright colors and irregular shapes, but unlike Rauschenberg’s, they tend not to overlap. His painting, Untitled XIII, is very simple looking, with bright yellow red and green shapes. It somewhat resembles a child’s finger-painting. However, when you look more closely, it seems to resemble a horse. It is kind of a fun, comical interpretation of a horse. Unfortunately, people may not have liked this painting very much. As Drs. Libby, Levis, and Musgrave would say, a farmer would look at this painting, and proclaim that it is not of a horse.

A third example of a piece of American Abstract Expressionism is Robert Moskowitz’s painting, Untitled (Empire State Building). This painting exalts one of the biggest symbols associated with New York City, and also with the United States. It shows the might and strength of the American people, and the glory of the advancement of our society. Such paintings like this one are very good for our society. However, “the United States was not a nation of materialists who ran afoul of people who were themselves devoted opponents of Communist aggression, but who believed that this effort, in the visual arts especially, contained disturbing evidence of domestic subversion.” (Matthews, 155). This painting could be interpreted as dangerous because when you stuffy the painting, it looks as if the building is in a state of disarray. The orange color emanating from the top of the building alludes to fire in the building. There is also an eerie glow cast by the building against the black background, which causes a sense of foreboding in the viewer.

One of the most famous artists of this movement is Jackson Pollock. I personally do not see a difference between any of his paintings, other than the colors. Autumn Rhythm, painted in 1950 is a prime example of Pollock’s typical style. The colors in this particular painting are dark, and dull; by no means are they vibrant, like the previous three examples. However, the painting itself is vibrant because it draws the viewer into itself—it is somewhat hypnotic. Pollock’s work was cool and avant-garde, and that is why people liked it. However, his work can be interpreted as representing disorder and chaos. There is no form or shape in the painting—there are just splats of paint. There is no organization, which to some, represents the opposite of American democracy.

Jasper Johns’ painting, Device, painted in 1930 is very similar to Pollock’s. Although it does not look like it was created with a toothbrush, it does have a very messy disorganized appearance. It is just as visually captivating and hypnotic—especially with the wheels at the top of the painting. However, like Pollock’s work, this could be interpreted as disorder. The title, Device, is rather sketchy as well. Devices can allude to the industrial workers of a communist society, which would make Americans feel very unsafe.

Aaron Post 5

In viewing art, as with most things in life, everyone has a different perspective on things. Two people can view the exact same work of art and see two completely different things because of the experiences and beliefs that they bring to the table. This is what happened with art during the Cold War in America. During this time Abstract Expressionism burst on to the scene and caused a huge controversy. Some people were frightened by the progressive foreign elements of this new style of art and because of these characteristics labeled the art as “Communist” or “Un-American”. As Jane de Hart Mathews puts it, “the assumption was that rejection of traditional ways of seeing form and space inherent in vanguard style of painting implied rejection of traditional world views” (Mathews, p.156). Others viewed the same artistic style as an expression of democracy. They argued that the freedom of interpretation that abstract art gives is a symbol of the freedom and democracy that can only flourish in the US. This controversy was heightened by the amount of government “witch-hunting” that was going on because of the threat of communism and artists were not exempt from suspicion.

The street by Philip Guston

This painting is a very abstract and unclear view of what the title suggests is a street. The title seems to be the only clue that this work of art portrays a street, though. I can see how this painting would be scary to a culture that is defined by its paranoia towards communism because the color red is featured very prominently. The red splotches in the center of the painting are the first thing that catches your eye and because red is the representative color of communism, some suspicion may be warranted. Guston was known for his use of red and black, and red is the prominent color in many of his paintings. Though this does not necessarily prove that Guston was trying to promote Communism, in the culture in which he lived, this might be widely assumed.

On the other hand, this painting contains nothing overtly Communism, and to an objective viewer the thought would probably never cross their mind. They would see the art as an abstract expression of some emotion Guston was feeling, and wouldn’t look at the art from a political point of view at all. The problem is that Communism was talked about so much by the government that people were almost assumed to be Communists until proven not to be. This “objective” viewing which is already made virtually impossible by all the baggage people bring with them when viewing art was further complicated by all the Communist suspicion that was being thrown around.

Conjurer by Hans Hofmann

When I first looked at this picture it looked like a vague representation of an old lady who I would assume is the Conjurer that the painting is titled after. The background seems to be filled with ambiguous shapes that could easily be interpreted as the spirits that the conjurer is conjuring. During the Cold War anything frightening or out of the ordinary could be and often was linked with Communism. Subconsciously people could be put off by the supernatural elements of this painting and then dismiss it as Communist. Mathews talks about this association on p.172 when she says, “communism itself had become for many a symbolic issue that had less to do with a foreign ideology or even the realities of international politics than with the forces of change.”

Others who see this painting could see it as a uniquely American work of art. The supernatural elements that this painting portrays would not be looked upon with favor in most Communist countries where religion (or anything supernatural) was either closely monitored or outlawed altogether. This painting could be seen as portraying the spirit of American freedom.

My Landscape II by Joan Mitchell

This painting is entitled “my landscape” but all the figures in the work of art are so ambiguous that they are basically unrecognizable. Many people would see this as a work that lent a hand in, as George Dondero put it, the “denial of reason” that was promoted by this sort of art. They would take a quick glance at the painting and dismiss it as childish nonsense that defied the orderly beauty that they are used to.

As mentioned earlier, defenders of Abstract art would see this art as a way for Americans to express their freedoms. This country is built on freedom of expression and that is what makes it unique. We should embrace this difference and uphold it by allowing people to speak and create freely. Our freedom is what separates us from the Communists.

Alter by Adolph Gottlieb

While some may see this picture as a harmless work of art, others may see it as a blasphemous attack on religion. The artwork contains lots of figures that almost seem like separate pictures. Many of the pictures seem to be very primitive or even barbaric or animalistic human figures. While we as viewers do not know the artists true intentions in creating this work of art (as is often the case) it could definitely be interpreted as a negative commentary on religion because of the religious title contrasted with the primitive and “unreasonable” figures.

Night Glow by Adolph Gottlieb

This is another painting by Adolph Gottlieb but is extremely different from his work entitled “Alter” that was mentioned above. “Night Glow” is a color painting of a night scene. The most prominent image is a large red dot towards the top of the painting. As mentioned earlier with Philip Guston’s painting, the red could be seen as representative of Communism. In this painting the red dot is the only thing that you can see in the darkness and this could possibly be interpreted as portraying Communism as the way out of the dark.

While those who are against Abstract Expressionist art would say that it is an inherently Communist form of art, supporters of this kind of art would say just the opposite. They would point out that abstract art was made illegal in Russia during the Cold War and say that this abstract art is inherently American. This is because of the aforementioned connection between freedom of expression and abstract art but also because it was in New York City that this art was made popular. It was the Abstract Expressionists that shifted the unofficial art capital of the world from Paris to New York.

Ruth D. Post 5

Ruth Day

The advent of American abstract expressionist art came at a very fragile time in United States history. It was just after Word War 2 and there was a lot of paranoia about everything Russian and communist. Abstract art was a kind of art that could mean many different things to many different people. Some people saw it as a way to express our freedom while others saw it as decadent and dangerous. They saw it as a way for communists to spread their ideas in a way that was confusing and could easily deceive the American public, “… they attacked modern art itself as an instrument of Communist subversion in terms that blended fact with fantasy,” (Mathews, 155). In this way, some Americans, both those in government and civilians, were taking the same tone as fascist leaders such as the Nazis and Stalin. Other Americans, indeed most, took into account these fascist views on art and, even though they may not have preferred it, view abstract expressionism as a way to express American freedoms in contrast to fascist controls, “… regardless of style, subject, or the political beliefs of the artist, to destroy a work of art was to destroy freedom of expression,” (Matthews, 159).

The five images below are all examples of American abstract expressionist art created during the 1940s and 50s. As you can see, it is very difficult to interpret this artwork and figure out what the artist was thinking when he created it. Some of these paintings seem to be just pieces of canvas covered in brightly colored paint. The piece by Mark Rothko doesn’t even seem to have much in the way of shapes. Even the title is just a list of colors. Since one of those colors is red, the painting could have been interpreted as communist. Some of the other examples seem to be a morbid and dark in nature. In Kooning’s piece one may be able to make out human forms that are in very violent positions and covered in blood. Of course, others may interpret this work entirely differently. One thing all of these works have in common is the fact that it was believe that only “the elite” could understand and interpret them. For this reason, many Americans were threatened by art like this. Some accused it of being the work of communists while others were just made to feel uncomfortable. In this decade, it may be hard for us to believe that something as innocent as abstract art could be considered dangerous but during the cold war, most Americans were paranoid.

As for the other three images, Barnett’s piece could have been construed as communist, even though that may have been furthest from the artist’s mind when he painted it. The two red bars on a black background may have been interpreted as communist propaganda because red was the color most associated with communism. Reinhardt’s painting can be interpreted in many different ways. I can’t see how it could be considered communist but I do think it looks like it is lying sideways. The vast majority of interpretations that could result from this painting could make it seem threatening to a paranoid country. The only one left, Kline’s painting, seems very dark and mysterious to me. Again, I don’t see how it could be construed as communist but I do interpret it as having a very violent message.

Though some may consider such abstract art to be un-American (and anything un-American must be communist) because of its lack of tradition, “…labeled any deviation from their own esthetic canon, not a matter of taste, but a deviation from their own esthetic canon,” (Mathews, 162), it is obvious that such paintings express very American ideas. They represent freedom of expression and other American liberties, “… this new generation of New York painters ultimately came to be regarded as the embodiment of the kind of freedom denied their colleagues behind the iron curtain, their works celebrated as quintessentially American,” (Mathews, 168). These combating views of modernism led to many debates over whether some artwork should be shown or allowed to continue existence. Eventually, proponents of modernism won over and the paranoia about abstract art subsided.

William de Kooning, "Excavation"

Mark Rothko, "Red, Orange, Tan, and Purple"

Franz Kline, "Orange Outline"

Barnett Newman, "Adam"

Ad Reinhardt, "Yellow Painting (Abstraction)"

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.