Monday, March 16, 2015

Origins and uses of abstract expressionism



·         What is the relationship between the creation of Abstract Expressionism and the political use of Abstract Expressionism?  If viewers knew the origins of this style of painting, would exhibits of these paintings still make for effective U.S. foreign policy?

8 comments:

  1. The creation of Abstract Expressionism seems based in the removal of traditional valuation of art and a liberation from previous restrictions on artistic creation. According to Rosenberg, its purpose was not to change the world, but to create a "world" within the piece and to be an action, not represent a object. These goals were very personal and apolitical. In contrast, the political use of Abstract Expressionism seems to use the art to change opinions of foreigners and create a unique American culture, which contrasts with the original goals of Abstract Expressionism. If viewers knew the origins of this style of painting, they may think that the utilization of the art as U.S. foreign policy was contradictory and went against the meaning of Abstract Expressionism. It may still have been effective in relaying a unique phenomenon of American art, but its use as political propaganda appears ironic and ignorant in regards to the art's origins, which may have eroded the effectiveness for viewers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Abstract Expressionism was an art movement that was geared towards the emotional development of the artist based on a critical understanding of feeling and sense of self, while maintaining freedom from the constraints of a concrete world. It evolved from a break in the creation of art based on real subjects, and focused on the significance of the artistic process as the subject instead. The U.S. State department, in it's export of American paintings of this genre for propaganda use, reduced this complex relationship of artist, canvas, and viewer to a representation of the political and "spiritual" freedom of the United States-while shedding the genuine emotional layers of the work. Furthermore, the production of art as a material good, as often the case in the U.S. reduces it's individual meaningfulness. Foreign viewers of this exported work are by definition not the intended viewers of the artist, and if they had been aware of the State's purpose, probably would have felt the use of this work inappropriate and disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While the use of “Abstract Expressionist” art as a political tool would almost certainly be opposed by artists, it could feasibly serve as a beneficial political tool. According to Rosenberg, abstract art removes “the distinction between art and life.” Its creation communicates an artist’s unadulterated experience, free of conscious criticisms or political biases. If the experience conveyed in the work is one that the American government wants others to associate with the nation such as freedom, security, or happiness, it may beneficially influence foreign audiences. Such use of Abstract Expressionist works would only be effective, though, if the audience receives it in the “proper” way. As Rosenberg explains, effective interpretation of the work can only be achieved if the viewer is aware of “the assumptions inherent in its mode of creation.” If the viewer were to analyze the work critically from a technical art perspective, he/she might think that American artists were simply amateurish. However, if the viewer understands that the production of the work itself tells a greater story about the artist’s (American) experience, and that experience is positive, then the art could be an effective way to promote the superiority of the American way of life.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The development of abstract expressionism seems somewhat opposed to its political deployment. While abstract expressionism values having no plan and focuses on simply painting to create art, the government carefully charted out the ways this unique style could oppose a traditional European set or art values. If one could see behind the curtain at the US efforts to weaponize art, the impact of the paintings would be severely dulled. The paintings would be perceived as highly planned and coordinated, not the chaotic free spirit that they are supposed to be born from. Luckily, this form of art was able to successfully challenge the per-conceived notions and continues to thrive today.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Abstract Expressionism shows the decline of eurocentric traditions to a more individualistic, self-centered form of art. The entire movement sought to move away from traditional forms of art to create a new one that has no rules.Abstract Expressionism is utilized in the political realm as a means of the US claiming an art style as its own. Although Rosenberg argues that Abstract Expressionism is not to be recognized as an art conscious , the US adopted it as its own form of art conscious. The origins of these new paintings embody new ideas of art and challenges the interpretations of what is classified as art. Its completely unique presence would still have been effective as means to US foreign policy because art, even if defined, is completely objective.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Abstract Expressionism exhibits a systematic break in the creation and understanding of art. As an artistic movement that was inherently American, it provided a liberated sense of what art was and how an artist should go about creating art. Exhibited as something that was a result of American artistic consciousness, Abstract Expressionism could have been used to showcase Americans artistic talent. Presented in contrast to artistic schools that were considered European (and therefore culturally superior) Abstract Expressionism was an artistic movement that allowed artists to have real visceral emotional experiences through art. Artists no longer had preliminary sketches and re-drawings, the act of painting itself was art in and of it self and what the act yielded was thought to have been just as culturally significant as European methods of art. Using Abstract Expressionism, in terms of foreign policy, would showcase American ideals of freedom and liberty in an art form. If viewers were to understand that Abstract Expressionism developed a new philosophy of art and the methods of creating it, they would perhaps respect it as a movement.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Although, influenced by the Surrealism and Cubism art movements, Abstract Expressionism originally emerged as an art form and was coined as a term in 1919 in Germany in connection with the Russian artist Wassily Kandinsky (Moffat, Charles), it later reemerged and became more commonly associated with Post-WWII American Art. Nevertheless, starting with its quietly inherent European foundations and expanding from there, its defining connection with U.S. culture promoted by U.S. foreign policy was tenuous at best. As Rosenberg substantiates, the purpose of this form of abstract art, which, by 1951 through a process of 'Americanization' came to broadly suggest any type of non-geometric abstraction, was to create a "world" within the canvas and to be an action, not merely to represent an object. Despite the fact that this unique style of art did indeed represent a break from previous traditional European forms of art, its political deployment by the U.S. State Department on a broad scale was highly ironic. As some of my colleagues have already stated in one way or another, the fact that the United States government mass produced, materialized, and exported a 'weaponized' version of this style of art, intending to make it their own and utilize it in order to fabricate a uniquely 'US' high culture during this Cold War era was highly counterproductive to the personal and apolitical origins of abstract art. Given all of this, there is no doubt that if people understood the true beginnings of Abstract Expressionism and then analyzed how the U.S. Government at large went about using it as part of its political agenda, the true significance, genuineness, and effectiveness of the art form in these cases would be severely compromised.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Question 1:

    I believe the relationship between the creation of Abstract Expressionism and the political use of Abstract Expressionism in the US during the Cold War was a rather complex one. There was much debate in Congress as to whether the US should look to use Abstract Expressionism as a political weapon. On one side, I believe people would have been against Abstract Expressionism because it was a cultural revolution during a time where the US political scene did not want any revolutions of any kind. Going back to McCarthyism and the red scare, politicians convinced people they should be scared of the unknown, and that the unknown could lead to communism. Americans were supposed to follow very strict guidelines with gender roles and what was considered a successful life. Looking to "express yourself" definitely did not fit in to the American psyche during this time.

    On the other hand though, Abstract Expressionism was all about expressing yourself through art. It valued individuality and not adhering to the norm of society. This would have been a good political weapon because it would have shown the world that the US had a lot of culture, especially with this being a cultural revolution, and also that the US wanted individuals to celebrate who they are. Since communism was all about following the rules of the government with no exceptions, it would have appealed to different countries that the US wanted you to be who you wanted to be. This is also why I believe exhibits of this type of art would have been a very good political maneuver, as they would have shown the individuality that the US represents. This could have appealed to different countries over the rigid rules of communism and so been a good political maneuver.

    ReplyDelete