MoMA, The Bomb and the Abstract Expressionists
This reading illustrates the themes in art which unfurled after the destruction of World War II. After the world was exposed to the slaughter of millions of innocents whose only crime was their origin, there was no way anyone, especially those in Germany, could pretend they were not surrounded by death. The despair especially affected artists around the world, who could not fathom the pain and sorrow that surrounded them. A French writer who had previously been imprisoned in Auschwitz, wrote, "Everything was false. Faces and books, everything showed me its falseness and I was in despair..."
America, was brimming with anti-Communist culture, and the government poured millions into forms of art which went against Communist and Stalinist ideas of art. The new styles of art and music were to act as the antithesis of the art promoted under Communist and Stalinist rule; as a result, the concept of abstract expressionism was popularized. The abstract expressionists slowly went from expressing themselves through their work to conforming to the whims of the elite. In fact, many prominent abstract expressionist painters, such as Mark Rothko, committed suicide after fearing the loss of their individuality.
With the American government's use of abstract expressionism as a weapon against Communism, it would not be a far stretch to compare America's and Communist countries' use of art as propaganda. While artists under the Communist regime were forced to realistically depict Communist leaders as benevolent, American artists were encouraged to give up their own thoughts for the country's Anti-Communist cultural weapon: abstract expressionism. Although the American government was not as forceful or overbearing, it still utilized a form of freedom and free-expression to combat what it believed was wrong. One of the most notable quotes from the Abstract Expressionism Movement was: "There is no such thing as a good painting about nothing." But is it possible that abstract expressionist pieces were painted about nothing, but for materialistic goals and to fulfill the wishes of the American public?
America, was brimming with anti-Communist culture, and the government poured millions into forms of art which went against Communist and Stalinist ideas of art. The new styles of art and music were to act as the antithesis of the art promoted under Communist and Stalinist rule; as a result, the concept of abstract expressionism was popularized. The abstract expressionists slowly went from expressing themselves through their work to conforming to the whims of the elite. In fact, many prominent abstract expressionist painters, such as Mark Rothko, committed suicide after fearing the loss of their individuality.
With the American government's use of abstract expressionism as a weapon against Communism, it would not be a far stretch to compare America's and Communist countries' use of art as propaganda. While artists under the Communist regime were forced to realistically depict Communist leaders as benevolent, American artists were encouraged to give up their own thoughts for the country's Anti-Communist cultural weapon: abstract expressionism. Although the American government was not as forceful or overbearing, it still utilized a form of freedom and free-expression to combat what it believed was wrong. One of the most notable quotes from the Abstract Expressionism Movement was: "There is no such thing as a good painting about nothing." But is it possible that abstract expressionist pieces were painted about nothing, but for materialistic goals and to fulfill the wishes of the American public?
the_bomb_and_moma.pdf |