Last spring, I posted a blog entry entitled "The Ghost of Greenberg" that viewed 20th century American Art through an economic lens and then traced that history to my personal undergraduate experience at RISD. Aesthetics and stylistic trends can be traced back to supply and demand issues; in the case of the 20th century New York art market, one reason old world masterpieces went out of vogue for the avant-garde was because there is a finite amount of old world masterpieces. On the contrary, avant-garde work is produced today, so there is an on-going supply for these works. It makes, therefore, economic sense to champion contemporary work over antiques as there is more supply and you can therefore make more profit in the market.
I then made the argument that Clement Greenberg champions the avant-garde in the form of Abstract Expressionism, specifically Jackson Pollack, whom he called the greatest living painter of his day. Greenberg believed that form is higher and more intellectual than content. But I critiqued this by saying that this attitude is sort of an absurd statement and that it is ultimately subjective. It's like comparing apples and oranges, some people like content and some people prefer form, but to argue that one is superior to another is kind of silly. In fairness, focusing on form to the point of abandoning content was avant-garde and novel. Pollock, De Kooning, Guston (oh man do I love Philip Guston; hopefully I'll write a blog post just about him.) did contribute to the pantheon of painting in a new way. My objection is to the hierarchy their discoveries created in the real world, specifically, a school of people focusing on form looking down on people who are more interested in content. For what it is worth, my opinion is both content and form should be studied as the best art usually addresses both.
From here, I told a first hand anecdotal history of my experience of this schism and its consequences for the community. Comparing RISD student's reactions to Bush's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to the student reactions during the Viet Nam war of the 1960s and 70s was a moment of focus, for example.
I did not intend to write a follow up to this blog post, but some kind peers of mine wrote to me in response to my posting. They informed me that they related to what I wrote and then supplied me to some internet links which they thought I'd find illuminating. These links were articles on the political connections between abstract expressionism and the CIA during the Cold War. I'll put one here by Michael R. McBride that is brief and articulate. A quick google search of "Jackson Pollack CIA" brings up lots of articles on the topic from a variety of sources, including the New Yorker. Furthermore, in Harvard Professor Louis Menhand's latest book, "The Free World", it is exposed that it was not just abstract expressionism which was sponsored and monitored by the CIA, but a full cornucopia of news outlets, magazines, movie studios, museums, television stations, etc. For example,
"In fact, debriefing was a widespread Agency ("the Agency" is in reference to the CIA) practice with Americans who went overseas. Major news organizations, including TIME, CBS, and The New York Times, cooperated with the CIA for many years, in some instances providing cover jobs for CIA agents. And the Agency planted agents in overseas organizations, and not only in the journals, such as Encounter, published by the Congress for Cultural Freedom. The Paris Review was founded in 1953 as a cover for its coeditor, Peter Matthiessen, who was a CIA agent. He could report back on what he heard in Paris.
Louis Menhand, "The Free World", pg. 710
This exposes our philosophy of freedom and demystifies the illusion of Abstract Expressionism being without ideology; to know the hand of the state was promoting and subsidizing specific artists, communication centers and news outlets destroys the argument that said artists and individuals rose to notoriety through some type of democratic meritocracy. The state gave a helping hand to Abstract Expressionism, a vision that just so happens to be the exact opposite of what the state's ideological and literal enemy, the USSR, was.
At this point, it is interesting to compare and contrast Soviet artwork and the artwork of post-WWII United States.
Soviet art had different periods, but during Stalin's reign, he directed that there was only one accepted aesthetic, Socialist Realism. As McBride lays it out in his Medium post, Socialist Realism is -
1. Proletarian: art relevant to the workers and understandable to them 2. Typical: scenes of everyday life of the people 3. Realistic: in the representational sense 4. Partisan: supportive of the aims of the State and the Party
Steel Workers. Stalin-era (1950). Painted by V.Malagis. Oil on Canvas, 162 x 200cm.
This description could be the exact opposite of a Jackson Pollock painting.
Number 8. (1949). Painted by Jackson Pollock. Enamel on canvas, 71 x 133cm.
Abstract Expressionism was made using gestural brush strokes to document the artist's freedom, spontaneity and personal expression. It is not directly relevant to the working class (although a member of the working class may like it for any reason), it was the opposite of typical, it did not represent anything literally ... although it is now revealed to me that it is related to the aims of the State, because it turns out the state was subsidizing and promoting the artist who created it.
It was interesting to put form and content into a historical perspective and to see the potential origins of specific political prejudices to aesthetic philosophy. Art is extremely influential on its viewers; artists like Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera in Mexico were open members of a Communist party (Kahlo even had a brief affair with Leon Trotsky!); their murals and paintings were adored and continue to be both in the United States and abroad. With this in mind, the CIA was very intelligent to covertly sponsor an aesthetic, one that made a regular viewer look up and think "I could do that".
Marxism will give Health to the Sick (1954). Painted by Frida Kahlo. Oil on Masonite, 76 by 61 cm.
On the one hand, this can be read as a critique of Pollock; a put down. And to continue this line of thought, an insult to craftspeople who labor and perfect their control of a complex substance (paint). It can be read as art is obtainable to anyone. This allows for great art to be made, but it also permits and allows anything without checks, so a lot of ... "sophomoric vanity" let's call it ... is available, as well as exploitative content, harassment, murder simulation, slander, hate speech, etc.
On the other hand, it is very empowering; why does art have to be technically difficult to make? Why does it have to be representational? To whom does it need to live up to what standard? In a free society, life can be about exploring ones individuality instead of competing and conforming to the rules of an authority. This is another very common takeaway from viewers. Therefore, Pollock will continue to be a significant artist as he creates discussion. The takeaway? Be a rugged individualist; play by and make your own rules.
I have a third take; I'd argue that Pollock had a nice sense of color theory and composition. There is a lot more radical design decisions being made in his work which are distinctly his own; it is just in a unique language of his own creation and therefore misunderstood. I do not believe that his body of work could have been made by just about anyone, and even if it could, who would devote their lives to the production of these bodies of work other than someone who found great relief and fulfillment in the process itself? Who would finally have the imagination to take a canvas off the wall or an easel, place it on the floor, and then paint? Pollock was a very talented artist and an important one. My only critique of his work is an unfair one; there are few artistic periods in Pollock's life; his style pretty much doesn't change. But this is only because his life was cut short. Pollock was only 44 years old when he died. Who knows where is career would have gone had he lived another 10, 20, 30 years?
The journey of the artist's gestural brush I believe to be more blunt and without fanfare in the abstract expressionist period of the artwork of Philip Guston, an artist I wish to write more about at a later time due to his indispensable significance, his biography bringing up so many themes relevant to the 20th century, to say nothing of his stunning, diverse body of artwork he produced throughout his career (Guston only lived to be 67). I am curious if Guston had any CIA or state connections during his abstract expressionism period, and if he did, did this inspire his epic, jaw dropping late period work of which we seem to live in the shadow of?
Dial (1956), painting by Philip Guston. Oil on Canvas. 182.9 x 193 cm.
Today I believe this era of Art History is critical to learn, as it presents a conflict in culture. The Cold War was about ideas; it was a battle for hearts and minds; while it did play out in proxy wars all over the world, and within both the United States and the USSR there are horrid examples of civil war, state violence and class conflict, it also played out in culture. Art was taken very seriously on both sides. This made the 20th century an incredible time culturally and unique from other eras. No one can argue that after World War II, the world began to look very different.
One final thought; half way through writing this, I watched on Youtube a discussion entitled "Has Culture Gotten Worse Lately? w/ Catherine Liu & Eileen Jones" on the Jacobin station. In it, they played the now re-tweeted Matt Damon interview on Hot Wings where he gives a materialist/Marxist explanation as to why there are "no good movies" to watch on streaming services. Damon explains this is in part that the DVD market is over. In the past, producers could make surplus profits not only off theater ticket sales, but also the ongoing, continuous sale of DVDs. With the switch made to streaming, this second market is now gone, putting a pressure on movie makers to make all their surplus profit on theater tickets alone. Therefore, movies made today are about getting as many people in a theater as possible. It is about appealing to as many people as possible, not niche markets or people looking to see new ideas as opposed to straight up entertainment. Therefore, there isn't much room for the avant-garde.
As the conversation continued, the guest Eileen Jones described how as they retired from a college teaching position, the new student body seemed to have no education or care for form and were more interested in content. She makes the accurate critique that super hero movies, for example, do not explore pacing, camera angles, story structure, lighting and color palette in the same way as, say, a Godard film does. Instead, the art lies in plot, plot, plot. When she was teaching, it was about "how the story is being told" not "what is the story"; a schism of form and content.
Have we come full circle? A socialist youtube station is advocating for form over content. Is this new generation pushing back against the CIA endorsed "free" formalists with their Wokeism? Wokeism is concerned first and foremost with exposing the injustices which lie at the heart of our banal, screen addicted existence. This is a noble task. However, people don't stick around for what a story is; the best stories in the world can be told horribly. People will only hear about the injustices of the world if those stories are told well, which advocates for form.
These days in my personal art practice, I have made a silly amount of 9 inch by 1 inch handwoven bookmarks as well as placemats and coasters woven with a loom. I have enjoyed the meditative process and having to communicate how I feel simply through color, texture and pattern. I love how I am making utilitarian objects that have use and can be used every day. The hand woven objects have no direct visual communication; they are not illustrations. They only communicate with form. But they do communicate because I choose colors I think my wife will love, and also colors I love. I choose interesting patterns to mimic, like the fibonacci sequence, that mimic nature and therefore have some type of holy status in a Saint Francis of Assisi kind of way. Ironically, the craft artist who only has formal components to work with sometimes makes the most meaningful, ideological work. My objects do not suffer from planned obsolescence or are made with cheap, disposable materials. That right there says volumes, and I'll continue saying that for the time being.
No comments:
Post a Comment