Abstract Expressionism and the Cold War
By: Chandler Mahoney
Tags: Art, Art History

Abstract Expressionism and the Cold War

Why one of the most despised movements of its time gained traction with modern America. Chandler Mahoney Apr 5, 2019·5 min read

Convergence. Jackson Pollock. Oil on canvas. 1952. 237 cm × 390 cm.

One of the most popular art-related jokes (aside from “if it’s not ba-roque, don’t fix it”) is zooming in on an artist’s rag or apron, taking a photo, and claiming it’s a Pollock painting before declaring what it actually is, a messy rag, often to make a point about how simple and chaotic his paintings are. Even in his day, Jackson Pollock was mocked for his art, primarily for his messy delivery. Statements of “my child could do that” and the like are rampant in museums when viewing a Pollock painting, and it’s not hard to see why. Acrylic and oil paints were flung onto unprimed and un-gessoed canvas. There’s no focus, no distinct direction given by the paint that often creates a successful painting, and many of his paintings are decaying rapidly due to the unprimed canvas that holds the paint. To a lot of people, looking at a Pollock painting is similar to staring at a two-dimensional, jumble of tangled yarn. It lacks meaning and a statement to those who are just simply viewing his art and have no understanding of his background or the time period he came from. Then why is he, and other artists of his time, so popular?

The main reason: the Cold War was at its height, and the United States was losing the propaganda race. He was an ex-communist and self-declared anarchist, now on the fringes of society and isolating himself. His politics and individualism would be useful against, what the CIA saw, as a social conforming society that was the Soviet Union. He, along with both Mark Rothko and Willem de Kooning, were the tools to showing the extreme individualism of the United States. Abstract Expressionism was the antithesis to Socialist Realism that was hailed in the Soviet Union. Whereas Soviet Realism was defined by its ability to be easily deconstructed by everyone, its naturalistic definition of human forms, and structured style that remains recognizable to this day, Abstract Expressionism lacked those traits. It was and is difficult to grasp by those not familiar with the artists and there are no visible, recognizable forms for a viewer to see. It’s those vasts differences that made Abstract Expressionism so popular with rich of the United States. It had everything Socialist Realism lacked, and there was no visible statement that showed resentment for a capitalist class that Soviet Realism had. It represented pure, American individualism and freedom of expression that the United States promised, attempting to paint itself against the “stifling, acceptable” art of the Soviet Union.

Of course, America in the nineteen-sixties wasn’t all that excited for such a revolutionary movement. Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko were both ex-communists with ties to Latin-American Marxists and defined themselves as anarchists, both putting themselves on the fringes of society and acting as the type Joseph McCarthy despised. McCarthy himself was not a fan of contemporary art and artists, stating “all avant-garde art was communist.” His statement summed up America’s relationship with contemporary art: it was all Soviet propaganda meant to destroy America. The CIA’s idea that Abstract Expressionism was a movement showing freedom of expression that could be used against the Soviet Union and the general public’s idea that all art was a communist ploy greatly contradicted each other. So the CIA couldn’t be explicit in its funding. The organization had to take a step back and be subtle in its efforts.

The members of MoMA board who sponsored the latest New York School had ties to the CIA. Several board members, such as Nelson Rockefeller, were close to those of the funding department of the CIA, and some members themselves like Thomas Braden were apart of the government organization at one point. The money funneled into the exhibit allowed the art world to shift from Europe, which was split between the capitalist west and the soviet east, to America, which painted itself as the rising center for cultural and social progression in art. The New York School gained popularity with those coming from well off backgrounds who bought their work, launching the names Rothko, Pollock and de Kooning to becoming household names. The MoMA and CIA’s backing of the movement acted as the Medicis’ did for Donatello’s career, and as the various popes had for Michelangelo and Caravaggio respectively. The agency was the patron for what is now deemed a great, purely American movement. British expressionists of this time were also inspired by the likes of Pollock, and for a time Abstract Expressionism was the sole desire of wealthy collectors looking for something fresh to add to their collection. Thus, the clash of ideals over what contemporary art was shifted in favor of the latest movement.

Despite all of money funneled into upholding the movement, the jabs and statements against Abstract Expressionism will never end, as the sentiments of “all avant-garde art is communist.” The far-right YouTube channel, PragerU, has a video dedicated to the ramblings of a man following the example of McCarthy in how art has progressed, proclaiming the pinnacle of art to be the Renaissance movement. Yet all criticism of Abstract Expressionism isn’t all inherently reactionary. Leftists critiques of the movement all come to the anti-communist sympathies of those funding the artists, along with mentioning the ties Rothko and Pollock cut with their more radical friends. American liberals tend to look at the movement favorably, viewing it as a step towards the progressive, modern art that sprung from Abstract Expressionism’s tenant of individuality and freedom of expression. For such a convoluted and wild past, the art movement still manages to captivate many people to this day with it’s pure American sentiment.