mccarthyism and liberalism’s influence made on the abstract … · 2018-04-09 · link between...

Student International Journal of Research, ISSN 2508-1454(online) Volume-5, Issue-2, April 2018

www.sijr.ac 1 McCarthyism and Liberalism’s Influence Made on the Abstract Expressionist Movement in the Artistic Sphere

McCarthyism and Liberalism’s Influence Made on the Abstract Expressionist Movement in the Artistic Sphere

Kunhee Lee

Gyeonggi Global School, South Korea

[email protected]

____________________________________________________________________________________

[Abstract] Political McCarthyism, characterized by the blind fear of Communism and Leftist intellectuals,

became prominent in the 1950s, with the U.S. seeing yet another rise of the "red scare". Perceived as a form of

conservatism, it may be puzzling to comprehend its coexistence with other eminent cultural, political and

intellectual strands of Liberalism, which were as much prominent in the 1950s. Nevertheless, McCarthyism

and Liberalism, the two seemingly opposite movements, have arguably made a sizeable impact on modern

American art, portrayed in the form of Abstract Expressionist art movements. Whether Abstract Expressionist

artworks was used as a form of cultural weapon against Communism or the works merely expressed the

American heritage of freedom, it is inevitably up to the artists’ original intentions. This paper examines the

link between art from the Abstract Expressionist movement and the political landscape of the 1950s United

States.

________________________________________________________________________________________

[keyword]

McCarthyism, The Second Red Scare, Liberalism, Abstract Expressionism, Cold War, post-World War II,

Harry S. Truman, Communism, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Modern Art

____________________________________________________________________________________



Introduction

The term “McCarthyism” is derived from

Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy and his vain

efforts in attempting to expose communists and

other “loyalty risks” in the mid-20th century United

States. This post-World War II era was marked by

the upsurge of previously muted anticommunist

sentiments due to the war, as well as the rise of

unfounded accusations at a rate that matched the

rapid transformation in popular culture. Often

dubbed the “Second Red Scare”, the period was

charged with not only political repression, but also

censorship on many levels.

Interestingly, a polarizing political ideology existed

contiguously to its extreme rightist counterpart. To

understand the context of Liberalism in the 1950s,

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s series of New Deal

programs and regulations enacted in the 1930s must

also be assessed, as the programs were considered

fundamental to the “American standard of living” .

Life after the war changed tremendously, urging the

American public, including war veterans and

workers who exerted much effort to support the war,

to return to their lives of freedom and expect a

better life than before. Once back home, in addition

to the country establishing itself as one of the most

powerful countries in the world, majority of

American citizens longed to embrace the spirit of

optimism and the era of postwar prosperity .

Perhaps an oversimplified definition of Liberalism

in the 1950s America can be described as the

revival of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal that

was later redesigned into Truman’s Fair Deal.

In the seemingly disconnected artistic sphere of

postwar United States, the New York City-based

Abstract Expressionist movement emerged to the

surface. With artists such as Jackson Pollock, Mark

Rothko and Franz Kline paving the way for the

movement, critics would label their works

“American-style Paintings”. The movement

consisted of two subdivisions of art works, “Action

Paintings”, which came first, and “Color Field

Painting” that emerged slightly after. Though the

reason for the movement’s emergence remains

ambiguous, it can be argued that postwar

McCarthyism and Liberalism made a substantial

impact on Abstract Expressionism throughout the

1950s.

The Political Climate during the McCarthy Era

Commonly dubbed “The Second Red Scare”, the

McCarthy era marked the peak of anti-Communism

after World War II, reigniting Unites Sates’

previously subdued hostility with the USSR. The

US-USSR alliance broke off almost immediately

once the war ended and the two superpowers

entered a state of the notoriously long Cold War.

With Senator McCarthy leading the first act of a

series of self-protective responses and many

branches of the government following through with

the idea, the “system of McCarthyite political

repression” was in place. What McCarthyism

prompted was fairly simple in theory: to eliminate

all people threatening the welfare of, and loyalty to

America, hence, anyone who tries to undermine

national security .

The intensity of this seemingly simple goal

McCarthy proposed for the country can be

explained through groundless accusations, which

eventually led to imprisonment or other legal

penalties from the lack of due process, surveillance

and violations on individual privacies, as well as

heightening the underlying atmosphere of suspicion

across the nation . The 1950s version of the witch-

hunt began when the junior Wisconsin senator Joe

McCarthy decided to announce at his signature

speech in Wheeling, Virginia in 1950, “I have here

in my hand a list of 205…a list of names that were

made known to the Secretary of State as being

members of the Communist Party and who

nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in

the State Department” . Though McCarthy kept

changing the number on the so-called list from 205,

57 and then to 81, they proved to be not completely

fictitious . His speech, then, almost immediately led

to the establishment of investigative government

committees, such as the Subcommittee on the

Investigation of Loyalty of State Department

Employees, also known as the “Tydings

Committee”, to begin searches for these violators of

loyalty.

Allegations made by McCarthy targeted people

across all occupations, and quickly prompted many

government agencies to conduct investigations

based on his charges, many times ignoring whether

or not the accused really committed a crime or had a

connection to Communist-related groups. Any signs

of sympathy towards Communism would

immediately put the people supposedly capable of

threatening the country’s national security under

extreme legal scrutiny. Especially with some of the

accused being real spies, not all accusations proved

to be fictitious, and each time a penalization was to

be executed, it brought more power and credibility

to McCarthy.

People brought into questioning ranged from

members of the State Department to professors at

renowned universities, and even went far as to



accuse war heroes of being tied to Communism .

The criminalization of Communism reached a point

where “the government…created situations that

would force otherwise law-abiding men and women

to break the law” in order to forge evidence against

law-abiding Communists and punish them . Unless

these people were caught in the midst of selling

American secrets and blatantly committing

espionage, there was no way for the investigators to

find out if these alleged traitors were really breaking

the law to dissent against their country. Instead, the

Justice Department employed another method,

which relied on the accused snitching on others,

demanding that the “witnesses inform on others”,

otherwise finding them in contempt .

Reinforced by strings of domestic loyalty programs

as well as foreign policies attempting to halt

Communism from spreading worldwide, postwar

US sought to not only preserve national security but

also contain Communism. For example, President

Truman’s Executive Order 9835 commissioned in

1947 was essentially a mandate to federal

employees across all levels to take a loyalty oath to

the US Government, with the establishment of the

Loyalty Review Board that oversaw any suspicious

activities that “designates as totalitarian, fascist,

communist or subversive” . On the international

sphere, the Truman Doctrine, a pledge to contain

Communist threats to Greece and Turkey was

announced in 1947. Such commitments to deter

Communism only fueled the oppressive sentiments

of the McCarthy era. Other catalysts to aggressions

against Communism included USSR’s atomic

bombing testing, in addition to the start of the

Korean War in 1950, heightening the harsh political

climate. As the early 1950s came along, it was

ridiculous to consider that one person could be both

American and Communist .

The loyalty-security program that McCarthy pushed

for eventually became much exaggerated to a point

where America was suffering from anti-Communist

hysteria in the 1940s and 1950s. Though the man

responsible for the nationwide panic during the mid-

20th century has passed away, the term associated

with the individual hasn’t died with him.

McCarthyism’s definition has since evolved, though

it determinedly carries the essence of skepticism

and political repression of the 1950s US, into

referring to accusatorial, ungrounded

generalizations.

FDR’s New Deal and its Association with the

Redesigned Liberalism in the 1950s

Liberalism, simply speaking, is a political

philosophy and belief system that is strongly

associated with open-mindedness, to be free from

limitations and living lives according to one’s own

intentions . Though it is difficult to pinpoint

Liberalism’s origin and root of the term because

there are debates on when its exact point of genesis

is, Liberalism has since gone through many

transformations. To truly understand the term, it is

essential that one examine the ideological,

economical political and other social realms of

when the term was used. In the context of post-

World War II US, however, Liberalism held the

notion of pushing for democracy and equality, but

also in support of containing Communism like its

McCarthy supporters and opposing totalitarianism.

While many scholars agree that McCarthyism

overwhelmingly repressed the political climate of

1950s United States, others argue that its more

liberal counterpart was able to coexist because it

ideologically fulfilled the American heritage of

freedom and equality. The legacy behind Liberalism

in the 1950s mostly originates from a series of

legislative programs preceding a couple decades

before. In the 1930s during the Great Depression,

President Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed for the New

Deal to alleviate the economically unfortunate

circumstances the country was suffering from. The

programs were a series of reformative promises the

president made on a federal level that guaranteed

what is perceived to be fairness by moderate

government intervention to sustain the economy as

well as help the underprivileged . This idea shaped

how Liberalism was to be identified in the 1950s

contemporary political sphere.

Liberalism in the 1950s US is marked by the

ideology’s transition and readjustment in the midst

of postwar economic prosperity. Though the spirit

of the New Deal programs remained, it was not

fully embraced until the decade after, when the

more progressive ideas of Liberalism, which

included suffrage, child labor laws and other issues

related to civil liberties, were in consideration. It

isn’t to say that the liberalists of the era stopped

caring about equality and civil rights, but with the

contemporary situation beginning with the anti-

Communist anxiety dawning over the country, the

situations in the 1950s provided a great stepping-

stone for improvement for the next generation. The

same politicians also believed that FDR’s New Deal

was that of the socialist movement, and demanded a

proof of loyalty, nationalism and “American-ness”.

Surprisingly, though, “the new liberals were also

militantly anti-Communist” . The Americans for

Democratic Action (ADA), the most recognized

organization for advocating liberalism, portrays the

position its key ideology took in the course of ten



years. For example, the ADA has voiced its

concerns for the repressive and unfair nature of

Truman’s loyalty oaths in its beginning stages;

however, a few years later in 1950, ADA decided to

support the draft of a bill that contained the very

provisions that they complained about 1947 . The

change in attitude can be traced back to the strict

McCarthy era sentiments that could easily label the

liberalists ‘radicals’, or worse, Communists.

Despite the imminent difficulties in strongly

supporting liberalism in the 1950s, the postwar

liberalists decided to follow the political trend in

their own way. For instance, though they openly

supported anti-Communistic values of the

McCarthy era, they were not afraid to target the

elitist background of McCarthy’s victims. This also

worked out well for the accusers, because it was

apparently more comforting and brought a sense of

superiority to attack upper class gentlemen than

other “bedraggled souls” anyways .

The Communist Control Act is claimed to be the

epitome of liberals’ “acquiescence to and

participation in the post-World War II Red Scare –

an ironic response by self-proclaimed civil

libertarians to the insecurities of the postwar

world” . The Act, which prohibited and

criminalized anyone who identifies with the

Communist Party of the United States, was effective

beginning 1954. By limiting an individual’s choice

to political membership, the act in a way violated

the civil liberties; however, the act was hardly

noticed by liberals throughout the nation.

Intriguingly, the act was never used against anyone

except for two minor cases, and “has had no

significance as a piece of anti-Communist

legislation” ever since .

The confusion that liberals experienced during the

era has made positive impacts on the decade

following, as the 1950s was a time for the liberals to

sort out their ambitions in protecting civil rights and

America’s freedom, especially after McCarthy

swept through the nation.

Embracing Abstraction and Rejecting Subject

Matter and Meaning

The term Abstract Expressionism was first used in

the US in 1929 to describe Wassily Kandinsky’s

works, which explored the relationship between

color and form more than trying to portray the

literal translation of the world. However, the term

became more defined in 1946 when Robert Coates

dubbed this newly rising form of artistic expression

Abstract Expressionism in regards to the “New

York School” artists’ artworks in the New Yorker .

Like its name, Abstract Expressionism and its

works feature a relatively incoherent style compared

to that of its traditional art form. Stylistically,

abstract expressionist paintings had two major sub-

branches “Action Paintings” and “Color Field

Painting” that had its own distinct characteristics;

while the former style is well-known to have

spontaneous qualities that employed more

aggressive techniques such as dripping or

splattering, the latter genre is popular for its solid

color applications that puts more emphasis on

consistency of form. Additionally, The recurring

theme of a large canvas, much different from

artworks that are painted on more intimate, smaller

canvases, can be easily observed in the works of

Abstract Expressionist artists that focused on

creating a sublime experience for the audience.

Consequently, the unconventional movement and its

works sparked a debate between those who were

more exposed to relatively more realistic portrayals

of life through European art movements such as

realism and impressionism, and those who were

already appreciating the new play on form, shape

and colors.

A recognizable example of the abstract

expressionist “action painting” can be seen in many

of Jackson Pollock’s paintings that utilized the

techniques of dripping and pouring paint on a large

canvas. Pollock’s Autumn Rhythm (Number 30)

painted in 1950 illustrates his distinctive style of the

poured painting style, featuring a 105” x 207”

canvas of intricate and overlapping, but flexible

lines and whirls . On the other hand, Mark Rothko’s

series of rectangular blocks of colors is

representative of the “color field painting”.

Rothko’s No. 10, also painted in 1950 and on a

large canvas of 7' 6 3/8" x 57 1/8", depicts four core

blocks varying in size, of white, blue, yellow and

white again ; at initial inspection, its simplicity and

strangely complementary colors stuns the viewer

into consider the reason behind the artist’s

reputation. As Rothko famously said, “To paint a

small picture is to place yourself outside your

experience, to look upon an experience as a

stereopticon view or with a reducing glass.

However you paint the larger picture, you are in

[the experience]” . Often widely known as the

pioneers of the movements and belonging to the

New York School, the two artists and their works

were pivotal to making the first steps for art in the

1950s.

There were viewers that considered Abstract

Expressionist and avant-garde art alike to have no

value as art, especially in the postwar United States.

President Truman who held office after the war

sums up of the public’s opinion on Abstract

Expressionism, saying, “If that's art, then I'm a



Hottentot” , signifying in a roundabout way that the

movement doesn’t look quite like what was

conventionally perceived as art at the time. The

“seeming lack of order, of structure, of form, of

technique, has been constantly deplored”

especially throughout the movement’s initial stages

of expansion. Additionally, works that are now

much appreciated such as Rothko’s No. 10

mentioned earlier, was considered too “radical for

the time that a trustee of the Museum [of Modern

Art] resigned in protest” .

Several art critics were much in favor of abstract

expressionism, commenting on its aesthetics and the

artists’ spiritual connection to their works. The

works were commended on the “skill and the

discipline which underlie the intuitive spontaneity

of the painting’s surface” as well as the spiritual—

and almost religious—connection the artworks

provided. Mark Rothko had even mentioned

personally, “The people who weep before my

pictures are having the same religious experience I

had when I painted them” , further highlighting the

correspondence the viewer can share with the artist.

In the eyes of two prominent art critics, Clement

Greenberg and Harold Rosenberg, the works were

fascinating enough to spark a heated discussion

regarding the interpretations of the works of rising

artists in the Abstract Expressionist sphere. While

both were proponents of the movement, each critic

provided different analysis, focusing on aspects that

they each thought were the most important value in

the artworks. Greenberg supported artists like

Pollock and Willem de Kooning in his 1955 article

“American-Type Painting”, stating that the

simplified colors, shapes and lines the artists chose

to use, shows flatter and two-dimensional surfaces,

which allows for only the more essential parts of the

subject matter to remain . On the other hand,

Rosenberg wrote in “The American Action Painters”

article in 1952, that the canvas is an “arena in which

to act… What was to go on the canvas was not a

picture but an event,” giving more value to the act

of creating these works more than the artworks

themselves . However, his argument was more

applicable to the “action painting” more so than its

counterpart. With one critic highlighting the

technical aspects and another articulating more on

how the artist felt during the creative process, the

Abstract Expressionist art movement was curated

with their insights.

Many of the Abstract Expressionist artists have

previously been backed by FDR’s Federal Arts

Project, under the aforementioned New Deal arts

program in the 1930s, before the World War II and

the containment against Communism began. “[T]he

New Deal expanded its reach to provide relief to

working artists in an array of social programs, the

group, now renamed the Artists’ Union, emerged to

represent the united voice of at least 1,500

struggling artists…” . Another form of government

endorsement for artists was the infamously

controversial Advancing American Art exhibition in

1946 , arranged to be on tour to internationally,

especially to countries considered vulnerable to

communism . The exhibition displayed 79

modernist paintings by 47 artists, most of them

created by big name artists recognized even today,

such as Georgia O’Keefe, Stuart Davis and Masden

Hartley . However, Advancing American Art, upon

its initial opening, ignited many discussions among

policy makers regarding its intended audience, the

value of the artworks displayed, as well as the

purpose of the showcase. “In addition to serving as

an advertisement for American artistic

achievements, the exhibition was intended to

showcase the creative and intellectual freedom that

American artists enjoyed in a democratic society.

Ironically, this message of American freedom

would be silenced by an unprecedented act of

censorship by the United States government” .

A slight conflict in the government endorsement to

modern art at the time spurted from the fact that

some of the artists, including David Alfalo

Siquieros, Adolph Gottlieb, William Baziotoes have

been communist activists . In addition to the artists’

affiliation, the artworks also received negative

feedbacks from strict McCarthyists such as

congressman George Dondero, a Republican from

Missouri. He said in his 1949 speech in US House

of Representatives “All modern art is Communistic”,

adding that “Modern art is actually a means of

espionage…if you know how to read them, modern

paintings will disclose the weak spots in U.S.

fortifications” . Dondero was also the one to add

that such art intends to “aid in the destruction of

standards and our traditions” , challenging the

movement’s identity. A year later, the senator is

found to be blatantly criticizing modern art for its

distortion and ugly form . Contrary to Dondero’s

argument, there were also policymakers and

government organizations that saw the Abstract

Expressionist movement’s value in its

characteristically American freedom in expressing

whatever the artist intended to.

Declaring that the Abstract Expressionist movement

was representative of either the two ideologies is a

dangerous statement to make, though the movement

was clearly influenced by the two. It was perhaps

the very reason that America was looking to

establish its identity that Abstract Expressionism

was able to act as a cultural tool for diplomacy as

well as fulfilling the need for artists’ expressions.



Abstract Expressionist Art as a Political Weapon

of War

Started in New York City, Abstract Expressionism

was essentially a symbol for America in its

unapologetic portrayal of unique individualism and

freedom. The CIA saw value in this eccentric avant-

garde art form for the same reason that made the

public shy away from appreciating it. While some

politicians like Dondero claimed that modern art

was actually a mere trickery to spread Communism,

other government supporters of the movement were

in favor of it for the opposite reason; more

specifically, the CIA thought the works can be a

cultural vehicle to spread the spirit of freedom

representative of the America. More specifically,

the abstraction the artists were illustrating showed

the world that America supports the freedom of

expressing personal experiences in such novel

forms of art as opposed to the USSR’s strict barriers

set for individuals seeking to express themselves

artistically. Hence, CIA’s covert plan of using the

art as a weapon against the USSR under the nose of

“public hostility” sentiments and accusations to the

movement as anti-American was underway.

An example of government affiliation with art can

be glanced through the Museum of Modern Art

(MoMA) in New York City and its international

programs postwar. The museum established itself as

not only a patronage to growing contemporary

artists and art even from its founding days by Abby

Rcokefeller in 1929, but also a key figure in

influencing American foreign affairs. The

connection between the New York-based modern

art museum and government offices become more

apparent during the war; MoMA was once

described as the “latest and strangest recruit in

Uncle Sam’s defense line-up” . The president of the

museum throughout the decades before and after the

war, and son to its founder, Nelson Rockefeller

frequently went back and forth from his role at

MoMA to fulfill his duty to the country. For

example, during World War II, he was the

Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (CIAA), an

intelligence agency concerned with Latin America.

At the agency, he not only established his position

in the government through the involvement in

foreign affairs, but also met René d’Harnoncourt

and Porter A. McCray that Nelson Rockefeller will

later recruit to be in directorial positions to aid him

in running MoMA . Like the two CIAA recruits and

the president himself, most people who held higher

roles at the museum were involved with the

government in one way or another, whether it is the

State Department, Foreign Services or the CIA.

The connection to the CIA and other government

agencies provided an opportunity for MoMA

became a contractor to the country’s Congress for

Cultural Freedom (CCF), and was able to curate the

most important art exhibitions related to modern art

throughout the Cold War years . The museum’s

status as a contractor made it easier for CIA to

intervene and fabricate a front for its endorsement

in the Abstract Expressionist movement. The CIA,

then, through CCF’s mouthpiece and status was

able to act as an official sponsor and provide

necessary support for those who were in favor of the

art form. The museum’s association with the CIA

was critical in organizing its international program

launched in 1952, under the Rockefeller Brothers

Fund, a subcontractor to the government supposedly

to study international affairs. With a five-year grant

of $625,000 and McCray as the director, the

museum organized for its avant-garde artworks to

tour the world through international exhibitions.

“Masterpieces of the Twentieth Century” in 1952

and “Modern Art in the United States” in 1955 were

the byproducts of the program . Specifically,

MoMA’s international show “The New American

Painting” was devoted to displaying Abstract

Expressionist art in 1958, and was secretly funded

by the CIA’s Farfield Foundation .

The justification of utilizing Abstract Expressionist

art and the movement stems from the disparity of

cultural standards between the two superpowers, US

and USSR. Barnhisel notes that Abstract

Expressionism was able to “[turn] the Soviets’

arguments on their head…as material evidence of

the cultural superiority of a society based on

cultural freedom, individualism, and capitalism” .

The intensity of the cultural “arms race” in the

artistic world can be grasped by the clandestine

nature of the projects. The seemingly unassuming

and effortlessly painted canvases looked like the

perfect art style to portray to the world. These

paintings “were portrayed as simultaneously

‘autonomous’ from…actual economic and political

life in the Cold War, and yet also as symbolic of a

kind of ‘free,’ ‘creative’ cultural practice, as

characteristic of a ‘free America’ standing up

against the threat of the Soviet Union…” . Jackson

Pollocks’ paintings were particularly frequently on

tour on international exhibitions because his “drip

painting and flat canvases looked like freedom: the

individualistic search for self and the apparent

silence on political matters, together with the

raucous freedom of the New York painters…had the

free spirits…to do battle with the Soviets” .

As a former case officer at the CIA Donald Jameson

stated, “Abstract Expressionism was the kind of art

that made Socialist Realism look even more stylised

and more rigid and confined than it was.” . As



opposed to USSR’s limitations placed on artistic

expressions, there were no barriers to which the

artist chose to paint or depict. In essence, Abstract

Expressionism was reinforcing the American-ness

by acting as a “weapon of Cold War”, attempting to

paint a picture of the domestic atmosphere of

freedom for the world to see. Even when the

“liberals, understood its collection [at MoMA] in

political terms as a symbol of the ‘freedom…

fundamental to a democratic society”, at the end of

the day traced back to the ideology of America as a

country . As even President Eisenhower’s

statements also agreed, he was open about publicly

“endorsing cultural freedom and equating

tendentious art with totalitarianism…[this] bolstered

the campaign to demonstrate that modernism

expressed not subversion but quintessentially

American freedom” .

The relationship between Abstract Expressionism

and the CIA during the 1950s was interesting in the

fact that the government could only support the

movement undercover, due to the public opinion on

modern art as well as and the need to prevent other

governmental organizations’ potential backlash.

Abstract Expressionist Art as a Tool of

Expression

As an art form that deviates from the traditional

style, Abstract Expressionism fully embraced the

artists’ freedom to reign in the world of colorful

compositions and structures, even under censorship

of the McCarthy era. Especially during this strictly

restricted era for the arts, there was a common

belief that if what was portrayed on the canvas was

abstract, then there was no way that the subject

matter could be seen as political, thus, safe from

accusations or condemnations for being

Communist-driven; even if the work truly contained

Communistic or other political messages, it would

be intended for a certain type of audience . Given

the oppressive political atmosphere of the 1950s US,

it seemed ironic that “abstract expressionism was

for many the expression of freedom: the freedom to

creative controversial works of art, the freedom

symbolized by action painting, by the unbridled

expressionism of artists completely without fetters” .

Indeed there was irony, but it was not contradictory

in a sense that there was more emphasis placed on

the new style rather than the subject matter.

As supported by those who were fascinated by

cultural exchanged in the 1950s, American modern

and experimental art was not only garnering more

attention but also increasingly flouring because of

the American ideals of appreciating freedom and

individualism . To truly embrace these two

important ideas, many artists abandoned their

previous leftist sympathies or any previous ties to

politics that existed before and during the war .

Being tied down to a political belief may hinder the

independence of the artist, inevitably giving a bias

to the audience when appreciating the works and

even to the artist when painting. Even when the

artist chooses to sell or exhibit their works with a

certain organization, there is an association between

the two parties is immediately established. Hence,

being politically charged can simultaneously be a

liability to the freedom to express without being

herded down by the McCarthy era government and

hurt the value of the work. Cockcroft supports this

claim by adding that this was possible “because

Pollock, as well as most of the other avant-garde

American artists, had left behind his earlier interest

in political activism” .

Artists involved in this movement were eager to

testify in favor of the movement, as well as to their

versions of the value behind their own works.

Robert Motherwell, a renowned artist of the

Abstract Expressionist movement, explained in the

Museum of Modern Art Bulletin in 1951 that the

movement is “a fundamentally romantic response to

modern life—rebellious, individualistic,

unconventional, sensitive, irritable” . Mark Rothko

refuted his critics who claimed that the large

canvases he utilized was to make up for the lack of

depth in his works by stating, “The reason I paint

them, however…is precisely because I want to be

very intimate and human. To paint a small picture is

to place yourself outside your experience…

However you paint the larger picture, you are in it” .

Even contemporary reviewers agree, saying,

“however exciting (or mystifying) [Pollock’s works

were, they] had no discernible political message,

and were hardly populist in their appeal” .

The topic of the artwork is ultimately up to the

artist’s discretion, but interpretation of the work can

be personalized based on the viewer. In the 1950s,

art critics were the key players in defining and

conceptualizing the works to in regards to the

contemporary situation . The frenzies of the

brushstrokes or the oversimplification can evoke

various emotions whereas it could signify the theme

of the post-war sentiments filled with anxiety and

trauma. Perhaps Pollock’s famous inconsistency in

his paintings is representative of his alcohol

problems, but the art to the artist himself, “there is

pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the

painting comes out well”. The painting is no other

than a genuine illustration of his thoughts and it is

best to just “try to let it come through” naturally on

to the canvas . The much emotional Rothko, in

explaining his minimalistic art has said, “I’m



interested only in expressing basic human

emotions—tragedy, ecstasy, doom, and so on…

And if you…are moved only by their color

relationships, then you miss the point!”

Abstract Expressionism, like its name, was a

medium for artists to freely express themselves,

even in the midst of a repressive culture. Regardless

of each works’ meaning behind them, abstract

expressionist art and its rise gave recognition to

many skilled artists like Pollock and Rothko.

Conclusion

The existence of the two contradictory ideologies’

significance lies in the fact that the two attempted at

defining what it means to be truly “American”,

especially after the postwar chaos. McCarthyism

based its principles in containing Communism, but

more importantly on emphasizing the persecution of

“Un-American” activities, while Liberalism

embraced characteristics of America, which are

commonly known as freedom and equality. These

political beliefs have inevitably made an impact on

culture, and more specifically on the art world in the

1950s, giving birth to persuasive arguments based

on historical evidence.

The role that Abstract Expressionism and the works

involved in the movement played in the coexistence

of the two opposing ideals was that it not only drew

a parallel with the political climate at the time, but

also unified the two by emphasizing the American

identity postwar. Though it will be impossible to

exactly pinpoint what the artists of the Abstract

Expressionist movements intended, there is no

doubt that they too were American citizens who

experienced the same 1950s America.

★★★★★



References

Burt, A. (2015). American Hysteria : the Untold Story of Mass Political Extremism in the United States.

Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com, 126

Franklin D. Roosevelt, "State of the Union Message to Congress, January 11, 1944," available at

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/stateoftheunion.html

Beck, K. (1987). What was Liberalism in the 1950s? Political Science Quarterly, 102(2), 233-258.

doi:10.2307/2151351, 233.

Schrecker, E. (2004). McCarthyism: Political Repression and the Fear of Communism. Social Research, 71(4),

1041-1086. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971992, 1047.

Ibid, 1043.

Ibid, 1044.

Burt, 125.

United States Department of State. (2007). Chapter 4 - McCARTHYISM AND COLD WAR: Diplomatic

Security in the 1950s. Retrieved December 17, 2017, from

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/176702.pdf, 122.

Burt, 127.

Shrecker, 1057-8.

Ibid, 1058.

Executive Order No. 9835 (Harry S Truman's Loyalty Program). (2003). In J. S. Baughman, V. Bondi, R.

Layman, T. McConnell, & V. Tompkins (Eds.), American Decades. Detroit: Gale. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ2113110157/BIC1?u=columb

iau&xid=1a7dac2a

Burt, 137.

Freeden, M. (2015). Liberalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University

Press.

Mcauliffe, M. S. (1976). Liberals and the Communist Control Act of 1954. The Journal of American History,

63(2), 351-367. doi:10.2307/1899641, 351.

Theoharis, A. (2007, May 31). The Politics of Scholarship: Liberals, Anti-Communism, and McCarthyism.

Retrieved December 18, 2017, from http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/theoharis.html

Ibid.

Ibid.

McAuliffe, 367.



Ibid. 366.

Morris, A. (2005). The cultural geographies of Abstract Expressionism: painters, critics, dealers and the

production of an Atlantic art. Social & Cultural Geography, 6(3), 421-437. doi:10.1080/14649360500111378

Pollock, J. (1950). Autumn Rhythm (Number 30) [Painting found in George A. Hearn Fund, 1957, The

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York]. Retrieved December 21, 2017, from

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/57.92/

Rothko, M. (1950). No. 10 [Painting found in The Museum of Modern Art, New York]. Retrieved December

21, 2017, from https://www.moma.org/collection/works/78594

Lipsey, R. (1997). An Art of Our Own: the Spiritual in Twentieth-century Art [PDF]. Boston: Shambhala.

Saunders , F. S. (1995, October 21). Modern art was CIA 'weapon'. The Independent. Retrieved December 3,

2017, from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

Arnason, H. H., (2005). Excerpt from American Abstract Expressionists and Imagists. In Landau E. (Ed.),

Reading Abstract Expressionism: Context and Critique (pp. 245-250). Yale University Press. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bk1z.36, 249.

The Museum of Modern Art. (n.d.). Mark Rothko. No. 10. 1950 | MoMA. Retrieved December 21, 2017, from

https://www.moma.org/collection/works/78594

Arnason, 249.

Lipsey, 316.

Greenberg, C. (1955-04-01). "AMERICAN-TYPE" PAINTING. Partisan review, 22(2), 179-96

Rosenberg, H. (1952). The American Action Painters. ARTNews, 22-26.

Capozzola,127.

Barnhisel, G. (2015). Cold War Modernists : Art, Literature, and American Cultural Diplomacy, Retrieved

from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com, 55.

McComas, J. (2015). Reconstructing Cold War Cultural Diplomacy Exhibitions. Stedelijk Studies,(2).

Retrieved December 6, 2017, from https://www.stedelijkstudies.com/journal/reconstructing-cold-war-cultural-

diplomacy-exhibitions/

McComas

McComas

Saunders, F. S. (2013). The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. New York: The

New Press., 213.

Ibid, 212-213

Barnhisel, 58.



Végso, R. (2013). The Naked Communist: Cold War modernism and the politics of popular culture. Retrieved

December 23, 2017, from https://muse.jhu.edu/book/20531, 93.

Saunders (1995).

Cockcroft, E. (1985). Pollock and After: The Critical Debate (F. Frascina, Ed.). New York, NY: Harper &

Row., 126.

Ibid, 127.

Saunders (1995).

Heins, M. (2017). Abstract Expressionism, Machismo, and the Cultural Cold War(Unpublished master's thesis).

New York University. Retrieved December 12, 2017, from

www.fepproject.org/commentaries/Ab%20Ex%20Macho.pdf, 5.

Ibid, 31.

Barnhisel, G. (2015). Cold War Modernists: Art, Literature, and American Cultural Diplomacy. New York:

Columbia University Press., 3.

Kozloff, M. (1973, May 01). American painting during the cold war. Artforum, 11, 43. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/docview/1311511061?accountid=10226

Capozzola, C. (2004). Art History's McCarthyism. New Labor Forum, 13(2), 126-131. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40342481, 130.

Saunders (1995).

Burstow, R. (1997). The Limits of Modernist Art as a 'Weapon of the Cold War': Reassessing the Unknown

Patron of the Monument to the Unknown Political Prisoner. Oxford Art Journal,20(1), 68-80. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1360716, 72-3

Barnhisel, 21.

Guilbaut, S. (1983). How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art Abstract Expressionism, Freedom, and the

Cold War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press., 201.

Ibid, 201.

Barnhisel, 3.

Cernuschi, C. (1999). The Politics of Abstract Expressionism. Archives of American Art Journal, 39(1/2), 30-

42. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1557868, 32.

Cockcroft, 129.

Landau, E. (Ed.). (2005). Reading Abstract Expressionism: Context and Critique. Yale University Press.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bk1z, 12.

Lipsey, R. (1997). An Art of Our Own: the Spiritual in Twentieth-century Art [PDF]. Boston: Shambhala, 316.



Heins, 6.

Morris, 426.

Pollock, J. (2005). My Painting. In Landau E. (Ed.), Reading Abstract Expressionism: Context and Critique

(pp. 139-140). Yale University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bk1z.14, 140.

Lipsey, 316.

mccarthyism and liberalism’s influence made on the abstract … · 2018-04-09 · link between...

Documents