The reading we did this marking period, titled "MoMA, The Bomb and the Abstract Expressionists," corresponded to our classes current study of abstract expressionism and non-objective art. The piece quotes many people in its assessment of art and society post-WWII.
This provided a different perspective on abstract expressionism. I had always viewed abstract expressionism as a form of art that was natural, bound to happen: the transition had been coming, foreshadowed by Cezanne years before. However, the reading suggested that this artistic style was utilized by artists to express the pain and angst they felt, which was routed in the seeming lack of humanity after the war. In turn, the US government utilized these artists to make abstract expressionism a form of pro-US propaganda. It made me wonder whether radicalism and conservatism, in art, correspond with radicalism and conservatism in politics. The reading also made me consider commercialism in art, and wonder if "Pop Art" was similar in practice to the promotion of abstract expressionism by the US.
The reading was very strong in some facets. The analysis of cultural changes, the feelings of artists, the actions of the MoMA, and the use of art as informal propaganda was very interesting. It raised questions about the purity of art, the commercialism of art, and the way art is politicized, all of which were intriguing. The mix of sources created a unique effect. This was also a weakness in the reading: some of the sources did not add up, which made me question the legitimacy and accuracy of the piece.
2 Comments
|
CategoriesArchives
June 2017
|