Skip to main content

The Problem of American Painting Revisited

"The problem of American painting, had been the problem of subject matter. Painting kept getting entangled in the contradictions of America itself. We made portraits of ourselves when we had no idea who we were. We tried to find God in landscapes we were destroying as fast as we could paint them. We painted Indians as fast as we could kill them. And during the greatest technological jump in history, we painted ourselves as a bunch of fiddling rustics.
By the time we became Social Realists, we knew that American themes were not going to lead to a great national art. Not only because the themes themselves were hopelessly duplicitous, but because the forms we used to embody them had become hopelessly obsolete. Against the consistent attack of Mondrian and Picasso, we had only an art of half truths, lacking all conviction. The best artists began to yield, rather than kick against the pricks.
And it is exactly at this moment when we finally abandon the hopeless constraint to create a national art, that we succeed for the first time, in doing just that; by resolving the problem, forced on painting by the history of French art, we create for the fist time a national art of genuine magnitude. And if one finally had to say what it was that made American art great, it was that American painters took a hold of the issue of abstract art, with the freedom they could get from no other subject matter, and finally made high art out of it."
- introduction to Painters Painting (1973)

From the introduction to one of the seminal documentaries about American painting we read that for decades, we painted ourselves "when we had no idea who we were." Today the problem of contemporary American painting is that as soon as we came to a single realization of ourselves and identified what American art truly is, we forgot it with equal speed. What is left, are remnants of constant revising and reediting of old concepts and the result is a rehashed version of what preceded the coalescence into a true national art which crystallized in Abstract Expressionism. Worse is that today, against the backdrop of corporate influence and the glorification of materialism, we are left with virtually no one that can communicate what it is that makes American art great, only with those that tell us that it once was.
After the battles they have waged with the public, with themselves and against all odds, the painters have taken a cease fire and retreated from the barrage of aesthetic pseudo-values and incessant commodification of painting, so valiantly pushed to the frontlines by collectors and art speculators. It is as if they, and not the artists, have the last word on what is and what isn't acceptable art and how art should be experienced by the public they claim to represent. It is as if they should be the ones at the forefront of the attention and claim the highest prestige because they are the ones that have the power to either make or break the artist. So the artist retreats even further.
Even though the statements above, were written in 1973, they seem to ring true even today. Not much has changed in those 4 decades since then. As a result of the public's willingness to accept any political and religious dogma, America is more entangled in its own contradictions than ever before and despite all the technological advancements, what we are left with is shiny barbarism. War and inequality still permeate the American society, our landscapes are still being destroyed in the name of profits and national interests. An in order to produce a national identity, politicians and academics have turned to eradicating and omitting certain unfavorable aspects of history from textbooks and our culture.
The answer to the problem doesn't lie with the top artists of today. They have become too complacent as a result of the attention and wealth lavished upon them and became all too willing to pull with the collectors and museum directors who supplied them. The answer lies within each and every one of us. We have to answer for ourselves whether to yield or to start kicking.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The King’s Speech: On Zizek’s Speech Impediment

First, I would like to point out that in no way am I offering any sort of diagnosis of Slavoj Zizek’s speech impediment.   This article/essay is a simple exercise in perception, and yes, a Zizekian analysis.   What do we get when we apply Zizek’s theories to Zizek himself?   The answer may or may not be surprising, depending on whether you are a Zizek follower or an anti-Zizek propagandist.    In an analysis of The King’s Speech, Zizek points out that the king’s stuttering makes the king self-conscious and in a way embarrassed.   As a divine ruler, the king of England should be a confident authority figure perfectly capable of assuming the role of the head of state.   Delivering messages to the masses through oratory on the radio is just one of the ways that the king’s authority is projected to the public and if the people hear that in the voice of the king is a slight imperfection, this may be read as a fault that might preclude the king fr...

Art City in Name Only

To some this blog post might be a little too confrontational or controversial, especially if you are a resident of Asheville, like I am, and you hold on to some very unfounded ideas of what this city represents to artists, like I am, and you believe that that this city has carved itself a very nice and comfortable niche in the national artist community, which I wholeheartedly dispute. But since probably nobody pays attention or reads this blog anyway, I think that might as well justify my discontent with the situation present at this particular time, and that is the disconnect between the now almost mythological arts scene and the reality, which for the most of us is rather grim and not getting better. Before I delve even deeper into this problem, let me qualify a few things in hopes that I might shed a light on what I am actually talking about in reference to “arts” and silence the possible criticism that may or may not be coming my way. By arts, I mean a subject and form of makin...

Tulsi Gabbard? No thanks!

Why is the US so in love with its military? Following the first Democratic debate, the name Tulsi Gabbard became the most searched keyword on Google.   Why?   The first obvious answer is that she is new, doesn’t appear to be in the pockets of some elite corporation, yet, and did really well rebuffing her opponents’ ridiculous claims about Afghanistan, the Taliban and 9/11.   She was also smart or savvy enough to appear on Joe Rogan a few weeks ago, garnering millions of views..   So why is it that despite all this attention she also appears to have no answers to the issues of class, income inequality, the wealth gap, student debt and the massive credit debt, among other pressing mainstream issues like the environment, race and gender issues, and so on.   Her answer seem to be a rather flat, ‘I’m military, I know what it’s like to be in the military, protracted wars are silly, send everybody home.’   Granted, the trillions the US spends on proxy wars...