Loyal to Local from Think. Shop. Buy. Local on Vimeo.
While this video is not specifically about art itself, I feel like the message of an emphasis on local interaction can and does also apply to art. I see this especially in installation art, which has been one of Richmond’s iconic symbols over the last few years. Richmond is a small enough city that if you see something, you very well may know who made it, and the ability to see art (like murals) all over the city on such a large scale and know who made it and what their process was gives you a very special connection with it you would not feel otherwise. A secondary point of value for local art is that the viewer feels like the art is for the city, rather than just happening to be there.
There is no question that art was an object of propaganda for both the Soviet and American governments. Each regime used art to represent something about how their economic or political system was superior to the other. However, how far did direct government involvement reach? Was art simply utilized and held up as a symbol by the government, or was it actually falsely created?
It is important to remember that history is written by the winners. If the USSR had won the Cold War, the CIA’s involvement in Abstract Expressionism would most definitely be portrayed in a different light, if it all. It does seem, however, that the USA expedited the rise of the Abstract Expressionist movement to the international stage, which it probably would have done anyway; whereas the USSR directly created and fabricated works of Soviet Realism depicting work scenes and productivity. Eva Cockroft claims in her article “Abstract Expressionism, Weapon of the cold war” that “links between cultural cold war politics and the success of Abstract Expressionism are by no means coincidental, or unnoticeable. They were consciously forged at the same time by some of the most influential figures controlling museum policies, and advocating enlightened cold war tactics designed to woo European intellectuals.” However, this is not entirely true. Abstract expression was inherently apolitical; its founding fathers agreed more with communist values of redistribution of wealth and economic equality than American capitalism. Even regardless of that fact, the American public for the most part hated non-objective and abstract art. President Harry Truman even declared, “If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot [an African bushman].” Congress would never approve massive allotments of taxpayer money for exhibitions of abstract art. So the CIA acted in secret, and were able to do so because many top CIA officials held spots on museum boards of directors and were frequent collectors of the art themselves. Through the indirect funding of many exhibitions across the Western World, the US was able to proclaim: “Look at the individualism that fosters in America. We are so free that even art that is made by government opponents can be shown in major museums.” This was a true statement. Russia, on the other hand, did not have reality on their side. The government had to forge art depicting the productivity and fairness of the Marxist system, because neither were entirely true. In the US, communists displayed their art at major museums. In the USSR, capitalists were sent to prison camps, or even execution. Also, the failure of the first two “five-year plans” under Stalin were so bad that massive food shortages occurred across the state. Neither fairness nor productivity really stood to describe the USSR. A final thing to consider is that the American government furthered a naturally occurring movement with funding for international exhibitions. The Soviet government tried to forge the progression of art history. Art is not something that progresses with direct interference. That may be why today, one sees Abstract Expressionism in the world’s museums, not Soviet realism. James McNeil Whistler and modern Middle Eastern artists share quite a disappointing characteristic: their art was not fully appreciated, or even recognized, during many of their active years. For one reason or another, society did not “find” their work on a mainstream level until either a literal or figurative revolution had taken place. In the 1870s, society encountered difficulties embracing Whistler’s experiments with what we would today call abstract expressionism, or even recognizing his pieces as art. He was, instead, accused of “flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.” It was not until the 1920s, after Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque had shocked and intrigued the art world with cubism that art critics and enthusiasts began to revel in the dramatic and unique work of Whistler. For many Middle Eastern artists working in the mid-20th century, they encountered a similar problem, but instead of the world not being receptive to their art, the world was unable to even see their art. Due to the turmoil of the last 50 years, art produced in the Middle East struggled to find a spot on the international stage. Even today, Iranian artist Ahmad Aali had to get permission from the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control to display his work at a 2013 exhibition in New York. Both articles reflect the apparent fact that society will only stop glancing over a new form of art when they have been distracted enough to it. Picasso and the cubism movement drew the world’s attention to abstract art, and the recent economic boom in the Middle East has drawn the world’s attention to Middle Eastern culture. This is even exemplified in the opening of a new branch of the Guggenheim Collection in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates. Jessica Morgan, a curator at the Tate Modern in London, puts it well for both Whistler and the artists from the Middle East: “often the work had not been shown simply because there weren’t conditions for showing it.” Why would a curator in the late 1800s put up a Whistler if people were not even recognizing it as art; or, how would a curator even acquire Iranian art if the country’s government had declared war against the West? However, the curating of art from previous years can offer an interesting contrast to more recent work, especially now that current Middle Eastern art is more readily available for Western viewing, in no small part thanks to the internet. Something is always waiting to be found. |
Max FrankelI ride bikes, take pictures and study Art IV at Maggie Walker Governor's School. Archives
April 2017
Categories |