zeynept at turk.net
Fri May 24 23:43:06 MDT 1996
I agree with the effect of "abstract" art. I have no info about what the
U.S. State Dep did, but would not be surprising.
What I think is that, the move into purer forms of abstract is a sign of
hopelessnes, a move to distance onself from the "visible social relations",
which is loathed. Many of the initial abstract expressionists also
subscribed to a very spiritual world outlook. The more hopeless the world
looks, the more attractive it is to turn ones back on it and go elite. Jazz
is now almost elite, it is no longer the from the heart rythms of the
cotton-pickers, who had no instrument but their voices to make express
themselves and their suffering.
The surge of religion, for example, is also another aspect that is related
in my mind to the retreat of the hope left signified.
A funny think to note for me is I don't know how I'm able to get what the
"abstract" artist is trying to convey, but the ideology, in a way yet
inexplicable to me, sometimes seems to show through. A Kandinsky never
leaves with you with a feeling similar to a Mondrian. Maybe it's because I
already know what the artist was thinking, so I'm preconditioned?
>Didn't the U.S. State Department and the Rockefellers promote abstract
>expressionism for frankly imperialist anti-socialist reasons during the
>1950s? Difficult, pure, expensive, and free of visible social relations?
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism