Imagine the time, the attention to detail..............
Reclining Pan, attributed to Francesco da Sangallo, Italian, 1494–1576, c.1535,
Did the CIA invent Abstract Expressionism
The Abstract Expressionists emerged from obscurity in the late 1940s to establish New York as the center of the art world – but some say they became pawns of US spies in the Cold War.
By Alastair Sooke
In the immediate aftermath of World War Two, something exciting happened in the art world in New York. A strange but irresistible energy started to crackle across the city, as artists who had struggled for years in poverty and obscurity suddenly found self-confidence and success. Together, they formed a movement that became known, in time, as Abstract Expressionism. It is currently the subject of a major exhibition, featuring 164 artworks by 30 artists (including Willem de Kooning, Jackson Pollock, and Mark Rothko), at the Royal Academy of Arts in London.
One of the most remarkable things about Abstract Expressionism was the speed with which it rose to international prominence. Although the artists associated with it took a long time to find their signature styles, once the movement had crystallized, by the late ‘40s, it rapidly achieved first notoriety and then respect. By the ‘50s, it was generally accepted that the most exciting advances in painting and sculpture were taking place in New York rather than Paris. In 1957, a year after Pollock’s death in a car crash, the Metropolitan Museum paid $30,000 for his Autumn Rhythm – an unprecedented sum of money for a painting by a contemporary artist at the time.
The following year, The New American Painting, an influential exhibition organized by New York’s Museum of Modern Art, began a year-long tour of European cities including Basel, Berlin, Brussels, Milan, Paris, and London. The triumph of Abstract Expressionism was complete.
Unwitting helpers?
Before long, though, the backlash had begun. First came Pop Art, which wrested attention away from Abstract Expressionism at the start of the ‘60s. Then came the rumor-mongers, whispering that the swiftness of Abstract Expressionism’s success was somehow fishy.
The art critic Max Kozloff examined post-war American painting in the context of the Cold War. He claimed to be reacting against the “self-congratulatory mood” of recent publications such as Irving Sandler’s The Triumph of American Painting (1970), the first history of Abstract Expressionism. Kozloff went on to argue that Abstract Expressionism was “a form of benevolent propaganda”, in sync with the post-war political ideology of the American government.
In many ways, the idea seemed preposterous. After all, most of the Abstract Expressionists were volatile outsiders. Pollock once said that everyone at his high school in Los Angeles thought he was a “rotten rebel from Russia”.
According to David Anfam, co-curator of the Royal Academy exhibition, “Rothko said he was an anarchist. Barnett Newman was a declared anarchist – he wrote an introduction to Kropotkin’s book on anarchism. So here you had this nexus of non-conformist artists, who were completely alienated from American culture. They were the opposite of the Cold Warriors.”
Despite this, however, Kozloff’s ideas took hold. A few years before they were published, in 1967, the New York Times had revealed that the liberal anti-Communist magazine Encounter had been indirectly funded by the CIA. As a result, people started to become suspicious. Could it be that the CIA also had a hand in promoting Abstract Expressionism on the world stage? Was Pollock, wittingly or not, a propagandist for the US government?
Soft power
A number of essays, articles and books followed Kozloff’s piece, all arguing that the CIA had somehow manipulated Abstract Expressionism. In 1999, the British journalist and historian Frances Stonor Saunders published a book about the CIA and the “cultural Cold War” in which she asserted: “Abstract Expressionism was being deployed as a Cold War weapon.” A synthesis of her argument is available online, in anarticle that she wrote for the Independent newspaper in 1995. “In the manner of a Renaissance prince – except that it acted secretly – the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years,” she wrote.
The gist of her case goes something like this. We know that the CIA bankrolled cultural initiatives as part of its propaganda war against the Soviet Union. It did so indirectly, on what was called a “long leash”, via organizations such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), an anti-Communist advocacy group active in 35 countries, which the CIA helped to establish and fund. It was the CCF that sponsored the launch of Encounter magazine in 1953, for instance. It also paid for the Boston Symphony Orchestra to travel to Paris to participate in a festival of modern music.
According to Saunders, the CCF financed several high-profile exhibitions of Abstract Expressionism during the ‘50s, including The New American Painting, which toured Europe between 1958 and 1959. Supposedly, the Tate Gallery couldn’t afford to bring the exhibition to London – so an American millionaire called Julius Fleischmann stepped in, stumping up the cash so that it could travel to Britain. Fleischmann was the president of a body called the Farfield Foundation, which was funded by the CIA. It is therefore possible to argue that important British abstract painters, such as John Hoyland, who were profoundly influenced by the Tate’s exhibition in ’59, were shaped by America’s spymasters.
Saunders also highlighted links between the CIA and New York’s Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), which was instrumental in promoting Abstract Expressionism. Nelson Rockefeller, the president of MoMA during the ‘40s and ‘50s, had close ties with the US intelligence community. So did Thomas Braden, who directed cultural activities at the CIA: prior to joining “the Company”, he was MoMA’s executive secretary.
‘Shrewd and cynical’
Even today, however, the story of the CIA’s involvement with Abstract Expressionism remains contentious. According to Irving Sandler, who is now 91, it is totally untrue. Speaking to me by phone from his apartment in New York’s Greenwich Village, he said: “There was absolutely no involvement of any government agency. I haven’t seen a single fact that indicates there was this kind of collusion. Surely, by now, something – anything – would have emerged. And isn’t it interesting that the federal government at the time considered Abstract Expressionism a Communist plot to undermine American society?”
David Anfam is more circumspect. He says it is “a well-documented fact” that the CIA co-opted Abstract Expressionism in their propaganda war against Russia. “Even The New American Painting [exhibition] had some CIA funding behind it,” he says. According to Anfam, it is easy to see why the CIA wished to promote Abstract Expressionism. “It’s a very shrewd and cynical strategy,” he explains, “because it showed that you could do whatever you liked in America.” By the ‘50s, Abstract Expressionism was bound up with the concept of individual freedom: its canvases were understood as expressions of the subjective inner lives of the artists who painted them.
As a result, the movement was a useful foil to Russia’s official Soviet Realist style, which championed representative painting. “America was the land of the free, whereas Russia was locked up, culturally speaking,” Anfam says, characterizing the perception that the CIA wished to foster during the Cold War.
This isn’t to say, of course, that the artists themselves were complicit with the CIA, or even aware that it was funding Abstract Expressionist exhibitions. Still, whatever the truth of the extent of the CIA’s financial involvement with Abstract Expressionism, Anfam believes that it was “the best thing the institution ever paid for”. He smiles. “I’d much rather they spent money on Abstract Expressionism than toppling left-wing dictators.”
Alastair Sooke is art critic of The Daily Telegraph.
Scholastica Illustration, 1931, M.C. Escher
Escher created the Scholastica suite to illustrate the book The Terrible Adventures of Scholastica. Jan Walch, Escher’s acquaintance, wrote the book about the witch of Oudewater, a small town in the Netherlands famous for its Witch’s Scales. During the 16th century people accused of witchcraft could try to prove their innocence in the Weighing House. Defendants wanted to be tried in Oudewater because they did not rig their scales. As a result of this honesty, no one was ever found guilty of witchcraft
None of the woodcuts in the book were given titles by Escher. In addition to the six large woodcuts, there are 13 smaller woodcuts. Most of them are illustrated letters, but there is a title page and a vignette that concludes the story. The “Letter A” was created for the book, but never printed, and therefore, not picture here. Scholastica was printed in an edition of 300 in 1933. Almost every woodcut from Scholastica is available for purchase.
Josef Albers
Josef
Albers (March 19, 1888 – March 25, 1976) was a German-born American artist
and educator whose work, both in Europe and in the United States, formed the
basis of modern art education programs of the twentieth century.
In
1950, Albers headed the department of design at Yale University. In 1962, as a
fellow at Yale, he received a grant from the Graham Foundation for the Advanced
Studies of Fine Arts for an exhibit and lecture on his work. Albers also
collaborated with Yale professor and architect King-lui Wu in creating
decorative designs for some of Wu's projects. Among these were distinctive
geometric fireplaces for the Rouse (1954) and DuPont (1959) houses, the façade
of Manuscript Society, one of Yale's secret senior groups (1962), and a design
for the Mt. Bethel Baptist Church (1973). Also, at this time he worked on his
structural constellation pieces.
In
1963, he published Interaction of Color which presented his theory that colors
were governed by an internal and deceptive logic. The very rare first edition
has a limited printing of only 2,000 copies and contained 150 silk screen
plates.
Geghama mountains, 1926, Martiros Sarian
I like the sameness and the difference in the colors don't you?
The artist, Martiros Saryan (February1880 – May 5,
1972) was an Armenian painter, the founder of a modern Armenian national
school of painting who was heavily influenced by the work of Paul Gauguin and
Henri Matisse.
MY WRITERS SITE: Are we looking at the actual Mona Lisa?
MY WRITERS SITE: Are we looking at the actual Mona Lisa?: On August 21, 1911, an Italian citizen named Vincenzo Peruggia (October 8,1881 – October 8, 1925) a professional thief, stole the Mon...
Moonlit Landscape, 1904, Cuno Amiet
I fond this to be so peaceful and easy on the eye.Amiet created more than 4,000 paintings, of which more than 1,000 are self-portraits…wow…..anyway, he had a predilection for experimentation and his many landscapes paintings depict many winter scenes, gardens and fruit harvests. While Amiet took up themes of expressionism, his works retain a sense of harmony of color grounded in the French tradition.
Art for the Pop of It: Artist Peter Max allegedly siphoned over $4M from ...
Art for the Pop of It: Artist Peter Max allegedly siphoned over $4M from ...: By Kathianne Boniello Famed pop artist Peter Max and his wife Mary — who committed suicide in June — allegedly siphoned $4.6 millio...
Long Distance from the portfolio Revolving Doors, 1926, Man Ray
Man Ray (Emmanuel Radnitzky;
August 27, 1890 – November 18, 1976) was a visual artist who spent most of his
career in Paris. He was a significant contributor to the Dada and Surrealist
movements, although his ties to each were informal. He produced major works in
a variety of media but considered himself a painter above all. He was best
known for his photography, and he was a renowned fashion and portrait
photographer. Man Ray is also noted for his work with photograms, which he
called "rayographs" in reference to himself.
Ray’s assembled collages were
linked to jazz with their improvised forms and rhythmic colors. A decade after
the collages were made, they were replicated as stencil-colored prints in
Paris, where Man Ray had settled in 1921. The portfolio was issued by Éditions
Surréalistes, the publishing arm of the emergent Surrealist writers and artists
of whom Man Ray was a leader.
The love story that created the Symphonie Fantastique.
The love story that created the Symphonie Fantastique.
Harriet Constance (Smithson) was a Shakespearean actress, famous in her day who was also the first wife and muse of Hector Berlioz. She was born the daughter of actors in 1800, at Ennis, Co. Clare, Ireland. Extremely beautiful and graceful, by 1827 she was one of the best known and highly favored classical actors in the world.
At the height of her career, she became the figurehead for the French Romantic movement. She was said to have been the inspiration for Hector Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique, the first great romantic symphony, after Berlioz, who was born near the French Alps, saw her on stage in 1827 and became infatuated with her.
According to Berlioz, who was 23 at the time, the moment he saw Smithson, he fell in love with her and drowned her in letters and gifts despite never having met her. He even took and an apartment near her home so he could see her leave and return home and watch her, through windows, until she went to sleep. It was insane but standard behavior for him. As a teen, Berlioz suffered from isolation and bouts of uncontrollable mood swings and dramatic fantasies of love and loss.
Berlioz wrote to a friend, “You don’t know what love is, whatever you may say. For you, it’s not that rage, that fury, that delirium which takes possession of all one’s faculties, which renders one capable of anything.”
He formed the idea of a “fantastic symphony” portraying an episode in the life of an artist who is constantly haunted by the vision of the perfect, unattainable woman. The symphony would have the "idée fixe" (“fixed idea”), a recurring theme of rising longing and falling despair – a depiction of gripping obsession and the epitome of Romanticism.
For her part, Smithson simply ignored the conductor. However, in 1832 a friend invited her to a performance of Lélio, a sequel to Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique. Realizing the symphony was about her, she sent Berlioz a message congratulating him. Berlioz wrote back and received permission to meet her.
The two became instant lovers despite the opposition of both families and friends. (And despite neither speaking the other’s language) One story has it that upon meeting Smithson, Berlioz asked her to marry him. She said no. He took out a vial of opium from his pocket and swallowed a lethal dose. She became hysterical and agreed to marry him. Berlioz produced the antidote from another pocket and swallowed that. They married at the British Embassy in Paris on October 3, 1833. Their only child was born a year later.
But the conductor's obsession faded quickly. Smithson became possessive, resentful and jealous of Berlioz as his musical success continued, causing Berlioz to avoid her at first and then to move out. He eventually fell into the waiting arms of Marie Recio, a singer at the Paris Opera, who became Berlioz’s second wife. Smithson and Berlioz divorced seven years after they married. She died, alone, in March 1854. Berlioz died in Paris in 1869 at age 65. Symphonie Fantastique lives on.
Ricio
The finished product of Berlioz obsession ….Symphonie Fantastique…. is cast in five movements: the first a dream, the second a ball where the artist is haunted by the sight of his beloved. After a country scene, the fourth movement slips into a nightmare: “Convinced that his love is spurned, the artist poisons himself with opium,” explained Berlioz. “The dose of narcotic plunges him into a heavy sleep. He dreams that he has killed his beloved, that he is condemned, led to the scaffold and is witnessing his own execution.”
Then the work descends into the thrillingly horrific Dream Of A Witches’ Sabbath and artist’s perfect beloved transforms into a whore and is cast into Hell (He may have added this to the work based on the rumor that Smithson had an ongoing affair her manager, who was married) The rumor was….in fact, it still persists….that Berlioz wrote the work while high as a kite on opium.
Part One describes a young man who sees and immediately falls in love with the woman of his dreams. To represent Harriet, Berlioz had a special idea; he wrote a musical theme which he called his idée fixe, which appears in the first movement and then reemerges throughout the Symphonie fantastique in different forms and played on different instruments.
Part Two the artist finds himself in a variety of locations and situations, but everywhere he goes his beloved’s image appears before him and disturbs his peace of mind.
Part Three, he finds himself one evening in the country and hopes that his loneliness will soon be over.
Part Four shows the artist - convinced that his love is unappreciated – poisoning himself. The dose of opium plunges him into a sleep accompanied by the most horrible visions. He dreams that he has killed his beloved, that he is condemned and led to the scaffold, and that he is witnessing his own execution.
In the fifth and final part, he sees himself at a witches' sabbath, where a terrifying troop of ghosts, sorcerers, monsters of every kind, gather for his funeral. In the midst of it all, his beloved appears but in a grotesque form.
MY WRITERS SITE: Isn't this a wonderful painting...it tell the stor...
MY WRITERS SITE: Isn't this a wonderful painting...it tell the stor...: The first coat, 1892, Vladimir Makovsky
The Sopranos
Federico
Castelluccio, the actor who played Furio Giunta, on The Sopranos
once discovered a painting in a museum had been mislabeled. He bought it for
$70k and it ended up being worth $10 million.
Almost is good enough
In this century, beauty stopped being
important. Art increasingly aimed to disturb and break moral taboos. It was not
beauty, but originality, however, achieved and at whatever moral cost, which won
the prizes. Roger Scruton, Why Beauty Matters
I choose art and beauty
I choose art and beauty, vague as
those terms are, against ugliness and horrors in which we live today. For somebody to look at a flower or listen to
music does something to one, has a positive effect, and being surrounded by
ugliness and horror does something negative.
So I feel my duty not to betray those poets, scientists, saints, singers,
troubadours of the past centuries who did everything that humanity would become
more beautiful. - Jonas Mekas, via Happiness is a Choice You Make
Pablo Picasso’s real name
Pablo
Picasso’s real name is Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno
María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso
10 Most Expensive Works Of Art You Can Buy Today
10 Most Expensive Works Of Art
You Can Buy Today
• BY
MARIANA FERNANDES
The artistic world is a complex
one, much like the artists itself. Many people have trouble coming to terms
with all the money that is involved with this particular field, but that
doesn't stop true lovers of spending millions on exclusive pieces. Of course,
the biggest chunk of a given piece's worth stems from the artist who painted
it. When we take into consideration that a painting was created by a master
like Leonardo Da Vinci, it becomes easier to understand why so much money is
involved.
And when we talk about large sums
of money, we truly mean fortunes. It's not as uncommon as one would think to
find a work of art sold by more than a regular Joe would make in a lifetime.
And today, we're taking a look at the 10 most expensive works of art out there,
that have the potential to break your bank.
10 MASTERPIECE BY ROY
LICHTENSTEIN: $165 MILLION
Pop art was a very interesting time for art in
general. It's always interesting to see how much it can change based on what
artists are inspired by. And in the case of pop art, it was an avalanche of
colour, comics, and an overall challenging tone to what people were used to see
in this world. It was an important movement that came to prove anything can be
considered art!
This movement inspired a great
many artists, including Roy Lichtenstein. Created in 1962, the piece is an
amalgamation of the artist's signature. And it became so popular, it was sold
in auction for $165 million. So if you're thinking about making an offer to
Steven A. Cohen, be prepared to spend some serious money!
9 NU COUCHÉ BY AMEDEO MODIGLIANI:
$170.4 MILLION
Amadeo Modigliani is well known
amongst art lovers for painting nudes in a compelling and unique style. Nu
Couché became his most famous piece of art when it sold in 2015 for over $170
Million to businessman and billionaire Liu Yiqian.
Curiously enough, the artist only
had the chance to put up a ingle exhibition during his lifetime. One that ended
up being shut down by the police! It will always remain somewhat of a tragedy
that artists that lived in poverty and anonymity during their lifetime now have
their pieces being acquired for millions of dollars.
8 LES FEMMES D'ALGER (VERSION O)
BY PABLO PICASSO: $179.4 MILLION
On the topic of artists that
didn't exactly reach billionaire status while they were alive, and became huge
once they were deceased is acclaimed Spanish painter Pablo Picasso. One of the
founders of the Cubist movement, to this day it remains virtually impossible to
look upon one of his works without immediately recognising it was his doing.
Les Femmes D'Alger (Version O) is
part of a series of paintings created by Picasso between 1954 and 1955, in
tribute to the work of French artist Eugène Delacroix. Version O is the last
version of the paintings, and is valued at $179.4 Million as of 2015.
7 PENDANT PORTRAITS OF MAERTEN
SOOLMANS AND OOPJEN COPPIT BY REMBRANDT: $180 MILLION
Dutch artist Rembrandt
Harmenszoon van Rijn remains, to this day, one of the most influential people
in the artistic world, not just in his homeland, but the entire world as well.
Rembrandt took his art to the next level during the 17th century, by choosing
to focus on several themes rather than just a single topic.
The Pendant Portraits of Maerten
Soolmans and Oopjen Coppit were commissioned on the occasion of Maerten and
Oopjen's marriage, that took place in
1634. Initially belonging to the affluent Rothschild family, they were
bought for $180 Million by the Louvre and Rijksmuseum in 2015.
6 NO. 6 (VIOLET, GREEN AND RED)
BY MARK ROTHKO: $186 MILLION
Those who are familiar with the happenings
inside of the art world have surely heard of the Bouvier Affair. Long story
short, Swiss art dealer Yves Bouvier conned a series of very important
customers, over charging them for the art pieces they bought. Well, the
painting in question was one of the ones involved in the whole ordeal.
RELATED: 10 RIDICULOUSLY
EXPENSIVE THINGS MILEY CYRUS HAS BOUGHT
Originally painted in 1951 by
Russian-American artist Mark Rothko, the piece perfectly represents the
abstract expressionist movement that make all of his works so easily
recognisable. After being sold to Russian businessman Dmitry Rybolovlev, it is
now valued at $186 Million. Good luck trying to outbid that!
5 NUMBER 17A BY POLLOCK: $200
MILLION
"I am nature" are perhaps some of
the most famous words to have ever come out of famous American painter Jackson
Pollock. Indeed, it was later proven that the patterns one could find in his
works were present in nature itself. 17A is one of Pollock's most exquisite
paintings, staying true to the artist's love for abstract expressionism.
Painted in 1948, this work of art
remains, to this day, the most valuable one to ever come out of Pollock's
several collections. In 2015, it was sold for $200 Million to Kenneth C.
Griffin, an American investor and hedge fund manager. It's a wonderful art
work, and it also costs quite the fortune.
4 NAFEA FAA IPOIPO (WHEN WILL YOU
MARRY?) BY PAUL GAUGUIN: $210 MILLION
French post-impressionist painter Paul Gauguin
found himself somewhat tired of the sources of inspiration artists in the 19th
century had in France. In order to find what he called primitive inspiration,
he travelled to Tahiti. And although it wasn't exactly what he expected, he
still had something to show for it.
One of the pieces to come out of
this trip was the painting When Will You Marry?, one of several depictions of
native women dressed in native clothing. At the time, it didn't inspire much
interest, but centuries later, it was sold for $210 Million. Perhaps the next
buyer will be willing to extend the numbers even further.
3 THE CARD PLAYERS BY PAUL
CÉZANNE: $250 MILLION
Yet another post-impressionist
painter featured on this list is Paul Cézanne. He's one of the artists we have
to thank for the radical changes in the way art was both created and perceived
between the 19th and 20th century. The Card Players are a series of paintings
that were to precede Cézanne's most acclaimed art pieces.
All the paintings in the series
depict male subjects around a table playing cards and smoking pipes. One of the
pieces was sold to the royal family of Qatar for the incredible amount of $250
Million. For a while, this particular painting was actually the most expensive
in the world, surpassed only by the works that follow on this list.
2 INTERCHANGE BY WILLEM DE
KOONING: $300 MILLION
Dutch-American abstract expressionist Willem
de Kooning produced a series of extremely interesting and colourful work pieces
over the several years in which he was active. And in 1955, he completed
Interchange, which would mark a departure from his usual style due to the influence of one of his friends and
mentors.
Interchange, also known as
Interchanged, is an oil painting that Kooning sold for $4000 dollars at the
time, very soon after it was completed. Several decades later, the piece was sold
for a whooping $300 Million to Kenneth C. Griffin, the same American
businessman that bought Pollock's Number 17A.
1 SALVATOR MUNDI BY LEONARDO DA
VINCI: $450.3 MILLION
Leonardo Da Vinci will always remain one of
the most iconic figures in the world of art. This comes, of course, in addition
to all the other ventures he immersed himself in during his lifetime. Even
those who know absolutely nothing about art know exactly who Da Vinci is, and
the extent of his genius.
Salvator Mundi was, for many
years, thought to be a copy of the original piece that was lost long ago, most
likely done by one of Leonardo's apprentice. However, it became general
consensus that the painting was actually the original, and in 2017 it surpassed
Interchange by becoming the most expensive painting in the world - $450.3
Million expensive, to be more precise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)