Abstract Expressionism: The Irascible 18 Explained

[00:00:00]This has to be one of the most evocative pictures  of the first generation of the New York School,   the founders of Abstract Expressionism.  You see 15 of its most important figures,   but before talking about this image, its  artists and the movement they represented,   we have to go back, as we always do when we  talk about 20th century history, to WWII.

[00:00:28]Before and during WWII, America’s art  world was reduced to two main movements:   Regionalism and Social Realism. Any  modern Art was considered European,   non-sensical and worthless. But the war will  bring over many artist refugees such as Mondrian,   Chagall and André Breton, the main theorist of  the very influential surrealist movement. In   the summer of 1941, Peggy Guggenheim, with her  surrealist husband Max Ernst, flee from Nazi   Europe for America. She opens an Art Gallery in  New York City, called it Art of this Century and   shows European modern artists such as Picasso,  Braque, Dali and Miro to the American public.

[00:01:13]Most importantly, she’ll organize solo  exhibitions for many emerging American   painters such as Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko,  Clifford Still and Robert Motherwell. You can’t   overstate the importance of Peggy Guggenheim  in the development of Abstract Expressionism.

[00:01:30]"Art of this Century was of the utmost importance  as the first place where The New York School could   be seen.. Her Gallery was the foundation, it's  where it all started to happen." -Lee Krasner (?)

[00:01:41]But, as stated earlier, the American  art world was extremely conservative   which made it very hostile to the abstract  expressionists. In 1950, a group of artists   wrote an open letter to the Metropolitan  Museum of Art to oppose this conservatism.

[00:01:58]The Met organized an exhibition called  American Painting Today – 1950 along   with an art competition, and the  appointed jury was conservative   and hostile to abstract expressionists.  Many members of the New York School got   together and Adolph Gottlieb came up with  idea of writing an open letter to oppose   this exhibition and its competition,  which was then signed by 28 artists.

[00:02:23]It said: “The undersigned painters reject  the monster national exhibition to be held   at the Metropolitan Museum of Art next December,   and will not submit work to its jury. [...] The  organization of the exhibition and the choice   of jurors [...] does not warrant any hope that a  just proportion of advanced art will be included.” It was published on the New York Times’  front page on May 22nd 1950. The next day,   the Herald Tribune responded to the attack and,  in defence of the Met, called the artists “The   Irascible 18”, irascible meaning “having or  showing a tendency to be easily angered.” The controversy was sparked and the abstract  expressionists were in the public’s eye.

[00:03:07]The extremely influential Life Magazine, the same  one that got Pollock famous just two years before,   wanted to do a photo story to be published at the  same time as the winners of the Met’s contest.

[00:03:19]Life wanted, at first, to photograph the  artists holding one their paintings in   front of the Metropolitan, but that proposal  was refused “because that would look as if we   were trying to get into the Metropolitan and we  were being turned down on the steps.” “They were   very surprised at this, because nobody refuses  anything to Life Magazine.” -Adolph Gottlieb On November 24th 1950, Nina Leen photographs 15 of   the avant-garde artists in  a West 44th Street studio.

[00:03:50]Here, we don’t really see rebels  that want to revolutionize or   burn the art world down. They didn’t  challenge the hierarchy of the system,   they were only criticizing its conservative  bias. These are well-dressed middle-class   people. Barnett Newman was quoted saying that  he wanted the group to look like bankers.

[00:04:12]Now, lets take a quick look at the artists.

[00:04:15]There’s Theodoros Stamos, the youngest of  the group, Jimmy Ernst, the son of Max Ernst,   Barnett Newman who became popular for his  zip paintings, James Brooks, Mark Rothko   who got known through his boundless fields of  colour, Richard Pousette-Dart, William Baziotes,   Jackson Pollock and his drip paintings,  Clifford Still and his peeled colours,   Robert Motherwell and his dominant deep black  patches, Bradley Walker Tomlin and his fragmented   compositions, Willem de Kooning and his violent  paintings, Adolph Gottlieb who wrote the letter,   Ad Reinhardt and his monochromatic  shapes and finally Hedda Sterne.

[00:05:31]Hedda Sterne was the only woman  in the picture. Arriving late,   she stood on a table and was, as she said,  the “feather on top”. Going back on the event,   she said “They all were very furious that I  was in it because they all were sufficiently   macho to think that the presence of a woman  took away from the seriousness of it all.” She later regretted the experience, saying that  “[She’s] known more for that darn photo than for   eighty years of work.” and she went as far as  calling herself an anti-abstract expressionist.

[00:06:05]This goes to show how little these artists had in  common. All they had was a desire to create a new   modern American art. They’re just a collection  of individuals each with their own signature   style. It’s hard, for example, to identify the  similarities between a Rothko and a Pollock.

[00:06:24]Recently, I’ve been reading a great  Mark Rothko biography by James E. B.   Breslin published by the University of  Chicago Press (the link to the book will   be in the description). Breslin makes a great  comparison between Rothko and Pollock’s style,   not by comparing their work, but  by comparing their portraits.

[00:06:43]But, before doing that, let’s talk about  the distinction between the two branches   of Abstract Expressionism: Action  Painting and Colour field painting.

[00:06:53]In Action painting, gesture and movement  are extremely important. Jackson Pollock,   Franz Kline, Willem de Kooning, Lee Krasner...  These are all painters who painted with their   bodies. Each and every brushstroke is  powered by strong gestural movement. Here,   the process of painting is really what  matters, the marks left on the canvas   are just traces of that process. When  looking at an action painter’s work,   what you really see is the painter’s footprint,  what they left after their performances.

[00:07:26]As for Colour field painting, what’s  important is the end result. The painting   isn’t impulsive and improvised, but meticulously  calculated. The careful application of colour,   the planned interaction between the different  colours are all harmoniously orchestrated to   create a feeling of transcendence. There’s  a spiritual experience one might get when   looking at, for example, a Rothko. It  might be hard to understand at first,   but there’s a certain mysticism about it which  can be illustrated by a story Rothko would repeat,   which I’m taking out of his biography. He  liked being around his own exhibition and: “As Rothko was looking at his paintings, a man  approached him and said, "You look like a sensible   human being. How can anybody get away with this?  Look at this. There's nothing. How can anybody get   away with this? It's just... it's a disgrace."  Rothko asked why it upset him so, "and the man   started to sputter and carry on, but he couldn't  really articulate what he objected to. It just   wasn't enough, there on the wall." After letting  the man "go on a little bit," Rothko finally said,   "well, you know I painted these paintings,"  something he had to prove by pulling out his   driver's license. "And he said the man was totally  flabbergasted." Rothko invited him to come to the   museum's coffee shop and talk; a few weeks later,  the man called asking to visit Rothko's studio,   see his work, and talk again. "He ended up  buying a painting." In fact, Rothko added,   "I have an appointment with him now at  2 0'clock. He owns three works of mine."

[00:09:09]“The artist as missionary converting  the heathen”, as Breslin puts it,   isn’t the only example of Rothko’s  work having this religious aspect: “You might as well get one thing straight. I'm  not an abstractionist... I'm not interested in   the relationships of colour or form or  anything else. I'm interested only in   expressing basic human emotions—tragedy,  ecstasy, doom and so on. And the fact that   a lot of people break down and cry when  confronted with my pictures show that I   communicate those basic human emotions...  The people who weep before my pictures are   having the same religious experience  I had when I painted them. And if you,   as you say, are moved only by their colour  relationships then you miss the point.” Now, let’s look at the portraits of Pollock  and Rothko, two very prominent abstract   expressionists, one an action painter  and the other a colour field painter.

[00:09:51]These two portraits were made by Hans Namuth.  Here’s Jackson Pollock in his studio in 1950   and Mark Rothko in his studio in 1964. You  see both artists immersed in their work,   they’re both completely absorbed by it in  their own way. Pollock is absorbed by his   work by stepping on it and dripping paint  while Rothko is absorbed by his painting’s   captivation. He could look at his artworks for  hours, making sure that everything was perfect   and really evoked what he wanted. Pollock  is dynamic, dominating, he’s using energy   as his body is stretched over the canvas while  Rothko is sitting down, feeling his painting.

[00:10:34]These two artists are extremely different,  both in their art making process and in   the final results they produce. As Breslin  puts it: “Pollock acts; Rothko meditated”.

[00:10:48]So Abstract Expressionism is a very broad  term to encompass a multitude of artists   with very different styles. Any of  the irascible 18 could have started   their own art movements instead  of being encompassed by abstract   expressionism. If post-war modernity created  an atomized and very individualist world,   then abstract expressionism is a great example of  this individualism materializing. Every abstract   expressionist individual had their own specific  style to the point that a lot of them didn’t even   need to sign their paintings anymore, we knew  who they were from just by looking at them.

[00:11:16]And perhaps that’s why this movement is  so powerful, not because of its unity,   but because of the individual strength,  personality and autonomy of each of its members.