Though Abstract Expressionism became the poster child of American “freedom” art, I believe it never really was meant to be so. The movement is based on the ideas of the individual genius, the elitist artist who expresses himself however he feels. Such ideas contrast with the soviet ,share the wealth and the government controls art mentality, but does it truly belong as an anti-communist superweapon. Artists of the 1930’s were often low paid and thus switched from creating public art to creating a more elite oriented art in order to interest potential buyers. The movement itself is really geared towards those who are willing to take the time and really dig deep into the message rather than wall art to brighten up the hallways of some estate. Regardless of its origins, the CIA and affluent businessmen such as Rockefeller seemed to believe that the art should find its way back to the masses who often simply glance at the canvas, adore the pretty colors and walk away. The style really doesn’t fit with the mass unifier of the free world, rather it acts as an individual art movement designed to rebel against the notions of naturalism and realism in order to redefine the parameters of art.
As the article mentioned, many artists were horrified at the results of the popularization of Abstract Expressionism. To wallow down on the level of Time and Life magazine was considered a shame by artists such as Bart Newman. Several artists, such as Rothko, committed suicide over the unwanted success of his paintings that apparently,” howled their opposition to bourgeois material.” The ideas of those artists were taken away from them and shifted by curators and galleries which turned the solitary artists into superstars, completely against the ideas which they stood for. In a Machiavellian sense, the CIA and Eisenhower might think that the ends justify the means, but did they truly have the right to twist and turn and art movement, which they themselves believed was best separated from politics?