History of Modern Art with Klaire
Explore Modern Art history including Impressionism, Cubism, Surrealism, and other key Modernist art movements. Join artist and educator Klaire Lockheart as she examines famous artists and artwork through a 21st century intersectional feminist lens. Whether you’re an artist, student, or patron of the arts, you will hopefully learn something new about Modern Art.
Abstract Expressionism: Modern Art Galleries are Full of Farts
Abstract Expressionism is a complex art movement from the mid 19th century that requires a fair amount of cognitive dissonance to embrace. Whether you find this movement intriguing or confusing, listen as Klaire Lockheart describes this Modernist art style. She’ll also reveal why it makes her salty.
Artists and Artwork: Ad Reinhardt, Jackson Pollock (Number 17A, Mural), Mark Rothko (Untitled [Violet, Black, Orange, Yellow on White and Red]), Hilma af Klint, Olga Rozanova (Non-Objective Composition. Color Painting), Barnett Newman, Alma Woodsey Thomas (Orion, A Fantastic Sunset), and Lee Krasner (The Seasons, The Eye of the First Circle)
Additional Topics: Sublime, Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, Congress for Cultural Freedom, Action Painters, and Color Field Painting
Artists and Artwork: Ad Reinhardt, Jackson Pollock (Number 17A, Mural), Mark Rothko (Untitled [Violet, Black, Orange, Yellow on White and Red]), Hilma af Klint, Olga Rozanova (Non-Objective Composition. Color Painting), Barnett Newman, Alma Woodsey Thomas (Orion, A Fantastic Sunset), and Lee Krasner (The Seasons, The Eye of the First Circle)
Additional Topics: Sublime, Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, Congress for Cultural Freedom, Action Painters, and Color Field Painting
Transcript
Hello, my friends! Welcome to the History of Modern Art with Klaire, where I examine various Modern Art movements in chronological order with an intersectional feminist lens. I’m your host, Klaire Lockheart, and I’m glad you could join me while I have an existential crisis thanks to Abstract Expressionism. Whether you’re a person who finds this movement baffling or you already understand it but wonder why others struggle, you’ve come to the right place. If you’re an artist, student, or patron of the arts, I think you’ll enjoy this episode.
[Music]
According to mythos of Modernism with a capital “M,” the apex of art is abstraction, particularly the movement known as Abstract Expressionism. Some people will refer to it as “Ab Ex” but that just sounds like a really intense exercise regime for dude-bros, like Crossfit but with paint. Abstract Expressionism is the type of art that was made in New York in the 1940s and ‘50s. These paintings were often large, and the compositions aren’t of anything other than just paint on canvas. Artist Ad Reinhardt declared, “Art is art-as-art and everything else is everything else.” The pictures often looks like squiggles, splatters, or just big shapes.
I would like to begin with a little disclaimer that I find Abstract Expressionism an incredibly difficult concept to grasp. The reason I struggle with it is because it’s is a big ball of conflicting contrasts. For example, Abstract Expressionism claims to be a universal art form that everyone on the entire planet can understand at first glance regardless of their background or education. The artists and their supporters believed that everyone could relate to this art. However, I find it unbelievable that during the 1940s and ‘50s, a small group of white, cis-het, Judeo-Christian men from New York, who all drank at the same bar, could understand what every single person was thinking, and they were capable of making art that could transcend time, place, and so forth. Additionally, the Abstract Expressionists proclaimed that everyone could experience the sublime by looking at their work. In the context of art, “sublime” means something that is incredibly overpowering and evokes grand emotional responses. “Sublime” can also be defined as changing something solid into a gas, such as that giant burrito you ate for lunch.
The next contradiction that infuriates me is the claim that Abstract Expressionism, and Modernism in general, doesn’t require any formal education to understand; yet, I have been told that if I don’t understand and love this art movement I am uneducated. I truly can’t wrap my mind around the cognitive dissonance it takes to state that Abstract Expressionism is universally appealing and doesn’t require an education to appreciate, but anyone who doesn’t understand it immediately is considered uncultured and is required to attend lectures and enroll in classes. As an educator, I like to model my learning process to demonstrate the effort I put forth so others don’t give up when they encounter difficulty, which is why I am sharing about the struggle I have with comprehending Abstract Expressionism. When I have expressed my confusion with this genre of art, I have always been advised that I need to do more academic studies (for an art movement that apparently doesn’t require an education). So, I earned a bachelor’s degree in art, I took classes, read books, articles, art theory, exhibition reviews, philosophy, I visited museums and galleries to see the work in person, I went to graduate school and earned the terminal degree in my field, I expanded my personal library, I traveled to additional museums, I read even more, and I honestly still haven’t been able discover the profound meaning of this art that supposedly doesn’t require an education to understand. Each time I sought out assistance, I was advised that I need to spend more time with it, and I did. I feel as though I have put forth more time and effort than the average person in an attempt to wrap my brain around this apparently universal and obvious art, and at this point I have to question how much more time do I need to commit? If I squander another hour staring at one large abstract canvas in a museum in order to “spend more time with it,” I feel like I am wasting my life. I am particularly irritated because I shouldn’t have to devote more time investigating a work of art than it took the artist to create it. I get salty because I could have spent that time looking at other works of arts. I could be learning about different artists instead of only focusing on the select few heralded in the Modernism canon. I understand that learning is a life-long process, but why should I be obligated to continue to specifically study art created by a very small group of people who all lived in one location during one point in history? There are so many other artists I could learn about and appreciate in the meantime.
Even though I will probably never be moved to tears in the presence of 70 year old paint smears, I used to accept the consolation prize that I could at least understand that this work was considered important because these artists were the first to create abstract art. The common narrative of Abstract Expressionism upheld in educational institutions, museums, and auction houses states that Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, and Ad Reinhardt were avant-garde pioneers because they were the absolute first people to apply paint to canvases on the floor, paint on large surfaces, or make art without identifiable subjects. However, this just isn’t true. Hilma af Klint was a Swedish artist who began making gigantic, abstract paintings in 1906. She also created her paintings on the floor instead of the wall. Olga Rozanova was a Russian artist who created paintings of wobbly geometric shapes during the 1910s. So, these typically exalted Abstract Expressionists weren’t actually the first people on the planet to paint abstractly, so now what? If the art really truly is objectively good, then why is it so important to cling to the outdated narrative that these mid-century artists were the first? If their art can stand the test of time, why can’t the artists who actually were the first to develop these ideas be added back into the art history canon? Including women, people of color, and artists who lived outside of New York shouldn’t take away from the value of Pollock and Rothko if their work is actually successful. The history of art as taught in the Western world lacks diversity, and art scholars are woefully slow to make updates and include diverse artists. In 1962, Janson’s History of Art became the standard art textbook; millions of people bought it and were influenced by it. Unfortunately, that book didn’t include one single woman artist. It took until 1986 for the editors to finally add a couple women into the text.
It might seem weird that I am spending so much time talking about all of this background information before I even get to the actual works of art, but context is critical. I want to explore why these Abstract Expressionists rose to prominence. It’s important for me to do more than just tell you that these people were famous and leave it at that. I can’t just repeat that these select few men were “geniuses” either. I’m also not going to declare that the art is “beautiful” because I won’t tell you how to perceive the artwork, and I won’t dictate if you should like it or not. (There’s also a lot of philosophical baggage tied up with the concept of “beauty,” but that’s a tangent for another day.) It’s okay to dislike some art. It doesn’t mean that you’re stupid, uneducated, or dead inside if you don’t have a transcendental experience when looking at abstract art. On the other hand, if you love this artwork, and you connect to it on a deep level, I’m not going to make you feel bad for that reaction either. Both of these extremes are valid, as well as everything else in the middle. Artists create to connect and share a message, and I honestly would have an easier time with Abstract Expressionism if the leading artists weren’t so pretentious in their claims at how they made the best art ever and everyone would understand and love it automatically. In his essay, “The Sublime is Now,” Barnett Newman wrote, “We are creating images whose reality is self-evident and which are devoid of the props and crutches that evoke associations with outmoded images, both sublime and beautiful… The image we produce is the self-evident one of revelation, real and concrete, that can be understood by anyone…”
Let’s take a short break, and afterwards I will talk about Alma Thomas, an underrepresented artist who I think you will enjoy.
[Break]
I believe that it’s noteworthy to explore why certain Abstract Expressionists skyrocketed in popularity. If I simply repeat that certain artwork is famous and ignore why, it perpetuates the myth that this art is objectively the best most amazing stuff ever made and everything else produced was trash. Additionally, this narrative excludes almost every other artist on the planet. There were many artists making comparable artwork that don’t get prime placement in museums, aren’t written about extensively, and their compositions don’t sell for millions of dollars. I will get Pollock and Rothko soon enough, but I want to share about Alma Woodsey Thomas first. She wasn’t technically part of the Abstract Expressionism movement because she lived in wrong city and she created the bulk of her work a few decades after the style peaked. She hasn’t reached the same level of celebrity as her peers, but she made equivalently worthy work. Why hasn’t Thomas reached the same level of acclaim? The short answer is due to racism, sexism, and not living in the right city. Not only are women lacking representation in major art institutions, but Black artists are almost completely ignored. According to a 2019 study by Chad Topaz, barely 1% of art in major art museums in the United States was created by Black artists.
Alma Thomas was born in Georgia, which was a dangerous place for people of color at the time. Before she was born, a lynch mob threatened her family. As a child, she wasn’t permitted to enter the town’s library because of the color of her skin, and African-Americans weren’t allowed to attend high school either. Her family then moved to Washington, DC in the early 1900s so she could continue her education, but DC was segregated and a racist community. Thomas wanted to become an architect, but women weren’t supposed to become architects in the early 20th century, especially not Black women. Despite this roadblock, Thomas earned a teaching certificate and became a kindergarten teacher. After several years, she earned her bachelor’s degree in art. This is remarkable because she was the first Black woman to earn her art degree in the United States. Even if her artwork sucked, which is doesn’t, this is something that should be included in art history textbooks. Unfortunately, Alma Thomas never was mentioned in any Modern Art history class I ever took.
After Thomas earned her art degree, she taught junior high art. She devoted over 30 years to teaching at the same school. Like most art educators, she didn’t have a lot of free time, but she was able to make a little bit of art. She unfortunately wasn’t able to paint full-time until she retired. Art history demands that artists have to be in the right spot at the right time with the right connections. Even though Thomas was making purely abstract paintings in the 1950s, she just happened to live in the wrong city and didn’t make the right connections because she was teaching full-time to support herself and she was working on her master’s degree. She shouldn’t be ignored just because she had to work as an educator, which meant she didn’t have as much artistic output as those who had the resources to be full-time artists.
If Thomas would have been included in any of the classes I took about Modernism when I was younger and more impressionable, I would probably have a greater appreciation for the genre. What I admire most about her is that she wasn’t pretentious. When describing her art, Alma Thomas wrote, “Through color I have sought to concentrate on beauty and happiness in my painting rather than on man’s inhumanity to man.” She experienced a lot of discrimination, and yet she chose to focus on what made her happy and shared that joy with others. She also didn’t demand certain otherworldly transformative responses from her audience like the Abstract Expressionists in New York. I also appreciate that she didn’t intentionally obfuscate the meaning of her work, which probably originated from her career as an educator. I have grown weary of people who are purposefully confusing to try to prove how brilliant they are. Many of the intelligent people I know are smart enough to be able to express complex concepts to their audiences without alienating them, but I wish this was a priority for more artists.
Thomas was influenced by the moon landing, and in 1973 she created Orion. This 59.75x54” acrylic painting is at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. At first glance, this painting appears like a weaving with wide red fibers overlapping skinny horizontal white threads. The painting is composed of vertical red brushstrokes with darker lines that move up and down in the top left corner, and a few more almost at the center. There are numerous small, horizontal, white dashes across the entire canvas.
In 2019, someone bought her 1970 acrylic painting titled A Fantastic Sunset. This canvas is a 48” square with a solid red circle in the middle. There are mosaic-type rectangles radiating out from the circle in rainbow order: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet. The outer corners are pink. The person who bought this painting paid over $2.6 million, which is the equivalent to a bit over $2.7 million in 2021. While this seems like a lot of money, I just want to know where was this support when she was alive? I used to teach K-12 art, and I know that I was vastly underpaid for my time and expertise. I can only imagine how little Thomas earned working in a segregated school over 50 years ago. It’s tragic that no one paid millions of dollar for her work while she was alive. I can only imagine how much that would have meant to her.
Seriously, don’t wait until your artist friends are dead before you brag about their artwork! Go to their shows and take pictures, tell your colleagues, and write blog posts. Forward their websites to other people you think might be interested. Photograph the art you bought from them after you hang it in your home and post it on social media. Share their artwork whenever you can. For example, if you like the photos I post on Instagram, add them to your stories! Repost my artwork but please tag me so I don’t miss it. I’m not kidding. My instagram account is @klairelockheart, and that’s Klaire with a “K.” Every time someone shares my work it truly brightens my day. It makes me feel accomplished because I made something so important that you took the time out of your busy day to share it. Artists don’t get recognition just based on skill and hard work alone. If you think the artists you know deserve recognition, then you can easily help them out.
[Music]
Lee Krasner was another Abstract Expressionist who was overlooked during her lifetime. Even though she lived in New York during the mid-19th century and benefited from being white, she was also a woman and faced discrimination due to her gender. Many galleries refused to show artwork created by women at the time. Regardless, Krasner was serious about art and sought out classes and teachers to learn and grow. In 1957, Krasner painted The Seasons, which is currently owned by the Whitney Museum of American Art, but it isn’t on display. She made this painting with oil and house paint on a 17’ wide canvas. The main colors are green, a creamy white, black, and magenta. The center of the canvas has several large blobs that are outlined in curving, thick, scratchy black lines. Some of the black paint drips downward. The shapes are filled with the cream color and a few of them are overlapped with quick magenta brushstrokes. There are little bits of green in between the organic abstract shapes. The left and right edges of the canvas include additional black lines, and these shapes are also that light beige color with magenta, and there are more green spots.
As much as I would love to talk about Lee Krasner completely on her own, I am going to have to discuss her relationship with Jackson Pollock. Krasner herself once said, “I happened to be Mrs. Jackson Pollock, and that’s a mouthful. I was a woman, Jewish, a widow, a damn good painter, thank you, and a little too independent.” In addition developing her own career, Krasner was vital to her husband’s success. She essentially managed his career and helped promote his work. Even though he was a violent and abusive alcoholic, she took care of him. After they were married, they moved outside of New York City. There were two studio spaces: a barn, and small bedroom. Krasner let her spouse have the barn so he could make large paintings, and she took the room. I have often heard people criticize Krasner for making small paintings during her marriage, but she worked with the resources she had available. Also, some of her “small” paintings were 4’ tall. While I know that isn’t as large as some pictures produced by other Abstract Expressionists, 4’ isn’t tiny. Furthermore, when it got too cold for her husband to work in the barn, he kicked her out of her studio so he’d have a space to work. He then made paintings the same size as she was. I have seen many people argue that Krasner’s art was derivative of her husband’s paintings, but I’ve never seen anyone claim that Pollock copied her style because he made smaller paintings like she did after he took over her studio.
Krasner was also the person who introduced her husband to art critic Clement Greenberg, who strongly supported avant-garde art. Greenberg advocated for Pollock and promoted his work. In addition to Krasner and Greenberg, Pollock had another supporter: the CIA. In 1950, the CIA established the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and they secretly funneled money through foundations and museums to promote Abstract Expressionism worldwide. The artists didn’t know they had government sponsors, but they certainly benefited from the artificial boost in popularity. The government spent millions of dollars to exhibit Abstract Expressionism all across Europe because they believed this would demonstrate that American was a place of freedom and artists could do whatever they wanted. This is absolutely perplexing because this occurred during the era of McCarthyism, when the government would blacklist people who were falsely accused of being communists. This destroyed the careers of many people, but at the same time the CIA made many Modernists famous.
If you’re unfamiliar with Jackson Pollock’s paintings, then congratulations! You managed to escape about 70 years of propaganda! I’m kidding, a little, but Pollock is the artist who made very large paintings that are covered in drips of paint and random bits of garbage. These paintings were considered revolutionary because, at the time, the act of painting was considered the art. When critic Harold Rosenberg wrote “The American Action Painters,” in 1952, he stated, “At a certain moment the canvas began to appear to one American painter after another as an arena in which to act - rather than as a space in which to reproduce, redesign, analyse or ‘express’ an object, actual or imagined. What was to go on the canvas was not a picture but an event.” So, Pollock was celebrated because his paintings were considered the byproduct of his “true art,” which was the action of applying the paint to the canvas. I hate to point it out, but all painters are performing actions to create paintings, and so everyone’s surfaces are the mementos of the finished actions. I do this when I paint, but it just so happens that my final evidence of the art of painting happens to look recognizable. I’m not saying this description of painting is wrong or bad; I just want to point out that it isn’t unique and I’m tired of pretending that it is. This reminds me of all the occasions I’ve read artists statements where the artist felt the need to point out that they love art and they began making drawings as a child. I’m really quite surprised that so many creative people feel compelled to waste precious space in their statements to reveal the obvious. I haven’t met an artist who didn’t make drawings or color when they were young. In fact, I don’t know anyone, regardless of their career, who didn’t color during childhood. Perhaps it’s just me, but I would prefer to read about what makes an artist unique and why their work is special instead of pretending these commonalities are rare.
To return to Pollock, I want to share that the most money anyone ever paid for one of his paintings was $200 million, which is little over $219 million when adjusted for inflation. In 2016, someone bought Number 17A, which is about 34x44” in size. I’d like to compare this to the most expensive painting ever made by Lee Krasner. This was a 16’ canvas titled The Eye of the First Circle, and it sold for $11.7 million in 2019. In today’s money, it would be $12 million. Unfortunately, women are frequently undervalued in the art world, but I can’t believe that Krasner’s work is worth less than 6% of her husband’s. The next time someone tells me that it’s so much easier for women to be artists than men, I think I might lose it.
Please join me after the break, and I’ll share about Color Field Painting, which is a subcategory of Abstract Expressionism.
[Break]
Speaking of dead artists who rich art collectors love more than living artists, Mark Rothko was another Abstract Expressionist whose paintings are now worth obscene amounts of money. Rothko was known for his Color Field Paintings, which are large vertical canvases adorned with a few fuzzy rectangles of color. Many of his paintings have the title Untitled, and then the colors he used are listed in parenthesis. For example, the Guggenheim has his 1949 painting called Untitled (Violet, Black, Orange, Yellow on White and Red). This canvas is almost 7’ tall, and there is a horizontal black bar running through the center. Below the bar there is a bumpy orange rectangle, and below that there is a yellow rectangle. The top half of the canvas is filled with a cool red rectangle, but I think that this section is supposed to be the violet. Around the edges, there are some yellow, white, and red bits. This painting is strikingly similar to a painting Olga Rozanova made in 1917 called Non-Objective Composition. Color Painting. The color scheme is very similar, there’s a black bar running across the surface, and all the shapes are imperfect horizontal rectangles. I’m not accusing Rothko of plagiarizing Rozanova, but I often see people dismiss women artists because they think the women were trying to emulate men, yet I rarely see men artists face this critique.
Anyway, Rothko’s Color Field Paintings are supposed to evoke strong emotional responses from viewers. Like the other Abstract Expressionists, Rothko claimed that his work was universal and apparently everyone is supposed to feel tragedy or ecstasy when they view his work. He proclaimed that he produced miracles. I feel like I would be less salty about this movement if the artists and their supporters didn’t insist that everyone everywhere should feel the same way when they view the work. I know a few people who say that they feel emotional when viewing Rothko’s paintings, and that is just fine. That is what the artist intended. However, I have never felt any strong emotional reactions when viewing Color Field Paintings. I certainly have not had a transcendental experience, nor have I encountered the sublime in a gallery, unless the other patrons ate too many beans earlier in the day. I’ve spent too much time and money traveling to see Rothko’s paintings in person because I was advised to spend more time with the work, and to be completely honest the only feeling I experience now is exhaustion. At this point, I am tired of continually wasting my time on a just a few artists who became ridiculously popular because the government spent millions of dollars promoting them. You can disagree with me; that’s okay. I’m sure there are artists and artworks that I respect that baffle you. The issue I take with Rothko’s paintings is that they aren’t universal. Yes, some viewers experience strong emotions when they view his work, but to claim that everyone will have an etherial, life-altering experience is inaccurate.
I’m sure this won’t surprise you at all when I reveal that Abstract Expressionism is not my favorite genre of Modern Art, but I do understand its importance. I have spent a fair amount of time learning about it, viewing it, and even teaching it. I know that I’ve stated this previously, but not everyone has to love every famous work of art or every famous artist. I’ve had a few of my students tell me that I was the first instructor who gave them permission to dislike artwork, and I can relate to this. There are many people who insist that everyone has to love every famous work of art and can’t say anything critical about the work. Now, my goal isn’t to make anyone dislike art, but I believe it is easier to appreciate art overall if we’re not required to act like we love everything authority figures tell us is valuable. Personally, I don’t care for artists and institutions who exclude others based on gender and race, and I really don’t like artists who abuse their partners. Harold Rosenberg wrote, “A painting that is an act is inseparable from the biography of the artist.” To me, that means I no longer have to feel guilty because I’m not a fan of action painter Jackson Pollock. In 2015, the Sioux City Art Center hosted his 1943 Mural, and even though it was only a 30-minute drive away, I didn’t see it. I had multiple people try to make me feel bad for not going, but I just couldn’t bring myself to go at the time. I have seen other paintings he created in person, but I couldn’t justify making a special trip to seen an exhibition of one painting created by someone who committed domestic abuse.
Overall, Abstract Expressionism is a complex art movement, just like many other genres of Modern Art. This movement took place in the 1940s-50s in New York, but there were other artists who also created abstract artwork at around this time. Unfortunately, artists who were women and people of color were often omitted from the standard history. Alma Thomas and Lee Krasner are gaining recognition now, but there is still a lot of room for improvement. The most famous Abstract Expressionists, such as Pollock and Rothko, had their work strongly promoted by their families, art critics, and the United States government. I hope that after this discovery, you are inspired to promote and support your artist friends. If you are an artist, I want you to start bragging about your own work.
[Music]
Thank you so much for joining me to learn about Abstract Expressionism, and I hope you’ll tune in next time for Pop Art. Please visit my website klairelockheart.com to find a transcript of this episode, my resources, or to support this podcast. That’s K-L-A-I-R-E-L-O-C-K-H-E-A-R-T dot com, and then click on the “Media” tab. Follow me on Instagram @klairelockheart to see the art I create, or you can find me on Facebook by searching for Klaire A. Lockheart.
The History of Modern Art with Klaire was brought into existence by me, Klaire Lockheart. This podcast was recorded with equipment provided by Aaron C. Packard of Aaron C. Packard Productions. You can find his amazing photography at aaronpackard.com, that’s A-A-R-O-N-P-A-C-K-A-R-D dot com. As always, I appreciate your support and positive feedback. Not only do I enjoy reading your flattering reviews, but they help make this program reach a wider audience. If you liked this episode, please follow or subscribe so you won’t miss the next art movement. Thanks! You’re wonderful!
[Music]
According to mythos of Modernism with a capital “M,” the apex of art is abstraction, particularly the movement known as Abstract Expressionism. Some people will refer to it as “Ab Ex” but that just sounds like a really intense exercise regime for dude-bros, like Crossfit but with paint. Abstract Expressionism is the type of art that was made in New York in the 1940s and ‘50s. These paintings were often large, and the compositions aren’t of anything other than just paint on canvas. Artist Ad Reinhardt declared, “Art is art-as-art and everything else is everything else.” The pictures often looks like squiggles, splatters, or just big shapes.
I would like to begin with a little disclaimer that I find Abstract Expressionism an incredibly difficult concept to grasp. The reason I struggle with it is because it’s is a big ball of conflicting contrasts. For example, Abstract Expressionism claims to be a universal art form that everyone on the entire planet can understand at first glance regardless of their background or education. The artists and their supporters believed that everyone could relate to this art. However, I find it unbelievable that during the 1940s and ‘50s, a small group of white, cis-het, Judeo-Christian men from New York, who all drank at the same bar, could understand what every single person was thinking, and they were capable of making art that could transcend time, place, and so forth. Additionally, the Abstract Expressionists proclaimed that everyone could experience the sublime by looking at their work. In the context of art, “sublime” means something that is incredibly overpowering and evokes grand emotional responses. “Sublime” can also be defined as changing something solid into a gas, such as that giant burrito you ate for lunch.
The next contradiction that infuriates me is the claim that Abstract Expressionism, and Modernism in general, doesn’t require any formal education to understand; yet, I have been told that if I don’t understand and love this art movement I am uneducated. I truly can’t wrap my mind around the cognitive dissonance it takes to state that Abstract Expressionism is universally appealing and doesn’t require an education to appreciate, but anyone who doesn’t understand it immediately is considered uncultured and is required to attend lectures and enroll in classes. As an educator, I like to model my learning process to demonstrate the effort I put forth so others don’t give up when they encounter difficulty, which is why I am sharing about the struggle I have with comprehending Abstract Expressionism. When I have expressed my confusion with this genre of art, I have always been advised that I need to do more academic studies (for an art movement that apparently doesn’t require an education). So, I earned a bachelor’s degree in art, I took classes, read books, articles, art theory, exhibition reviews, philosophy, I visited museums and galleries to see the work in person, I went to graduate school and earned the terminal degree in my field, I expanded my personal library, I traveled to additional museums, I read even more, and I honestly still haven’t been able discover the profound meaning of this art that supposedly doesn’t require an education to understand. Each time I sought out assistance, I was advised that I need to spend more time with it, and I did. I feel as though I have put forth more time and effort than the average person in an attempt to wrap my brain around this apparently universal and obvious art, and at this point I have to question how much more time do I need to commit? If I squander another hour staring at one large abstract canvas in a museum in order to “spend more time with it,” I feel like I am wasting my life. I am particularly irritated because I shouldn’t have to devote more time investigating a work of art than it took the artist to create it. I get salty because I could have spent that time looking at other works of arts. I could be learning about different artists instead of only focusing on the select few heralded in the Modernism canon. I understand that learning is a life-long process, but why should I be obligated to continue to specifically study art created by a very small group of people who all lived in one location during one point in history? There are so many other artists I could learn about and appreciate in the meantime.
Even though I will probably never be moved to tears in the presence of 70 year old paint smears, I used to accept the consolation prize that I could at least understand that this work was considered important because these artists were the first to create abstract art. The common narrative of Abstract Expressionism upheld in educational institutions, museums, and auction houses states that Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, and Ad Reinhardt were avant-garde pioneers because they were the absolute first people to apply paint to canvases on the floor, paint on large surfaces, or make art without identifiable subjects. However, this just isn’t true. Hilma af Klint was a Swedish artist who began making gigantic, abstract paintings in 1906. She also created her paintings on the floor instead of the wall. Olga Rozanova was a Russian artist who created paintings of wobbly geometric shapes during the 1910s. So, these typically exalted Abstract Expressionists weren’t actually the first people on the planet to paint abstractly, so now what? If the art really truly is objectively good, then why is it so important to cling to the outdated narrative that these mid-century artists were the first? If their art can stand the test of time, why can’t the artists who actually were the first to develop these ideas be added back into the art history canon? Including women, people of color, and artists who lived outside of New York shouldn’t take away from the value of Pollock and Rothko if their work is actually successful. The history of art as taught in the Western world lacks diversity, and art scholars are woefully slow to make updates and include diverse artists. In 1962, Janson’s History of Art became the standard art textbook; millions of people bought it and were influenced by it. Unfortunately, that book didn’t include one single woman artist. It took until 1986 for the editors to finally add a couple women into the text.
It might seem weird that I am spending so much time talking about all of this background information before I even get to the actual works of art, but context is critical. I want to explore why these Abstract Expressionists rose to prominence. It’s important for me to do more than just tell you that these people were famous and leave it at that. I can’t just repeat that these select few men were “geniuses” either. I’m also not going to declare that the art is “beautiful” because I won’t tell you how to perceive the artwork, and I won’t dictate if you should like it or not. (There’s also a lot of philosophical baggage tied up with the concept of “beauty,” but that’s a tangent for another day.) It’s okay to dislike some art. It doesn’t mean that you’re stupid, uneducated, or dead inside if you don’t have a transcendental experience when looking at abstract art. On the other hand, if you love this artwork, and you connect to it on a deep level, I’m not going to make you feel bad for that reaction either. Both of these extremes are valid, as well as everything else in the middle. Artists create to connect and share a message, and I honestly would have an easier time with Abstract Expressionism if the leading artists weren’t so pretentious in their claims at how they made the best art ever and everyone would understand and love it automatically. In his essay, “The Sublime is Now,” Barnett Newman wrote, “We are creating images whose reality is self-evident and which are devoid of the props and crutches that evoke associations with outmoded images, both sublime and beautiful… The image we produce is the self-evident one of revelation, real and concrete, that can be understood by anyone…”
Let’s take a short break, and afterwards I will talk about Alma Thomas, an underrepresented artist who I think you will enjoy.
[Break]
I believe that it’s noteworthy to explore why certain Abstract Expressionists skyrocketed in popularity. If I simply repeat that certain artwork is famous and ignore why, it perpetuates the myth that this art is objectively the best most amazing stuff ever made and everything else produced was trash. Additionally, this narrative excludes almost every other artist on the planet. There were many artists making comparable artwork that don’t get prime placement in museums, aren’t written about extensively, and their compositions don’t sell for millions of dollars. I will get Pollock and Rothko soon enough, but I want to share about Alma Woodsey Thomas first. She wasn’t technically part of the Abstract Expressionism movement because she lived in wrong city and she created the bulk of her work a few decades after the style peaked. She hasn’t reached the same level of celebrity as her peers, but she made equivalently worthy work. Why hasn’t Thomas reached the same level of acclaim? The short answer is due to racism, sexism, and not living in the right city. Not only are women lacking representation in major art institutions, but Black artists are almost completely ignored. According to a 2019 study by Chad Topaz, barely 1% of art in major art museums in the United States was created by Black artists.
Alma Thomas was born in Georgia, which was a dangerous place for people of color at the time. Before she was born, a lynch mob threatened her family. As a child, she wasn’t permitted to enter the town’s library because of the color of her skin, and African-Americans weren’t allowed to attend high school either. Her family then moved to Washington, DC in the early 1900s so she could continue her education, but DC was segregated and a racist community. Thomas wanted to become an architect, but women weren’t supposed to become architects in the early 20th century, especially not Black women. Despite this roadblock, Thomas earned a teaching certificate and became a kindergarten teacher. After several years, she earned her bachelor’s degree in art. This is remarkable because she was the first Black woman to earn her art degree in the United States. Even if her artwork sucked, which is doesn’t, this is something that should be included in art history textbooks. Unfortunately, Alma Thomas never was mentioned in any Modern Art history class I ever took.
After Thomas earned her art degree, she taught junior high art. She devoted over 30 years to teaching at the same school. Like most art educators, she didn’t have a lot of free time, but she was able to make a little bit of art. She unfortunately wasn’t able to paint full-time until she retired. Art history demands that artists have to be in the right spot at the right time with the right connections. Even though Thomas was making purely abstract paintings in the 1950s, she just happened to live in the wrong city and didn’t make the right connections because she was teaching full-time to support herself and she was working on her master’s degree. She shouldn’t be ignored just because she had to work as an educator, which meant she didn’t have as much artistic output as those who had the resources to be full-time artists.
If Thomas would have been included in any of the classes I took about Modernism when I was younger and more impressionable, I would probably have a greater appreciation for the genre. What I admire most about her is that she wasn’t pretentious. When describing her art, Alma Thomas wrote, “Through color I have sought to concentrate on beauty and happiness in my painting rather than on man’s inhumanity to man.” She experienced a lot of discrimination, and yet she chose to focus on what made her happy and shared that joy with others. She also didn’t demand certain otherworldly transformative responses from her audience like the Abstract Expressionists in New York. I also appreciate that she didn’t intentionally obfuscate the meaning of her work, which probably originated from her career as an educator. I have grown weary of people who are purposefully confusing to try to prove how brilliant they are. Many of the intelligent people I know are smart enough to be able to express complex concepts to their audiences without alienating them, but I wish this was a priority for more artists.
Thomas was influenced by the moon landing, and in 1973 she created Orion. This 59.75x54” acrylic painting is at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. At first glance, this painting appears like a weaving with wide red fibers overlapping skinny horizontal white threads. The painting is composed of vertical red brushstrokes with darker lines that move up and down in the top left corner, and a few more almost at the center. There are numerous small, horizontal, white dashes across the entire canvas.
In 2019, someone bought her 1970 acrylic painting titled A Fantastic Sunset. This canvas is a 48” square with a solid red circle in the middle. There are mosaic-type rectangles radiating out from the circle in rainbow order: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet. The outer corners are pink. The person who bought this painting paid over $2.6 million, which is the equivalent to a bit over $2.7 million in 2021. While this seems like a lot of money, I just want to know where was this support when she was alive? I used to teach K-12 art, and I know that I was vastly underpaid for my time and expertise. I can only imagine how little Thomas earned working in a segregated school over 50 years ago. It’s tragic that no one paid millions of dollar for her work while she was alive. I can only imagine how much that would have meant to her.
Seriously, don’t wait until your artist friends are dead before you brag about their artwork! Go to their shows and take pictures, tell your colleagues, and write blog posts. Forward their websites to other people you think might be interested. Photograph the art you bought from them after you hang it in your home and post it on social media. Share their artwork whenever you can. For example, if you like the photos I post on Instagram, add them to your stories! Repost my artwork but please tag me so I don’t miss it. I’m not kidding. My instagram account is @klairelockheart, and that’s Klaire with a “K.” Every time someone shares my work it truly brightens my day. It makes me feel accomplished because I made something so important that you took the time out of your busy day to share it. Artists don’t get recognition just based on skill and hard work alone. If you think the artists you know deserve recognition, then you can easily help them out.
[Music]
Lee Krasner was another Abstract Expressionist who was overlooked during her lifetime. Even though she lived in New York during the mid-19th century and benefited from being white, she was also a woman and faced discrimination due to her gender. Many galleries refused to show artwork created by women at the time. Regardless, Krasner was serious about art and sought out classes and teachers to learn and grow. In 1957, Krasner painted The Seasons, which is currently owned by the Whitney Museum of American Art, but it isn’t on display. She made this painting with oil and house paint on a 17’ wide canvas. The main colors are green, a creamy white, black, and magenta. The center of the canvas has several large blobs that are outlined in curving, thick, scratchy black lines. Some of the black paint drips downward. The shapes are filled with the cream color and a few of them are overlapped with quick magenta brushstrokes. There are little bits of green in between the organic abstract shapes. The left and right edges of the canvas include additional black lines, and these shapes are also that light beige color with magenta, and there are more green spots.
As much as I would love to talk about Lee Krasner completely on her own, I am going to have to discuss her relationship with Jackson Pollock. Krasner herself once said, “I happened to be Mrs. Jackson Pollock, and that’s a mouthful. I was a woman, Jewish, a widow, a damn good painter, thank you, and a little too independent.” In addition developing her own career, Krasner was vital to her husband’s success. She essentially managed his career and helped promote his work. Even though he was a violent and abusive alcoholic, she took care of him. After they were married, they moved outside of New York City. There were two studio spaces: a barn, and small bedroom. Krasner let her spouse have the barn so he could make large paintings, and she took the room. I have often heard people criticize Krasner for making small paintings during her marriage, but she worked with the resources she had available. Also, some of her “small” paintings were 4’ tall. While I know that isn’t as large as some pictures produced by other Abstract Expressionists, 4’ isn’t tiny. Furthermore, when it got too cold for her husband to work in the barn, he kicked her out of her studio so he’d have a space to work. He then made paintings the same size as she was. I have seen many people argue that Krasner’s art was derivative of her husband’s paintings, but I’ve never seen anyone claim that Pollock copied her style because he made smaller paintings like she did after he took over her studio.
Krasner was also the person who introduced her husband to art critic Clement Greenberg, who strongly supported avant-garde art. Greenberg advocated for Pollock and promoted his work. In addition to Krasner and Greenberg, Pollock had another supporter: the CIA. In 1950, the CIA established the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and they secretly funneled money through foundations and museums to promote Abstract Expressionism worldwide. The artists didn’t know they had government sponsors, but they certainly benefited from the artificial boost in popularity. The government spent millions of dollars to exhibit Abstract Expressionism all across Europe because they believed this would demonstrate that American was a place of freedom and artists could do whatever they wanted. This is absolutely perplexing because this occurred during the era of McCarthyism, when the government would blacklist people who were falsely accused of being communists. This destroyed the careers of many people, but at the same time the CIA made many Modernists famous.
If you’re unfamiliar with Jackson Pollock’s paintings, then congratulations! You managed to escape about 70 years of propaganda! I’m kidding, a little, but Pollock is the artist who made very large paintings that are covered in drips of paint and random bits of garbage. These paintings were considered revolutionary because, at the time, the act of painting was considered the art. When critic Harold Rosenberg wrote “The American Action Painters,” in 1952, he stated, “At a certain moment the canvas began to appear to one American painter after another as an arena in which to act - rather than as a space in which to reproduce, redesign, analyse or ‘express’ an object, actual or imagined. What was to go on the canvas was not a picture but an event.” So, Pollock was celebrated because his paintings were considered the byproduct of his “true art,” which was the action of applying the paint to the canvas. I hate to point it out, but all painters are performing actions to create paintings, and so everyone’s surfaces are the mementos of the finished actions. I do this when I paint, but it just so happens that my final evidence of the art of painting happens to look recognizable. I’m not saying this description of painting is wrong or bad; I just want to point out that it isn’t unique and I’m tired of pretending that it is. This reminds me of all the occasions I’ve read artists statements where the artist felt the need to point out that they love art and they began making drawings as a child. I’m really quite surprised that so many creative people feel compelled to waste precious space in their statements to reveal the obvious. I haven’t met an artist who didn’t make drawings or color when they were young. In fact, I don’t know anyone, regardless of their career, who didn’t color during childhood. Perhaps it’s just me, but I would prefer to read about what makes an artist unique and why their work is special instead of pretending these commonalities are rare.
To return to Pollock, I want to share that the most money anyone ever paid for one of his paintings was $200 million, which is little over $219 million when adjusted for inflation. In 2016, someone bought Number 17A, which is about 34x44” in size. I’d like to compare this to the most expensive painting ever made by Lee Krasner. This was a 16’ canvas titled The Eye of the First Circle, and it sold for $11.7 million in 2019. In today’s money, it would be $12 million. Unfortunately, women are frequently undervalued in the art world, but I can’t believe that Krasner’s work is worth less than 6% of her husband’s. The next time someone tells me that it’s so much easier for women to be artists than men, I think I might lose it.
Please join me after the break, and I’ll share about Color Field Painting, which is a subcategory of Abstract Expressionism.
[Break]
Speaking of dead artists who rich art collectors love more than living artists, Mark Rothko was another Abstract Expressionist whose paintings are now worth obscene amounts of money. Rothko was known for his Color Field Paintings, which are large vertical canvases adorned with a few fuzzy rectangles of color. Many of his paintings have the title Untitled, and then the colors he used are listed in parenthesis. For example, the Guggenheim has his 1949 painting called Untitled (Violet, Black, Orange, Yellow on White and Red). This canvas is almost 7’ tall, and there is a horizontal black bar running through the center. Below the bar there is a bumpy orange rectangle, and below that there is a yellow rectangle. The top half of the canvas is filled with a cool red rectangle, but I think that this section is supposed to be the violet. Around the edges, there are some yellow, white, and red bits. This painting is strikingly similar to a painting Olga Rozanova made in 1917 called Non-Objective Composition. Color Painting. The color scheme is very similar, there’s a black bar running across the surface, and all the shapes are imperfect horizontal rectangles. I’m not accusing Rothko of plagiarizing Rozanova, but I often see people dismiss women artists because they think the women were trying to emulate men, yet I rarely see men artists face this critique.
Anyway, Rothko’s Color Field Paintings are supposed to evoke strong emotional responses from viewers. Like the other Abstract Expressionists, Rothko claimed that his work was universal and apparently everyone is supposed to feel tragedy or ecstasy when they view his work. He proclaimed that he produced miracles. I feel like I would be less salty about this movement if the artists and their supporters didn’t insist that everyone everywhere should feel the same way when they view the work. I know a few people who say that they feel emotional when viewing Rothko’s paintings, and that is just fine. That is what the artist intended. However, I have never felt any strong emotional reactions when viewing Color Field Paintings. I certainly have not had a transcendental experience, nor have I encountered the sublime in a gallery, unless the other patrons ate too many beans earlier in the day. I’ve spent too much time and money traveling to see Rothko’s paintings in person because I was advised to spend more time with the work, and to be completely honest the only feeling I experience now is exhaustion. At this point, I am tired of continually wasting my time on a just a few artists who became ridiculously popular because the government spent millions of dollars promoting them. You can disagree with me; that’s okay. I’m sure there are artists and artworks that I respect that baffle you. The issue I take with Rothko’s paintings is that they aren’t universal. Yes, some viewers experience strong emotions when they view his work, but to claim that everyone will have an etherial, life-altering experience is inaccurate.
I’m sure this won’t surprise you at all when I reveal that Abstract Expressionism is not my favorite genre of Modern Art, but I do understand its importance. I have spent a fair amount of time learning about it, viewing it, and even teaching it. I know that I’ve stated this previously, but not everyone has to love every famous work of art or every famous artist. I’ve had a few of my students tell me that I was the first instructor who gave them permission to dislike artwork, and I can relate to this. There are many people who insist that everyone has to love every famous work of art and can’t say anything critical about the work. Now, my goal isn’t to make anyone dislike art, but I believe it is easier to appreciate art overall if we’re not required to act like we love everything authority figures tell us is valuable. Personally, I don’t care for artists and institutions who exclude others based on gender and race, and I really don’t like artists who abuse their partners. Harold Rosenberg wrote, “A painting that is an act is inseparable from the biography of the artist.” To me, that means I no longer have to feel guilty because I’m not a fan of action painter Jackson Pollock. In 2015, the Sioux City Art Center hosted his 1943 Mural, and even though it was only a 30-minute drive away, I didn’t see it. I had multiple people try to make me feel bad for not going, but I just couldn’t bring myself to go at the time. I have seen other paintings he created in person, but I couldn’t justify making a special trip to seen an exhibition of one painting created by someone who committed domestic abuse.
Overall, Abstract Expressionism is a complex art movement, just like many other genres of Modern Art. This movement took place in the 1940s-50s in New York, but there were other artists who also created abstract artwork at around this time. Unfortunately, artists who were women and people of color were often omitted from the standard history. Alma Thomas and Lee Krasner are gaining recognition now, but there is still a lot of room for improvement. The most famous Abstract Expressionists, such as Pollock and Rothko, had their work strongly promoted by their families, art critics, and the United States government. I hope that after this discovery, you are inspired to promote and support your artist friends. If you are an artist, I want you to start bragging about your own work.
[Music]
Thank you so much for joining me to learn about Abstract Expressionism, and I hope you’ll tune in next time for Pop Art. Please visit my website klairelockheart.com to find a transcript of this episode, my resources, or to support this podcast. That’s K-L-A-I-R-E-L-O-C-K-H-E-A-R-T dot com, and then click on the “Media” tab. Follow me on Instagram @klairelockheart to see the art I create, or you can find me on Facebook by searching for Klaire A. Lockheart.
The History of Modern Art with Klaire was brought into existence by me, Klaire Lockheart. This podcast was recorded with equipment provided by Aaron C. Packard of Aaron C. Packard Productions. You can find his amazing photography at aaronpackard.com, that’s A-A-R-O-N-P-A-C-K-A-R-D dot com. As always, I appreciate your support and positive feedback. Not only do I enjoy reading your flattering reviews, but they help make this program reach a wider audience. If you liked this episode, please follow or subscribe so you won’t miss the next art movement. Thanks! You’re wonderful!
Resources
Rebecca Allan, “An Insistence on Beauty and Exuberance: Alma Thomas at Mnuchin Gallery,” artcritical, October 18, 2019, https://artcritical.com/2019/10/18/insistence-beauty-exuberance-alma-thomas-mnuchin-gallery/
Jennifer Blessing, “Mark Rothko: Untitled (Violet, Black, Orange, Yellow on White and Red),” Guggenheim, https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/3533
Peter Kalb, ed., H. H. Arnason History of Modern Art, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc, 2004).
Jennifer Dasal, “How MoMA and the CIA Conspired to Use Unwitting Artists to Promote American Propaganda During the Cold War,” September 24, 2020, Artnet, https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt-1909623
Maximilíano Durón, “Emily and Mitchell Rales Bought Record-Breaking $11.7 M. Lee Krasner Work at Sotheby’s Last Week,” ARTnews, May 20, 2019, https://www.artnews.com/art-news/market/emily-and-mitchell-rales-bought-record-breaking-11-7-m-lee-krasner-work-at-sothebys-last-week-12602/
Mary Gabriel, “How Lee Krasner Made Jackson Pollock a Star,” Literary Hub, October 02, 2018, https://lithub.com/how-lee-krasner-made-jackson-pollock-a-star/
Jordan Gonzalez, “Visitors see Jackson Pollock’s ‘Mural’ for last time in Sioux City,” Sioux City Journal, April 05, 2015, https://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/visitors-see-jackson-pollocks-mural-for-last-time-in-sioux-city/article_22436f94-819a-5831-af11-350a50c2167a.html
Barnett Newman, “The Sublime is Now,” in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 580-582.
Tim Keane, “Lee Krasner’s Early Prophecies,” Hyperallergic, August 10, 2019, https://hyperallergic.com/512762/lee-krasners-early-prophecies/
Sam Phillips, …isms: Understanding Modern Art. (New York: Universe, 2013).
Jackson Pollock, “Two Statements,” in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 570-571.
Ad Reinhardt, “Art as Art,” in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 821-824.
Katie Ronzio, “Jackson Pollock’s wife? You mean Lee Krasner,” DOMA Insider, November 08, 2016, https://domainsiderbsu.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/jackson-pollocks-wife-you-mean-lee-krasner/
Harold Rosenberg, “from ‘The American Action painters,’” in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 589-592.
Mark Rothko, “The Romantics were Promoted,” in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 571-573.
Aaron Smith, “Ken Griffin buys two paintings from David Geffen for $500 million,” CNN Business, February 19, 2016, https://money.cnn.com/2016/02/19/luxury/ken-griffin-david-geffen-de-kooning-jackson-pollock/index.html
Tessa Solomon, “Jackson Pollock’s Largest Painting Is Touring the World, and Its Mysteries Are Coming to Light,” ARTnews, May 05, 2020, https://www.artnews.com/feature/where-is-jackson-pollocks-mural-1202685945/
Alma Thomas, “Autobiographical Writings,” Alma Thomas Papers, circa 1894-2001, Box 2, Folder 7: Autobiographical Writings, circa 1960s-circa 1970s, Smithsonian Archives of American Art, https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/alma-thomas-papers-9241/subseries-3-1/box-2-folder-7
Chad M. Topaz, “Diversity of artists in major U.S. museums,” PLoS One, March 20, 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6426178/
Lon Tuck, “Tony Janson's Work of ‘Art’,” Washington Post, April 13, 1986, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1986/04/13/tony-jansons-work-of-art/c812d6dd-3ab1-4a91-a90c-d8e3954052fd/
Victoria L. Valentine, “50 Years Ago, Alma Thomas Made ‘Space’ Paintings that Imagined the Moon and Mars,” Culture Type, July 16, 2019, https://www.culturetype.com/2019/07/16/50-years-ago-alma-thomas-made-space-paintings-that-imagined-the-moon-and-mars/
John Yau, “The Fly in the Ointment: Lee Krasner,” Hyperallergic, May 08, 2016, https://hyperallergic.com/296877/the-fly-in-the-ointment-lee-krasner/
Jennifer Blessing, “Mark Rothko: Untitled (Violet, Black, Orange, Yellow on White and Red),” Guggenheim, https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/3533
Peter Kalb, ed., H. H. Arnason History of Modern Art, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc, 2004).
Jennifer Dasal, “How MoMA and the CIA Conspired to Use Unwitting Artists to Promote American Propaganda During the Cold War,” September 24, 2020, Artnet, https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt-1909623
Maximilíano Durón, “Emily and Mitchell Rales Bought Record-Breaking $11.7 M. Lee Krasner Work at Sotheby’s Last Week,” ARTnews, May 20, 2019, https://www.artnews.com/art-news/market/emily-and-mitchell-rales-bought-record-breaking-11-7-m-lee-krasner-work-at-sothebys-last-week-12602/
Mary Gabriel, “How Lee Krasner Made Jackson Pollock a Star,” Literary Hub, October 02, 2018, https://lithub.com/how-lee-krasner-made-jackson-pollock-a-star/
Jordan Gonzalez, “Visitors see Jackson Pollock’s ‘Mural’ for last time in Sioux City,” Sioux City Journal, April 05, 2015, https://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/visitors-see-jackson-pollocks-mural-for-last-time-in-sioux-city/article_22436f94-819a-5831-af11-350a50c2167a.html
Barnett Newman, “The Sublime is Now,” in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 580-582.
Tim Keane, “Lee Krasner’s Early Prophecies,” Hyperallergic, August 10, 2019, https://hyperallergic.com/512762/lee-krasners-early-prophecies/
Sam Phillips, …isms: Understanding Modern Art. (New York: Universe, 2013).
Jackson Pollock, “Two Statements,” in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 570-571.
Ad Reinhardt, “Art as Art,” in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 821-824.
Katie Ronzio, “Jackson Pollock’s wife? You mean Lee Krasner,” DOMA Insider, November 08, 2016, https://domainsiderbsu.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/jackson-pollocks-wife-you-mean-lee-krasner/
Harold Rosenberg, “from ‘The American Action painters,’” in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 589-592.
Mark Rothko, “The Romantics were Promoted,” in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 571-573.
Aaron Smith, “Ken Griffin buys two paintings from David Geffen for $500 million,” CNN Business, February 19, 2016, https://money.cnn.com/2016/02/19/luxury/ken-griffin-david-geffen-de-kooning-jackson-pollock/index.html
Tessa Solomon, “Jackson Pollock’s Largest Painting Is Touring the World, and Its Mysteries Are Coming to Light,” ARTnews, May 05, 2020, https://www.artnews.com/feature/where-is-jackson-pollocks-mural-1202685945/
Alma Thomas, “Autobiographical Writings,” Alma Thomas Papers, circa 1894-2001, Box 2, Folder 7: Autobiographical Writings, circa 1960s-circa 1970s, Smithsonian Archives of American Art, https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/alma-thomas-papers-9241/subseries-3-1/box-2-folder-7
Chad M. Topaz, “Diversity of artists in major U.S. museums,” PLoS One, March 20, 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6426178/
Lon Tuck, “Tony Janson's Work of ‘Art’,” Washington Post, April 13, 1986, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1986/04/13/tony-jansons-work-of-art/c812d6dd-3ab1-4a91-a90c-d8e3954052fd/
Victoria L. Valentine, “50 Years Ago, Alma Thomas Made ‘Space’ Paintings that Imagined the Moon and Mars,” Culture Type, July 16, 2019, https://www.culturetype.com/2019/07/16/50-years-ago-alma-thomas-made-space-paintings-that-imagined-the-moon-and-mars/
John Yau, “The Fly in the Ointment: Lee Krasner,” Hyperallergic, May 08, 2016, https://hyperallergic.com/296877/the-fly-in-the-ointment-lee-krasner/