Talk:Abstract expressionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	Class: This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

I have deleted the external link: *Art Research Notes on Abstract Expressionism as it appears to be a broken link.

cheers Mike Lawrence Turner 15:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Although it is true that spontaneity or of the impression of spontaneity characterized many of the abstract expressionists works, most of these paintings involved careful planning, especially since their large size demanded it. An exception might be the drip paintings of Pollock."

I believe this statement is based on a misconception about "Jack the Dripper" and his paintings, one which I shared until I read of the computer analysis related here: [1] and here:[2], which discovered fractal patterns in Pollock's works. As the Discover article says, "Pollock's drip method was as complex and exquisitely controlled as it seemed crude and haphazard. It often took him weeks to achieve the fractal layerings in his paintings..."

Just FYI.

69.151.151.52 06:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought Pollock's work displayed a high degree of structure. I'm sure there must be research out there that supports that view. Maybe I'll look next time I have a few minutes to spare. Steve James 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

you had Willem dekooning listed twice so I removed the second one.

HELP!

ok well im trying to go through the artists and make it so its a direct link on all of them rather then going to a breakdown of all of people named that, the one i am working on now is Paul Jenkins and i am trying to do that but whenever i try to change it it never works, i try the thing which is

Paul Jenkins (Us painter)|Paul Jenkins

and it doesnt work, i would like someone to try to get thqat to work because its not working for me :( thanks

--Er a wikipiki wiki wum 19:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

nvm i got it

--Er a wikipiki wiki wum

This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Arts.

Somebody added Piet Mondriaan as an abstract expressionist, but I've removed him. It's probably true that had he worked in the US after World War II he would have been called abstract expressionist, but as he worked in Holland before World War II he never is. --Camembert

I disagree, as I find that alot of Mondrains work is abstract,as he create images of landscapes that appear to be a selection of squares.Just because he didnt produce work in New York before and after WW II , why should that effect him being an adstract expressionist??

Because then no Americans would ever know about De Stijl, that's why. (Not that many seem to anyway, but that's another matter.) Either way, the Abstract Expressionists were not the only Abstract artists ever, and Abstract art isn't necessarily always AbEx. --Bảo 20:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gestural and Chromatic Abstraction

I never thought I'd ever end up saying something like this, but... why is there no mention of the AbEx subcategories chromatic abstraction and gestural abstraction? I'm not making these things up. Behold, cited definitions:

chromatic abstraction— A kind of Abstract Expressionism that focused on the emotional resonance of color, as exemplified by the work of Barnett Newman and Mark Rothko. (pg 1095, Glossary)
gestural abstraction— Also known as action painting. A kind of abstract painting in which the gesture, or act of painting, is seen as the subject of art. Its most renowned proponent was Jackson Pollock. (pg 1097, Glossary)
- Fred S. Kleiner, Christin J. Mamiya (2004). Gardner's Art Through the Ages, Volume II. Wadsworth Publishing. ISBN 0534640915.

It might be useful to point out these, or even just use them to organize the current list of artists differently, as there is a difference between the two that can be confusing to people who don't know it's there. --Bảo 20:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I've found out the problem with gestural abstraction— the Wikipedia article on it is under action painting, but gestural abstraction doesn't redirect to it. Going to fix that now. --Bảo 20:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This sucks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheKid (talk • contribs). Tyrenius 07:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This "chromatic abstraction" sounds interchangeable with Color field painting. Please see that article. Perhaps you could create a "chromatic abstraction" page that redirects to Color field painting, and then edit the 'color field' page to include mention of "chromatic abstraction" as an alternate term. -MarylandArtLover

OK, I've done what I suggested above. I hope this is satisfactory to all concerned. MdArtLover 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

This article could use some more visual examples.

[edit] Kandinsky an abstract expressionist?

Well, he certainly was an abstractionist...and he formed Der Blaue Reiter in conjunction with Franz Marc and a few other German expressionists. But an exponent of ab-ex itself? Nope.

Response to the above. I wrote the bulk of the last section and said: "Abstract Expressionism has many stylistic similarities to the Russian artists of the early twentieth century such as Wassily Kandinsky." I never said he was an "abstract expressionist". Please read more carefully before you throw around your criticism. Ed

The Museum of Modern Art in New York has a poster by Alfred Barr published in 1936 delinating the trends in modern art from 1890 to 1935. In the left column on the poster is written: (ABSTRACT) EXPRESSIONISM 1911 Munich The poster is reproduced on p 391 in "modernism. designing a new world" Ed Christopher Wilk published by the Victoria and Albert Museum in 2006. /Galmenberg 09:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

{1}, {2}, {3}, {4} and {5} should appear. Thank you. Protector 00:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Abstract Art and Abstract Expressionism are not the same, but is a difference of kind, not degree. Jackson Pollack, Mondrian, and Kandinsky, all mentioned in this article, as being an example of Abstract Expressionism is simply wrong. The above were pure abstraction. An article at the; "The Bulfinch Guide to Art History"; http://artchive.com/artchive/abex.html strongly suggest a distinct difference of Pure abstraction and Abstract Expression. Edvard Munch, altered images to enhance the expression of his depiction of horror in his painting, The Scream. Pure abstraction has no pointed expression motive behind their works. The practice of altering and/or adding abstract elements into a more expressive image has influenced the art of commercial images. Van Gogh's work, A Starry Night, has all the elements of abstract expressionism. Excellent expressionism reference at; http://arthistory.heindorffhus.dk/frame-Style20-Expressionism.htm G.E.Wolfe

My understanding of Abstract Expressionism is that it is a term applied to American Artists painting abstract work after World War II. Certainly there have been many painters painting abstractly before that. Modrian and Kandinsky certainly do not fit into that category. If you think Jackson Pollack is not an Abstract Expressionist, so be it. I will not argue. How Edvard Munch is the founder of Abstract Expressionism, I do not know. Ed Lynch

"How Edvard Munch is the founder of Abstract Expressionism, I do not know." I agree and corrected my view. Thanks! G.E.Wolfe

I composed much of what was in the middle section on Abstract Expressionism well over a year ago. I have rarely come back to it but I noticed that someone was critical of a social analysis I had. Also I had references to Clement Greenberg who, I think, is a critical componant to the establishment of Abstract Expressionism in the United States. They appear to have been removed. Someone critiqued the lack of citations which is fair. So I am back to give some citations and urge those who have the time to read the cited works and add material as they see necessary. One is Serge Builbaut's "How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art", University of Chicago Press, 1983. I give it a high recommendation. And also a Reader edited by Charles Harrison and Paul Wood, "Art in Theory, 1900 - 2000, An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA 2002. Thank you, Ed Lynch, Oct. 2007

[edit] Images for this article

Why are there no images of the art at all in a description of a whole movement?

OK, I've waited for months for someone to provide an image (besides the Pollock stamp, which doesn't show a clear example of a completed work). I hope the image I added is OK with all concerned. MdArtLover 19:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of Gulgee

A high-handed editor (not signed in) deleted the link to Gulgee. Gulgee is directly relevant to the article's discussion of the international influence of this movement and its connection to the cold-war era projection of US cultural prestige and power. Since the person who deleted the link apparently didn't bother to look at the relevant articles in order to see the relevance and sources, I will quote here from the Elaine Hamilton article:

According to Partha Mitter in Indian Art (Oxford History of Art), Elaine Hamilton was an important influence on the young Pakistani artist Ismail Gulgee (or Guljee, as it is sometimes spelled): "Impressed by the visiting American artist Elaine Hamilton, Guljee enthusiastically plunged into action painting...." [p.214]. In fact, according to David Craven, Hamilton became something of an ambassador for abstract expressionism in South Asia: "[Abstract expressionism] was promoted as a 'universal style' in Pakistan during the 1950s by a U.S. artist named Elaine Hamilton" [p. 23].

See the Gulgee and Hamilton articles for full bibliographic information including ISBNs.

A general note to all: please be aware, before you delete something, that someone else just might know something that you don't, however highly you may think of yourself.MdArtLover 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marcel Duchamp

I would propose removing Marcel Duchamp from the list of AE artists. He produced virtually no original art of his own after 1923, and surely would not have subscribed to the ethos of AE, as it is a classic example of what he termed "retinal painting". He also advocated the divorce of art from subjective feeling, considering that art was an expression of idea, rather than inherently aesthetic. If no one disagrees here within 7 days, I'll knock him off the list. Steve James 15:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Categorizinging Duchamp as an abstract expressionist is ahistorical nonsense. 70.17.22.80 02:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style section

The quote "Since the subject matter was often totally abstract it became a safe strategy for artists to pursue this style. Abstract art could be seen as apolitical. Or if the art was political, the message was largely for the insiders" is highly objectionable. Abstract artists were held to just as much, if not more, scrutiny as other artists. Abstract art was not a safe political move; artists were even called on to "explain" their work as part of the anti-communist crusades. This statement should be removed. --Calegreen 01:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If not removed, it certainly requires supporting citations. Steve James 09:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Steve but would go farther. The statement requires not only citation but more context, including citation of opposing viewpoints. Though the statement as it stands is little more than a dawb of hostile graffiti, simply removing it would be the rude and lazy option. Better to flesh it out, expand on it, balance it, sourcing everything generously. MdArtLover 16:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This assumes a relationship between style in art and trends, which is really another way of saying styles, and that which is going on in the social and political realm beyond the artist's studio. While this relationship can be a tight one, I think it is more often impossible to tie artistic changes with the goings on in the world around them. It is an interesting theory. It could have relevance. But without citations it is original research. I therefore would just suggest tagging it as a questionable fact. Bus stop 17:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged it as {{Fact}}. Steve James 17:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of artists

Has anyone ever done a thorough review of the artists in the list to check their AE credentials? 69.209.238.39 has just added Mary Abbott which links erroneously to the wife of a Canadian politician. Performing a web search on Abbott indicates that she was a figurative rather than an AE artist. http://www.artfacts.net/index.php/pageType/artistInfo/artist/29871#Biography also indicates that she was a figurative painter, not an AE. It strikes me that a thorough review should be undertaken, which I'd gladly have a bash at, but I wouldn't want to repeat work that had already been done. Is their any way that listed artists could be given some sort of "seal of approval" to prevent people wasting time on checking the credentials of artists who are correctly listed? --Steve James 08:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to go through the list. Remember that some artists, like Phillip Guston and Richard Diebenkorn went through stages of more figurative work, but are still AE. Keep the list "broad", Clyfford Still really wasn't AE, but since he is traditionally grouped with them, he should stay on the list. Feel free to remove non-notable artists, especially red-link ones. --Knulclunk 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made a start and placed an {{underconstruction}} template in the list of artists section. Very happy for other people to contribute. I think it's clear where I'm going on this. I'm not planning to remove any artists from the list until I've split them into the two sub-lists. --Steve James 11:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth the AE painters are generally considered to be in two groups: Action painting and Color field painting. Clyfford Still, Rothko, Newman, Reinhardt and others etc. are part of the color field group while Pollock, de Kooning, Kline and others etc. are generally considered as action painters, all of them have roots in Surrealism. I think Pollock and Motherwell can be considered part of both camps. William Baziotes - an original AE painter is very close to the surrealists as was Arshile Gorky. Modernist 12:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The other distinction is by generation. Certain painters were considered first generation AE while younger artists were called second generation AE. I would recommend however that we drop that distinction which can be contested endlessly and was often used as a perjorative towards the 2nd generation. Modernist 12:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The list of artists is heavily based in New York. There is also a large number of well recognized West Coast Abstract Expressionists who came mostly out of the California School of Fine Arts in San Francisco. There were also a number of artists who left that community to paint in Marin County, Sonoma County and Medocino- most notably Paul Zacca and Ray Rice with the Medocino Art Center. Please read Susan Landauer's excellent book: The San Francisco School of Abstract Expressionism, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1996. Thank You, Ed Lynch October 2007

I am here to give some background to my contention about "insiders". I have left a citation from page 173 of Serge Guibaut's book about the "theft of modern art." Certainly most would agree that Paris and the art world of Paris was in a shambles after World War II. The United States remained relatively unscathed. Greenberg and his cohorts saw the opportunity to focus attention on the art world of New York. Despite the Marxist leaning of Greenberg, there was no tolerance for the leftist sympathies of the former decade, now that the Soviet Union was the new enemy. Indeed there was vibrant and "new" abstract art coming from New York. Whether conscious or unconscious, the art that was promoted by Greenberg and the New York Times was safe. Paris had no real influence at the time. The new center of the art world had become New York, as a result of the catastrophe of World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.217.187 (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Steve James please don't create a template, like this one and then leave. If you want to edit - then edit. I'd appreciate it when you are ready to actually edit, then put up your sign, and remove it when you are finished. Thanks Modernist 01:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of the template. My assumption was that this template was meant to indicate that a section of an article was in the process of being changed, but over a period of time during which there might be a risk that editors might revert changes that looked incomplete. I fully intend to return to the section this weekend (which I had assumed lay within the "few days" which appears in the template text). I actually thought quite carefully before placing the template and felt it was inappropriate to use the {{inuse}} template which actively discourages other edits and should only be applied for a few hours at most. Sorry if I slipped up --Steve James 22:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jackson Pollock

I added a Jackson Pollock painting No. 5, 1948, to illustrate Abstract expressionism Modernist 02:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Links

There are too many red linked artists here, (I added most of them myself), however I hope other editors will please write the articles about these artists - they are all mostly notable and worthy with few exceptions. Modernist 17:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of references

Hi Anastrophe! In the article Abstract Expressionism I contributed the following elements to the article:

Art critics of the post-World War II era

To the list of artists I contributed

Mary Callery article; Albert Kotin article; Taro Yamamoto (artist) article;

James Brooks mainly documentation; Conrad Marca-Relli mainly documentation; Manoucher Yektai mainly documentation;

I just created the article Anne Ryan and it has some pertinent references. I will contribute some biographies in the future. Please review my page Salmon1 I find it very important to provide reliable and verifiable references. Sincerely, (Salmon1 05:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

i support your efforts to improve the article; nicely done.Anastrophe 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your recognition. Wikipedia is a difficult arena even with my background. I will continue to edit until I see its relevance. Sincerely, (Salmon1 07:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Major artists - WP:NOTE. for purposes of such lists, no article, not notable enough for list

Hi Anastrophe! The Wikipedia is a permanently growing encyclopedia created and sustained by the public. That artists may not have an article in the Wikipedia does not imply that they are therefore not notable. Please view |Artists of the Ninth Street Show. If the artists are listed without the Wiki symbol [[]] they have no articles. It is crucial to reference the dates of birth and/or death of each artist since without this information there is no clear definition as to their identity. This may provide an impetus to create new articles. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, (Salmon1 21:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

i understand your point, but you are misinterpreting my intent. i'm not saying that the artists aren't notable. i'm saying that for purposes of lists of artists, it is a bad idea to include artists who have not yet had an article created for them. the reason? vandals. by including named artists who don't yet have articles, it merely creates a 'honey pot' that attracts vandals, who will add names of friends, rivals, whomever, in hopes that they'll be overlooked. if an artist is notable, then the artist should have an article created. once the article is created, add their name to the list. notability is established separately from a list. it's essentially pointless to include a name in the list absent any supporting citations, or the artist having an article in place already. Anastrophe 21:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Before this escalates into an edit war I want to throw my support behind Anastrophe. Even if the redlinks (or nonlinks) are allowed to remain for a while, they will inevitably be removed sooner or later by any editor cleaning up the lists. --Ethicoaestheticist 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anastrophe! Discussions, according to the Webster's New World Dictionary, are not wars but ”talk or writing in which the pros and cons or various aspects of a subject are considered." I also think that people with similar goals and intentions can greatly benefit from discussions. I see your point about "vandalism." I came across it myself and I was shocked. (I never thought that I could be shocked at this stage of my life.) I believe if one does a correct responsible activity it can always be defended. I am thinking of an imaginary wikipedia editor who did not intend to write an article on Bradley Walker Tomlin but if he or she sees that this name is not in blue on a list they would take the trouble to go to the literature and do the job. The reward is that now with the Wiki symbol [[]] the name will turn blue. It sounds funny but it works with me. In a pluralistic society we all like to be appreciated while adhering to a group of our choice. Nevertheless I see your point and I agree with you. Sincerely, (Salmon1 00:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

actually - note that it was Ethicoaestheticist who broached possible escalation. I'm certainly not of a mind to edit war about this either way. I do see the benefit of the redlinked names being there as hopefully encouraging creation of articles. And, a counter argument to my own that occurs to me is that limiting inclusion of names in anticipation of possible future vandalism could be viewed as an informal prior restraint. we must take care that we not restrict ourselves in order to prevent vandalism that may or may not occur. so, as is common for me, i'm firmly planted on the fence, ending up being no help at all. ;^) Anastrophe 01:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anastrophe! I truly enjoyed your reply. Do what you think and I will comply. Sincerely, (Salmon1 01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Arshile Gorky, Portrait of Master Bill, 1929-1936

Concerning this painting in the gallery: I can't see that this painting is an example of abstract expressionism by any stretch of any definition. I don't think it belongs in the gallery for this article. MdArtLover (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Schanker, Abstraction with Muscial Instruments, 1932

Concerning this painting in the gallery, I have the same objection: I can't see that this painting is an example of abstract expressionism by any stretch of any definition. I don't think it belongs in the gallery for this article. MdArtLover (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adolph Gottlieb, Man Looking at Woman, 1949

And thirdly, concerning this painting in the gallery, I have the same objection: I can't see that this painting is an example of abstract expressionism by any stretch of any definition. I don't think it belongs in the gallery for this article. MdArtLover (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes to MdArtLover

Dear MdArtLover! It is refreshing to read your comments. I found that the best way is to contribute material with very well furnished references. As far as the painting and sculpture examples go I would not wage a fight. To differentiate art from painting is probably one of the most difficult tasks. Artists struggle with it all through their creative lives. Great masters burned their life’s work because of the fear of failure. It can be even more taxing to choose between works of artists when one has limited access to their oeuvre. Most of the time people memorize names and rarely works unless they have been endlessly repeated. When a work of art becomes inspiring to the viewer he or she can go and look for more works by the same artist. Sometimes by seeing more of the works one decides not to be interested in that particular artist any more. On the other hand one can refine appreciation by growing more experienced in viewing works of art. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely Yours, (69.125.246.230 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC))(Salmon1 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

I think these three paintings are perfectly OK, maybe even great. It's not that I think they're trivial or bad. I just don't think they're abstract expressionist. I don't have time right now to write more about this. Thanks for the response. MdArtLover (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ab-Ex images

Dear intrepid Modernist: Hi. It's nice to have an excuse to correspond with you again. I need your input. I recently posted on the ab-ex talk page my objections to the inclusion of three of the gallery images, not on grounds that the paintings are bad or unimportant, but on the grounds that they are not examples of abstract expressionism (though there may be other paintings by the same artists which are ab-ex). What do you think? I'm watching both this page and the ab-ex talk page, so I'll see your reply promptly wherever you may leave it. Thanks! MdArtLover (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think the Adolph Gottlieb is fine, it's an early example - a "pictograph," as he refered to them of his early Abstract expressionism that evolved into his "Bursts" which are better known. Admittedly the Gorky portrait of de Kooning is early and figurative, but it clearly relates to the work of John D. Graham (the mentor of Gorky, de Kooning and Pollock) and to de Koonings early figurative paintings that were influenced by Gorky and Graham. It presages the abstractions that were to come. I wish we had a later Gorky to work with as a replacement. The Louis Schanker poses a problem for me, it is too Cubist, too derivative, and a minor work by a minor artist. It probably should be deleted. I placed it chronologically, but I have reservations. If you - my old friend want to delete it I would offer no objection. Keep in mind though that both Pollock and de Kooning made important figurative work during the all important early 1950s. Modernist (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the fact that a work is figurative. An absence of figuration is only one of a set of traits which tend to predominate in abstract expressionism. De Kooning's paintings of women show the other tendencies of the movement so strongly - the savage application of paint, the emphasis on the physical quality of paint itself, the anti-orderliness, the "all-over" look of spontaneous painterly action, the large scale, the exuberant untidiness, the quality of the elemental that makes them almost seem works of nature, the mystical irrationality, the refusal to "compose" the picture or to help the viewer decide where to look, the absence of any sense of "drawing" that underlies the painted image, etc.- that it's easy to place them within abstract expressionism. In my opinion, none of these three really suits, but certainly the Schanker qualifies least as an example abstract expressionism. I really hate deleting things, so I'm going to have to think about this for a while longer before taking such a drastic step. MdArtLover (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I like your description of de Kooning, but Gorky never really relinquished his tender side, even in his most sophisticated and abstract works between 1944 and 1948. His color is always clear, his surfaces considered and subtle, even when they are dripped and loose, his use of composition, line and shapes - measured and enormously effective, set him apart from his rougher and as you describe more violent contemporaries like - de Kooning, Pollock and Kline. Gottlieb was on the other hand more like Rothko, Still, Newman, Reinhardt and Motherwell the more cerebral types, more about Color field painting then about action painting. The Gottlieb that is seen is a good example of his pictographs (rooted in mythology), and primitive painting, and like Rothko's more surrealist paintings of the late 1940s they are his early abstract expressionism. More about the Schanker I can't say. I'd say put the painting into his article, but it is already there. This morning I was talking with one of my students about how Franz Kline made small drawings before several of his most powerful and seemingly most spontaneous and violent looking paintings. Sometimes abstract expressionism isn't really abstract expressionism. :) Modernist (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rothko and Kline do not contradict what I'm saying. I'm saying that there must be a preponderance of the core traits of ab-ex in a work for it to qualify as an example. De Kooning's women, though they lack the absence of figuration predominant in ab-ex, still have a preponderance of the other traits. In the same way, Rothko's quieter canvases have a preponderance of the core traits of ab-ex, including: the emphasis on the physical quality of paint itself, the large scale, the quality of the elemental that makes them almost seem works of nature, the mystical irrationality, the refusal to "compose" the picture or to help the viewer decide where to look, the absence of any sense of "drawing" that underlies the painted image, etc. The fact that his paintings (usually) lack any obvious exuberance or violence or impetuosity and are instead brooding and depressive is not enough to disqualify them. Ditto Kline's works which in some cases may have been preceded by small-scale drawings: this is a difference in procedure that is notable, yet far from disqualifying, since the final work is visibly dominated by the core an-ex concerns and characteristics. The Schanker painting simply doesn't qualify. MdArtLover (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

While we are in complete agreement that the Schanker does not qualify, (and I'd appreciate your deleting it), I suspect that we disagree about the assesment of Gottlieb and his early Pictographs. I see refined and quiet qualities in those pictures, that mine a vein of primitive imagery; elogy's to religiosity, tragedy and memory; new and radical for the time; also seen in Newman's work of the 1940s and Rothko of the 1940s. Eventually Gottlieb developed a full range of emotional expression and an articulated use of color in his Bursts. Modernist (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

To my eyes, the Gottlieb does have a sort of "tachiste," tactile, primitive quality, a quasi-Gutai celebration of material fragility, that at least relates in some way to ab-ex. The Gorky, however, is an echo of Picasso that is not at all ab-ex, as I understand it. I totally hate deleting things, so I'm still just going to stew for a while. MdArtLover (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a great story about the surrealist artist/dealer Julien Levy seeing Gorky's work for the first time - some early paintings that appeared to him to be derivative of Miro and Picasso. He asked Gorky about that and Gorky replied: When I paint like Miro, I am Miro! and when I paint like Picasso, I am Picasso! To which, Levy replied: Well, when you paint like Gorky, call me. Modernist (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's so true it's almost not funny. That Gorky painting is certainly derivative, but of course, that's not my concern. A painting can be derivative, yet also be clearly an example of abstract expressionism. Conversely, a painting can be highly original, yet not at all an example of abstract expressionism. For example, David Hockney's sun-saturated paintings of Los Angeles socialites and swimming pools are both highly original and absolutely not abstract expressionist. MdArtLover (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I find the inclusion of the Gorky highly misleading as a visual presentation of Ab Ex, and its only relevance to the movement is within Gorky's work as showing the initial signs of his later development. Surely a mature Gorky fits the bill. This painting sits much better as a derivation of Picasso's classical period. There are other dubious inclusions, e.g. Alexander Calder whose article doesn't even mention Ab Ex. I suggest copying all this to Talk:Abstract expressionism and holding discussions there. Tyrenius (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually think both Arshile Gorky and Alexander Calder belong here, if for no other reason than they are both important and seminal influences on the advent of American abstract expressionism. The Gorky actually is a forerunner of the developement of a type of Abstract expressionism, a little beyond the Picasso derived influence. Modernist (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good argument, but the article needs to make this clear and at the moment has no mention of it - just the inclusion of images which on their own don't make sense. Tyrenius (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Two points: (1) Let's not conflate the artist with a particular painting. Gorky himself may qualify, in some of his work, as an abstract expressionist, but this painting does not qualify for inclusion in a gallery of abstract expressionist works. Find a Gorky that qualifies, or don't use a Gorky image at all. (2) As for Calder: I don't think he qualifies. His work is clearly part of the biomorphic abstractionist language that includes Miró and others. If Calder is an abstract expressionist, then so is Miró, which expands the designation "abstract expressionist" to the point of absurdity. This has nothing to do with whether Calder's work is good or important. "Abstract expressionist" is not some sort of honorific term that applies to any work that is strong or original or beautiful. There is much wonderful work that isn't ab-ex, and there is certainly some un-wonderful work that definitely is abstract expressionist. MdArtLover (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line, as ever, is find sources. Anything without them can be removed by any editor. Images without any source to validate their relevance can be removed. Tyrenius (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am reluctantly eliminating two works from the gallery, essentially outnumbered because User:Knulclunk also expressed his reservations about the Calder. I think the Miro suggestion is actually pretty interesting, considering he made his first stain paintings in the 1920s and predates everybody. In my opinion the Gorky goes beyond Picasso and is an early example of abstract expressionism. In the absence of a better example I think it should stay, hmmm Miro. Modernist (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't something like this more the ticket? Tyrenius (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely...Modernist (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this one might do. If one could get permission, this could work: there is an emphasis on letting the paint do what it will, a messy, stainy embrace of material chance, that is ab-ex or tachiste in sensibility. But most of even Gorky's abstract works are not really abstract expressionist. The language is much more like that of Roberto Matta and certain works of Miró: biomorphic abstraction. He moves well past the post-Picasso stuff, but still.... Look at these, for example, from the MOMA collection: [3] MdArtLover (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gorky's work is no more than a foretaste of abstract expressionism, as the Met's essay clarifies: "In 1942, Gorky's work moved in an entirely new direction, toward a watery, biomorphic abstraction that incorporated Surrealist automatism while anticipating the gestural brushwork of Abstract Expressionism. " (see Met link above). MdArtLover (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Since even Gorky's most mature work only anticipates abstract expressionism - that is, it consists of biomorphic, quasi-surrealist abstractions with gestural brush work that anticipates ab-ex - then including a decidedly derivative, post-Picasso work in the gallery is extremely tenuous. We have here only a foreshadowing of an anticipation of abstract expressionism - and it's the very first image in the gallery? The gallery should consist only of images that squarely qualify as abstract expressionist. MdArtLover (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Make no mistake, Gorky is an Abstract expressionist painter. There always was just a thin line separating Gorky, from Matta and the Surrealists. He died in 1948 just before the world caught up with American Abstract expressionism and Breton tried to claim him. But his intimate proximity with New York painting and John D. Graham and Willem de Kooning underscores and guarantees his inclusion as an abstract expressionist, albeit a seminal one due to his early suicide. Garden in Sochi, 1941 is Gorky in the guise of Miro, however The Leaf of the Artichoke Is an Owl 1944, and The Water of The Flowery Mill 1944, are both Abstract expressionism at its best. Modernist (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You write, "Make no mistake, Gorky is an Abstract expressionist painter." Well, OK; but that doesn't mean that every single painting he did is an example of ab-ex. This one certainly isn't. It certainly should not be the very first image in a gallery entitled simply "Major works", created for the article entitled "abstract expressionism." It shouldn't be in that gallery, for this article, at all. Now, if you want to make a separate gallery called "Non-ab-ex works by artists known best known for their abstract expressionist work", that's another matter. MdArtLover (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussing personal evaluations isn't going to solve the problem. Please put sourced material into the article. I don't see any reason why the gallery can't include precursors or associated artists etc, as long as this is made explicit, as well as discussed in the article and validated. Tyrenius (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is preventing you from doing the same. This discussion has already produced relevant MOMA and Metmuseum links, so you have a start. God speed you in doing what you say needs doing. MdArtLover (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Only my time, unfortunately. Both of you are obviously much more up on, and motivated by, the subject than I am. I have found that getting the refs can shortcircuit the endless debate syndrome. A read of WP:TPG is always worthwhile... Tyrenius (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that not everything that Gorky painted was abstract expressionist; and I also agree that early precursors of the style should or could be included in the article, - which is why I'd like to leave the Gorky in until a later one appears. My make no mistake comment is intended to underscore the period of the Rosenberg book, because at the time - the late 1950s early 1960s the official consensus about Gorky is that he is an important abstract expressionist painter. Recent historical revisionists appear to call him a Surrealist, which implies a loyalty to Europe and European painting that my understanding of Gorky and his painting career simply does not support. Modernist (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The differences of interpretation would be good to have in the article, expressed of course from a NPOV. Tyrenius (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Modernist writes: ""My make no mistake comment is intended to underscore the period of the Rosenberg book, because at the time - the late 1950s early 1960s the official consensus about Gorky is that he is an important abstract expressionist painter. Recent historical revisionists appear to call him a Surrealist, which implies a loyalty to Europe and European painting that my understanding of Gorky and his painting career simply does not support." ---- Modernist, the concern with the idea of Gorky being "an important abstract expressionist painter" seems to me a bit dated. Rosenberg was writing at a time when both surrealism and Europe were officially outdated, and therefore a surrealist painter of Gorky's generation would be considered retrograde and therefore not "important". It was ideologically necessary to claim that he wasn't surrealist, in order to rescue him from the the dread stigma of being "European" and "surrealist" and therefore not properly up to date — and even not properly American. With the passage of time, we can (I hope) admit that it was perfectly possible for an American to be producing great painting in the 1940s that had more in common with surrealism than with abstract expressionism. This does not make Gorky "unimportant", "unmodern", or "un-American". Rosenberg's ideological and nationalist concern with verifying Gorky's "loyalty" is quaint and strained. It seems obvious that Gorky's work has as much or more in common with Matta's post-surrealist biomorphic abstraction than with abstract expressionism, although I see that his brushwork does, as the metmuseum essays asserts, anticipate abstract expressionism — especially in certain of the very last works. Only images of those works, if available, belong here — and not at the head of the gallery. I'm afraid I must on the whole concur with the revisionists. MdArtLover (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV it's not incumbent on us (actually it's forbidden for us) to decide on the correct viewpoint, only to express the different viewpoints so the reader can make up their own mind. Rosenberg's analysis needs to be included, along with the change of analysis that later occurred. Tyrenius (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The recent biography of Gorky Black Angel, by Nouritza Matossian c. 2000, reasserts in no uncertain terms his affiliation as an American abstract expressionist painter, which underscores Rosenberg, Sandler, and basically every other reliable art historian. The revisionists are entitled to their opinions. Not only is Gorky an American abstract expressionist, he is one of the best American abstract expressionists, a seminal influence. (In real time and to real people, Gorky is, was and will be seen as an important American abstract expressionist, whose paintings have already significantly influenced generations of artists). Matta is a surrealist, whose use of cosmic space (almost science fiction like space) is somewhat related to Gorky's more painterly space and his use of shapes, and perhaps there was a brief exchange of painterly ideas between them. The personal relationship between the two of them however is something that I would prefer not to discuss, but would shed further light on the brief exchange of painterly ideas. This conversation is over. If you think he is a Surrealist - prove it with valid references, not your opinion. - Modernist (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Modernist writes,"In real time and to real people, Gorky is...," thus declaring most intemperately that the revisionists and others who disagree with him are not "real people". He also arrogantly declares, "This conversation is over" which is tantamount to saying, "Shut up". Well, well. How very not interesting. MdArtLover (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment in real time and to real people, is positively not intended to say that revisionists aren't real people. My saying that this conversation about whether Gorky is or isn't an abstract expressionist is over, is intended as that - its has gotten boring to me, I am not saying shut up to you or to anyone else. I have absolutely no intention of addressing this issue any further.... and I would appreciate it if you would HONOR WP:NPA as I do towards you. I will reitirate my final remark - If you think he is a Surrealist - prove it with valid references, not just your opinion. Modernist (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As for NPA: did you imagine that your "real people" insult was subtle and therefore deniable? Disabuse yourself. MdArtLover (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In real time and to real people refers to my conversations, and experiences over forty years beginning in 1962 at the Gorky retrospective at MoMA and with artists, writers, curators, art dealers, art students and others about Arshile Gorky. I wasn't even thinking about you, or insulting you - why would I do that, I like you..Modernist (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well come on then, stop treating me like I'm some kind of loopy outlier on this. Wikipedia's own article on Arshile Gorky clearly situates Gorky as a crucial influence on abstract expressionism, and only in the mature works — not the quintessential, emblematic abstract expressionist, tout simple, that the Real People hold him to be. Here I quote:

"... The painterly spontaneity of mature works like "The Liver is the Cock's Comb," "The Betrothal II," and "One Year the Milkweed" immediately prefigured Abstract expressionism, and leaders in the New York School have acknowledged Gorky's considerable influence. But his oeuvre is a phenomenal achievement in its own right, synthesizing Surrealism and the sensuous color and painterliness of the School of Paris with his own highly personal formal vocabulary."

Moreover, the Gorky image used in the ab-ex article doesn't even show the relevant prefiguration or influence. This image does not belong — just as an image of a non-cubist Picasso painting would not belong, as the only image of a Picasso work, in a gallery of cubist artwork images, for an article about cubism. I really do not understand this inclusion, nor your vehemence about it. MdArtLover (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, here I go again - I do not agree with you - The portrait of de Kooning by Gorky is already a type of well advanced abstraction that in fact is an early example of American abstract expressionism. Yes, it is rooted in Surrealism, Yes Gorky's later work is more familiar as a classic type of abstract expressionism - although he isn't an action painter in the Rosenberg sense of action painting. The early abstract expressionists like de Kooning and Gorky formed and created the oeuvre, the Gorky figures are crucial to abstract expressionist artists like Marsicano, Cajori, Carone, and others. The de Kooning portrait goes beyond the conventional and like de Koonings figure paintings of the 1940s are early abstract expressionist works that are influenced by John D. Graham. Modernist (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Rooted in surrealism"? That painting hasn't even gotten to surrealism yet — much less is it on the brink of abstract expressionism! It's much closer to Picasso in his neoclassic, post-cubist phase. Gorky's just nowhere near ab-ex in that particular painting. I do not see this at all. But I think you know a lot more, so I'll stop griping and defer to you. MdArtLover (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manoucher Yektai

Hello, First of all I appreciate all of the work that has been done to develop this article. I have to disclose that I am an interested party in that Manoucher Yektai is my father. He should be placed in the group of artists that defined the movement. His contributions have been well documented from 1952 to 1964 by most, if not all, of the major art critics working for publications such as Art news, Art in America, Arts magazine... There has been a lack of information on the web from these publication but a search of the New York Times archives before 1981 will back up my case. This is the first article that I have wanted to contribute to and thought I should post here before making such a an edit. I would be happy to provide more resources about this artist if anyone feels it necessary.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.190.52 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)