The Vilification of the W.P.A. Aesthetic

Post-Abstract Expressionism critics and memory

Art, even more than history, is pathetically committed to a teleological progression. It is rife with “natural phenomenon” which mark points in time, or departures, that cue an expected reaction from us (Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, or Duchamps 'ready mades'). It is not as deplorable, though, the fact that art can very rarely stand alone without cultural accompaniment. Such background support for art is certainly less hegemonic, and decidedly more utilitarian.

The problem begins and ends with three forms of bastardization in the “viewing of Art”. Hero worship, by which I mean the inflation of value and agency of an individual artist, which usually results from a failure to place the artist within a correct and comfortable cultural milieu.



The eclipse of a style, or chronological disregard of a “former” aesthetic whose role is pinned only as a precipitator of the aforementioned “natural phenomenon” is the second form. Common in the 20th century, though repeated throughout history by elite that sound the clarion call of “renaissance” or “revolt” or “rejection” in art. The Prime example of this is found in the wake of the America’s Abstract Expressionist movement. It ushered in a shift of style that led to a large scale disregard for the American Scene paintings of the preceding decade. Comprised of regionalists and social realists, 1930’s realism, exists now in this tightly sealed categorical box thanks to none other than the dismissive art critics that were the most enthusiastic proponents of the Abstract movement (Greenberg, Rosenberg). The W.P.A. stood in this crossfire, and was undeservedly dragged into the conflagration. As the perfect scapegoat, modernists charged the W.P.A. federal arts project with institutional maintenance and propagation of stolid realism through its decade long reign. Not only are their logistical fallacies in this charge, but more regrettably the framing is born out of a sort of agenda of the authors of this history.

The third agent of degradation is the monopolistic concentration of cultural leadership held in elite institutions. These various forms of “authority”: museums, university art departments, few powerful and widely-read publications, as well as high-priced auction houses and galleries, exist outside of popular access. These organs define the value of art as well as write it’s history. They serve as proponents of the established paradigm, which not only frames the present Art world, but suffocates individual exploration into the past.

Natural and social histories can be formed largely on its own, without authors. Authors of social history can only do so much to distort, hide, and make meaning were none exists. While there is no such thing as truth in history, the social historians have much less room for error in representation. Art History, though, is (like a new born baby) wholeheartedly dependent on others to write its history for it. Without historians to their own, Art history exists as a mere series of paintings and sculptures strewn across time.

These acts are then destined to be committed by art historians and other elite ministers of taste. Perhaps it is futile to try and correct such injustices when faced with their deep roots and fervent offspring. However, there always is hope, for if one thing is certain about the Art world, it is that there is no certainty at all. In a world full of so many revolts and rejects just maybe the rights to the many wrongs is just around the corner.


Picture notes:(left)Thomas Benton. Boomtown 1928 American. Oil on canvas
46 1/8 in. x 54 1/4 in. (117.16 cm x 137.8 cm), O. Louis Gugliemi (American, born Egypt, 1906-1956)Odd Fellows Hall, 1934. Oil on canvas, 24 x 30”