Advertisement

“With Eyes Wide Open”: The American Reception of Surrealism

Chapter
  • 28 Downloads
Part of the Studies in European Culture and History book series (SECH)

Abstract

In the 1930s and early 1940s, surrealist ideas and practices, with their emphasis on the unconscious, the irrational, and the accidental, significantly broadened both the painterly and the narrative possibilities open to American artists. The cultural impact of the surrealist emigres in the 1940s was prepared by the prior decade of transatlantic exchange. Following a period of experimentation and negotiation, American artists would effect a transvaluation of surrealism by bringing to bear a range of new postwar cultural, scientific, and broadly philosophical influences. Together, the two phases of encounter with surrealism—the 1930s and the 1940s—furnished a vital catalyst that would give new energy and definition to native tendencies while introducing new practices and propelling American art beyond its conservative grounding in the idea of art as a mirror of the social.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    The reception of surrealism among American writers constitutes a distinct and important episode that cannot be treated here. See, in particular, Malcolm Cowley, Exile’s Return: A Literary Odyssey of the 1920s (New York: Viking Press, 1951)Google Scholar
  2. Matthew Josephson, Life among the Surrealists: A Memoir (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1962).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Helena Lewis, The Politics of Surrealism (New York: Paragon House Publishers, 1988), 136Google Scholar
  4. Mari Jo Buhle, Paul Buhle, and Dan Georgakas, eds., The Encyclopedia of the American Left (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 808Google Scholar
  5. Franklin Rosemont, ed., What is Surrealism? Selected Writings of André Breton (New York: Monad Press, 1978), 56Google Scholar
  6. Dickran Tashjian, A Boatload of Madmen: Surrealism and the American Avant-Garde, 1920–1950 (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1995), 118Google Scholar
  7. Susan Noyes Platt, Art and Politics in the 1930s: Modernism, Marxism, Americanism (New York: Midmarch Press, 1999), 209–213.Google Scholar
  8. 4.
    Martica Sawin notes that Breton, with one exception, was not translated until the mid-1940s. See Martica Sawin, Surrealism in Exile and the Beginning of the New York School (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995), 101.Google Scholar
  9. Dore Ashton, The New York School: A Cultural Reckoning (New York: Viking Press, 1972), 85–86.Google Scholar
  10. 5.
    André Breton, “Speech to the Congress of Writers,” Manifestoes of Surrealism, trans. Richard Seaver and Helen R. Lane (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972), 241.Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    Keith Eggener, “ ‘An Amusing Lack of Logic’: Surrealism and Popular Entertainment,” American Art (Fall 1993): 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 8.
    Frank Getlein, Peter Blume (New York: Kennedy Galleries, 1968)Google Scholar
  13. 10.
    On these two exhibitions, see Deborah Zlotsky, “‘Pleasant Madness’ in Hartford: The First Surrealist Exhibition in America,” Arts Magazine, 60.6 (February 1986): 55–61.Google Scholar
  14. 11.
    Jeffrey Wechsler, Surrealism and American Art, 1931–1947 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1976), 29Google Scholar
  15. Gerald Durozoi, History of the Surrealist Movement, trans. Alison Anderson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 394.Google Scholar
  16. Sidney Simon, “Concerning the Beginnings of the New York School, 1939–1943,” Art International, 11.6/7 (1967): 18Google Scholar
  17. 12.
    Charmion Von Wiegand, “Expressionism and Social Change,” Art Front, 2.10 (November 1936): 10–13.Google Scholar
  18. 13.
    Quoted in Alfred Barr, Jr., ed., Fantastic Art, Dada, and Surrealism (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1936), 41.Google Scholar
  19. 14.
    On this point, see Charles Russell, Poets, Prophets, and Revolutionaries: The Literary Avant-Garde from Rimbaud through Postmodernism (New York: Oxford, 1985), 159.Google Scholar
  20. 15.
    See, e.g., Barnett Newman, “What About Isolationist Art?” quoted in James E. B. Breslin, Mark Rothko: A Biography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 198.Google Scholar
  21. 17.
    See Erika Doss, Benton, Pollock, and the Politics of Modernism: From Regionalism to Abstract Expressionism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 388–392.Google Scholar
  22. 24.
    Susan Ehrlich, ed., Pacific Dreams: Currents of Surrealism and Fantasy in California Art, 1934–1957 (Los Angeles: UCLA, 1995), 22.Google Scholar
  23. Susan Landauer, The San Francisco School of Abstract Expressionism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 31.Google Scholar
  24. 31.
    Patricia Hills and Roberta Tarbell, The Figurative Tradition and the Whitney Museum of American Art (New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1980), 86–89.Google Scholar
  25. Sanford Gifford, “The American Reception of Psychoanalysis, 1908–1922,” 1915: The Cultural Moment, ed. Adele Heller and Lois Rudnick (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1991), 128–145Google Scholar
  26. Leslie Fishbein, Rebels in Bohemia: The Radicals of the Masses, 1911–1917(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982), 83–93.Google Scholar
  27. 38.
    Quoted in Stephen Polcari, “Ben Shahn and Postwar American Art: Shared Visions,” Common Man, Mythic Vision: The Paintings of Ben Shahn, ed. Susan Chevlowe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 71.Google Scholar
  28. 41.
    John O. Baker, Louis Guglielmi: A Retrospective Exhibition (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Art Gallery, 1980), 12Google Scholar
  29. Louis Guglielmi, “I Hope to Sing Again,” Magazine of Art, 37.5 (May 1944): 177.Google Scholar
  30. Andrew Hemingway, “Meyer Schapiro and Marxism in the 1930s,” Oxford Art Journal, 17 (1994): 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 44.
    Quoted in Cécile Whiting, Antifascism in American Art (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 189.Google Scholar
  32. 47.
    Kenneth Burke, “Growth among the Ruins,” Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1941), 435.Google Scholar
  33. 48.
    See, e.g., Meyer Schapiro, “The Liberating Quality of Avant-Garde Art,” Art News 56 (June 1957): 40–41Google Scholar
  34. 51.
    Berenice Abbott, World of Atget (New York: Horizon Press, 1964), xxii.Google Scholar
  35. Christopher Phillips, “Resurrecting Vision: The New Photography in Europe between the Wars,” The New Vision: Photography between the World Wars, ed. Maria Morris Hambourg (New York: H. N. Abrams, 1989), 95–105.Google Scholar
  36. 54.
    See Peter Wollen, Raiding the Icebox: Reflections on Twentieth-Century Culture (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 105Google Scholar
  37. Kirk Varnedoe and Adam Gopnick, High and Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1990), 64–179.Google Scholar
  38. 58.
    City Art Museum of St. Louis, Trends in American Painting Today. The Thirty-Sixth Annual Exhibition. Paintings by Émigrés (St. Louis: City Art Museum, 1942), 32.Google Scholar
  39. 59.
    On the impact of the American landscape on the emigres, see Anthony Heilbut, Exiled in Paradise: German Refugee Artists and Intellectuals in America from the 1930s to the Present (New York: Viking Press, 1983), 50–56.Google Scholar
  40. 61.
    Quoted in Romy Golan, “On the Passage of a Few Persons through a Rather Brief Period of Time,” Exiles and Emigrés: The Flight of European Artists from Hitler, ed. Stephanie Barron and Sabine Eckmann (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1997), 132–133.Google Scholar
  41. 62.
    See Klaus Mann, quoted in Peyton Boswell, “Surrealist Circus,” Art Digest, 17 (May 1943): 21.Google Scholar
  42. 64.
    Durozoi, History of the Surrealist Movement, 393. Irving Sandler, in Triumph of American Painting: A History of Abstract Expressionism (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 32Google Scholar
  43. 66.
    Quoted in Durozoi, History of the Surrealist Movement, 393; André Breton, “The Situation of Surrealism Between the Two Wars,” Yale French Studies, 1.2 (1948): 67.Google Scholar
  44. 74.
    André Breton, “Prolegomena to a Third Surrealist Manifesto or Else,” Manifestoes of Surrealism (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972), 287–289.Google Scholar
  45. 75.
    Eric Kahler, “The Persistence of Myth,” The Chimera, 4.2-11 (Spring 1946): 9.Google Scholar
  46. 77.
    The mythic appeal of fascism was a commonplace by the late 1940s. See Andrea Caffi, “On Mythology,” Possibilities, 1 (Winter 1947–1948): 91Google Scholar
  47. 79.
    On the postwar quest for new myths, see Serge Guilbaut, How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art: Abstract Expressionism, Freedom, and the Cold War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 110Google Scholar
  48. 81.
    On existentialism in the United States, see George Cotkin, Existential America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 104–133.Google Scholar
  49. 84.
    On Rosenberg’s political development, see Fred Orton, “Action, Revolution, and Painting,” Oxford Art Journal, 14.2 (1991): 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 85.
    On this point, see Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe and Jean-Luc Nancy, “The Nazi Myth,” Critical Inquiry, 16.2 (Winter 1990): 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 86.
    Kenneth Burke, “Surrealism,” Prose and Poetry, ed. Nicolas Calas (Norfolk, CT: New Directions, 1940), 572.Google Scholar
  52. 88.
    Richard Chase, “Notes on the Study of Myth,” Partisan Review, 13.3 (Summer 1946): 344.Google Scholar
  53. 93.
    Ibid., 11. The image of the skein links this model of world and self to the drip techniques of Pollock, which would emerge in the next few years. See Michael Leja, Reframing Abstract Expressionism: Subjectivity and Painting in the 1940s (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 308–319.Google Scholar
  54. 95.
    On the role of existentialism in the early years of abstract expressionism, see Nancy Jachec, “‘The Space Between Art and Political Action’: Abstract Expressionism and Ethical Choice in Postwar America, 1945–1950,” Oxford Art Journal, 14.2 (1991): 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 96.
    See Stephen Polcari, Abstract Expressionism and the Modern Experience (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 29Google Scholar
  56. 98.
    Breton, “Prolegomena to a Third Manifesto,” 279-294; Whiting, Antifascism in American Art, 170-196; and Tashjian, Boatload of Madmen, 202-234. Herbert Read drew a distinction between different forms of irrational instinct: those he termed “phylocentric,” or ego-centered and fascistic, and those antifascist instincts of “mutual aid and constructiveness.” See Herbert Read, The Politics of the Unpolitical (London: Routledge, 1946), 89.Google Scholar
  57. 100.
    The preference for Jung was widely recognized by the late 1950s. See Alfred Barr, “Introduction,” The New American Painting (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1959), 16.Google Scholar
  58. 101.
    Whitney Chadwick, Myth in Surrealist Painting, 1929–1939 (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1980), p. 97.Google Scholar
  59. 105.
    Paul Goodman, “The Political Meaning of Some Recent Revisions of Freud,” Politics, 2.7 (July 1945): 197.Google Scholar
  60. 106.
    On the independent experimentation of Kamrowski, Baziotes, and Pollock, both on their own and with Matta, see Martica Sawin, “‘The Third Man,’ or Automatism American Style,” Art Journal, 47.3 (Fall 1988): 181–86.Google Scholar
  61. 108.
    See Daniel Belgrad, The Culture of Spontaneity: Improvisation and the Arts in Postwar America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 151.Google Scholar
  62. 109.
    On Dewey’s influence on both Motherwell and Paalen, see Robert Saltonstall Mattison, Robert Motherwell: The Formative Years (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1987), 36.Google Scholar
  63. 111.
    As Paul Rodgers argues, once liberated, images from the preconscious mind often assumed a conventional artistic form. See Paul Rodgers, “Towards a Theory/Practice of Painting: Abstract Expressionism and the Surrealist Discourse,” Artforum, 18 (March 1980): 53.Google Scholar
  64. 113.
    On the cultural impact of particle physics, see ibid., 120. For the contemporary application of the “field” model to the study of society, see Kurt Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers (New York: Harper & Row, 1951).Google Scholar
  65. 114.
    See, e.g., Alfred North Whitehead, “Objects and Subjects,” Adventures of Ideas (New York: MacMillan Company, 1933), 225–245.Google Scholar
  66. 115.
    Quoted in Ellen H. Johnson, American Artists on Art from 1940 to 1980 (New York: Harper & Row, 1982), 16.Google Scholar
  67. 122.
    See, e.g., Motherwell’s statement made in 1979, quoted in Stephanie Terenzio, Robert Motherwell and Black (Storrs: University of Connecticut Press, 1980), 130.Google Scholar
  68. Lawrence Alloway, William Baziotes: A Memorial Exhibition (New York: Solomon Guggenheim Museum, 1965), 13.Google Scholar
  69. 125.
    René D’Harnoncourt, “Challenge and Promise: Modern Art and Modern Society,” American Magazine of Art (July 1948): 252. The theme of an unsettled time yielding an unsettled art was sounded often in these years. See Piri Halasz, “Art Criticism (and Art History) in New York: The 1940s vs. the 1980s: Part Two: The Magazines,” Arts Magazine, 57.7 (March 1983): 67.Google Scholar
  70. 127.
    Antoine de Saint Exupéry, another wartime New York exile (and an ardent critic of surrealism), passionately defended freedom from the oppressive conformism of mass democracy. See Jeffrey Mehlman, Émigré New York: French Intellectuals in Wartime Manhattan, 1940–1944 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 151.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sabine Eckmann and Lutz Koepnick 2007

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations