Customer Reviews

American Expressionism: Art and Social Change, 1920-1950

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

AMERICAN EXPRESSIONISM is a beautiful book and one could have no better guide that cultural historian Bram Dijkstra. He is passionate, articulate, intelligent and knowledgeable about his subject. I am richer and have a deeper appreciation for the world of expressionism for having experienced this fine book.
Bravo.

The art contained within earns a night sky full of stars but I realisticaly dropped the rating to 4 stars because the writer/critic is insufferable. Its not that he writes overtly wordy, it is that Bram's opinions would float on water; they have no substance. I think some of his theories were formulated just to incense. (This book did get Bram more noticed in the art world) This movement of art is important because it questioned our societies norms and not the public's taste in esthetics. The space provided for insightful text became wasted space. Of course this my opinion. American Expresionism is becoming an increasingly forgotten form of social protest. Try finding a monograph on Rico LeBrun. My point proven. This movement deserves better analysis. It was shuffled like dirt under America's carpet so Abstract Expressionism could get the red carpet treatment. Try finding a monograph by Jackson Pollock, oh yeah, a hundred or so different books popped up. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the Abstracts and the Regionalists as well; I just don't want it to be at the expense of the Expressionists. Read this book and keep American Expressionism from disappearing from history.

An excellent compilation of a mid-century American art style. Despite the promised controversy, Dijkstra's commentaries are brilliant and quite convincing. This is certainly not a pretty or unemotional art. But what a rewarding experience.

The main weakness of American Expressionism is the extreme and unrelenting bias of the author. Dijkstra is quick to establish a divide between the evil, racist, self-aggrandizing, "Nordic" (i.e., Northern European) ruling class, and the sincere and socially engaged Eastern European, Southern European, and Asian immigrant class. For Dijkstra, the main criterion for art is social commitment. He consequently dismisses American regionalists like Thomas Hart Benton and Grant Wood out of hand and goes on to say that "we must ... confront the troubling connections that did, and continue to, exist between regionalism and the conventions of Nazi and Soviet propaganda art" (53). After World War II, American art was robbed of content when corporate art collectors fundamentally changed the market, all to fulfill the "frivolous ambitions of vastly overpaid CEOs" (118). Dijkstra clearly believes what he's saying, but that does not keep him from being at times disingenuous. Particularly pathetic is his pointing out the corporate and "Nordic" bias implicit in the fact that none of the "alien" names he is writing about are included in the spell-checker dictionary on Microsoft Word (16)!

Many, most paintings were new to me. I like that. Many, many paintings. The writing is very interesting, from a different point of view than I've seen anywhere. He is anti-Abstract art, it's dominance and origin at this time. He has good arguments.