What Abstract Expressionism Isn't

Anyone searching for a precise, codified definition of Abstract Expressionism is, sadly, bound to come up short. The Abstract Expressionists were the most famous contingent of painters in the history of American art. They were emphatic about what art should and shouldn't be, but they were equally emphatic about not creating a concise, manifesto-driven movement with all the defined strictures that implied. They were going against the grain of the established art world. The established art world had definitions and rules. The Abstract Expressionists, to say the least, weren't enthralled with rules.

The very term abstract expressionism, as a matter of fact, was a label not of these painters' own choosing, but a name imposed by others. The wider art world of critics, curators, and gallery owners needed a good, shorthand tag line to describe this new, emerging school of painting. Action painting or simply the New York School came into parlance. But Abstract Expressionism — a phrase that had been floating around for a while and predated these particular painters — was the name that stuck.

Even the precise definition of who is and isn't an Abstract Expressionist is sometimes up for debate. And to muddy the waters even further, there is another group of artists called the second-generation Abstract Expressionists, who came up slightly later in the chronology.

On many levels, this vagueness of definition is the norm when it comes to new creative movements. That legendary coterie of American writers during the 1920s, for example, did not proclaim their intent to go off and create the "Lost Generation" school of literature; it was something that evolved. Likewise, the revolutionary jazz musicians who emerged after the end of World War II — musicians who, not incidentally, had a huge impact on the Abstract Expressionists — did not convene a meeting to announce to the world that a new form of jazz, called bebop, was about to be launched. The nature of artistic movements stems from creative alchemy, those unique historical and cultural circumstances when the right people come together at the right time to forge something that had never been seen or heard before. The same very much applies to the Abstract Expressionist painters. Their emergence cannot be fully explained.

Another complicating factor when it comes to truly defining Abstract Expressionism is the curve balls thrown by the painters themselves. These brash new artists consciously positioned themselves in direct opposition to the art establishment. For that matter, they consciously positioned themselves in opposition to stuffy societal mores in general. Metaphorically, they were throwing a brick into the window of the American art world. And if that brick also landed in other windows, that was okay too. Definitions, to the Abstract Expressionists, were confining, limiting. "To classify," Mark Rothko, one of Abstract Expressionism's principal talents, asserted, "is to embalm."

The painters also had disparate styles. While they shared many of the same influences and creative impulses and certainly learned from each other, the Abstract Expressionist painters had widely varying techniques and worldviews. This, too, is not uncommon when innovations in art and music come on the scene. The new wave of rock 'n roll in the 1970s, for example, is often treated as a discrete, specific movement even as that view blurs the huge distinctions between the street-smart Ramones and the art school–cerebral Talking Heads. Both bands came out at the same cultural moment, yet they were worlds apart. Likewise, the AbEx (short for AbstractExpressionism/Abstract Expressionist) painters had different backgrounds, personalities, and behavior patterns. What came out on their canvases reflected these differences. It was very much an individualist's way of approaching painting, which makes it harder to ascribe stylistic specifics to AbEx as a whole. The artists were militantly individualistic. An encapsulated definition of what they were all undertaking was intrinsically difficult: the aims and processes varied from one painter to the other.

The rough-hewn Jackson Pollock was very much a product of the American West. Willem de Kooning, raised in the Netherlands, came to the United States as a ship's stowaway. Joan Mitchell was the product of a well-heeled, artistic Chicago family. In many respects, these painters didn't have much in common. What they did have in common, of course, was crucial: The thrown brick heard 'round the art world.

So ... What Exactly (More or Less) Is Abstract Expressionism?

Abstract Expressionism may have lacked a concise definition, but the specifics far outweighed the differences: It was, after all, a discrete movement. The name itself is instructive. These were abstract painters, disregarding representational strictures. There was not much regard given to recognizable objects or even painting basics like the horizon line.

But the expressionist component was equally vital. The AbEx painters would have been horrified to have their work regarded as simply academic exercises in space and shapes, or unconventional painting simply for the sake of being unconventional. They were undertaking expressive studies in human emotion — sadness, fear, happiness — and to do these expressive studies they reached out into the greater world and into their own subconscious.

What else? The AbEx painters painted large. Many had gotten their start during the Depression, painting — under the auspices of the New Deal — large, bold murals, and this carried over into their artwork a decade later. Abstract Expressionism also took jazz's improvisatory ethos and transferred it to the canvas. They often used unconventional material, such as sign paint and collage. They were based in New York City.

The fact that they were centered in New York was vitally important for a number of reasons. The fabled city itself — massive and colorful — had a huge impact on Abstract Expressionism's collective psyche.

New York City after World War II was a teeming, frenetic place, providing enough grist for any art in any medium. With Europe in ruins, the city had emerged as the true international colossus. New York was the new Rome, with all that implied: a cacophony of highs and lows. Musicians, painters, writers, actors, and poets made their way to New York, which became a creative incubus with ample opportunity for artistic cross-pollination. It was a feast for creative types and bohemians. And it was also, of course, noisy,...