
the precision and function of a machine. Whitman’s call did not go unheard.
American artists such as photographers/filmmakers Paul Strand and Pare Lorentz, and
photographers Lewis Hine and Alfred Stieglitz, painters Robert Henri, Georgia
O’Keefe
and Charles Sheeler, and architect Frank Lloyd
Wright
acknowledged Whitman as an
important creative force in their work. These artists forged a modernist sensibility that
sought to represent the American work of art as an intermingling of
Midwest
ruggedness
with the promise of modernage machinery American artists, especially after the First
World War, succeeded in producing an image that streamlined nature and machine while,
more strikingly it masculinized the parameters of American creativity.
“The general opinion is,” wrote critic Henry McBride in 1922, “that [the new
American artists] are to be as lusty as those that Walt Whitman prophesied for us.” Lusty,
ut strong, virile, efficient and undeniably American, one need only look at the
collaborative film project based on a Whitman poem (“Man(a)hatta,” 1920) between
Strand and Sheeler to see the poet’s dream of a sublime American modern art come to
fruition.
This lusty and virile American modernism wended its way through the twentieth
century where it found its apogee in the work of abstract expressionist painter, Jackson
Pollock
(1912–56). Trained by the hand of regionalist painter, Thomas Hart Benton
(1889–1975), Pollock (along with art critic Clement Greenberg in the late 1940s and
early 1950s) championed an American art that, like Whitman, refused the “effeminate”
European tradition and sensibility of art. Garbed in jean jacket, T-shirt and
cowboy
boots,
Pollock exhibited both himself and his work as the pure American masculine ideal o
artist and art. As Pollock saw it, he and his work were the profound (American)
conjunction of man, nature and art. In 1944 he told painter Hans Hofmann, with perfect
Whitmanesque sublimeness, “I am Nature.”
To this day, the encomiums continue to be sung for this apparent modernist tradition
extant between Pollock and Whitman. Carter Ratcliff, for example, states that Pollock’s
work “[evokes] a sense of the limitless possibility the best of his canvases gave us—for
the first time—a pictorial equivalent to the American infinite that spreads through Walt
Whitman’s Leaves of Grass” (1996:3).
With Pollock, America had hoped to find its “pure” national voice, while it
hegemonically positioned his work as
the
international representation of Modern Art. As
Serge Guilbaut argues, Pollock’s paintings emerged precisely at the moment when post-
Second World War American culture began to saturate the world. Pollock’s paintings
now sell for millions of dollars and hang in many major international corporate centers
and
museums
.
To be sure, the tension underscoring the notion of American modernism is riddled with
complicated conflict. But the masculinist (and arguably misogynist and homophobic)
influence of Whitman as it is reworked by twentieth-century artists cannot be
underestimated. But there were interesting cracks in this earnest version of American art.
While admiring the work of Whitman, artists such as poet Charles Henri Ford resisted the
heteromasculinizing of American art by championing a convergence of multiple strains
Entries A-Z 751