1971/09/01 by Edward M. Levine
Arts and Humanities · #Art History and Market Analysis #Art, Politics, and Modernism #Artistic and Creative Research
paper · doi:10.1080/00043249.1971.10792963
crossref issued 1971/09/01 · crossref published 1971/09/01 · crossref published-print 1971/09/01 · openalex publication_date 1971/09/01 · crossref published-online 2014/10/16 · crossref created 2014/10/16 · crossref deposited 2016/12/11 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref indexed 2026/01/06 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
The growth of Conceptual Art in the sixties has been interpreted along with Pop Art as a further reaction against the personalization of art that marked Abstract Expressionism. The gesture, drip, and splatter of Action Painting were seen as marks of the hand and consequently of the personality of the artist. Harold Rosenberg's justly famous article, “American Action Painters,” was used as the central starting point for any definition of this complex movement, applying an existential viewpoint to the relationship between artist and canvas.1 I have already suggested in a previous article that there was an alternative way of viewing the works of Guston, Pollock, and the other Action Painters.2 Now that Minimal Art has taken its place in the forefront of the art world it seems a proper time to look again at the Action Painters and review just what their position was in relationship to the development of art in this century, both to previous and subsequent art.