Have you ever heard someone say, “I can’t draw to save my life”? Or that creativity is something you’re either born with—or not? These beliefs didn’t appear out of nowhere. They were shaped by cultural forces that still influence how Americans think about art and creativity today. One of the most powerful of these forces was Abstract Expressionism.
The Rise of Abstract Expressionism
In the late 1940s and 1950s, Abstract Expressionism exploded onto the American art scene. For the first time, the U.S. wasn’t simply importing European styles—it was exporting a distinctly American avant-garde movement, featuring artists like Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, Mark Rothko, and Robert Motherwell (Freedman, 1988). These artists became icons, known for monumental canvases, wild brushwork, and the idea that painting was not just an image, but an “authentic expression of the Self.”
But this art movement wasn’t purely about creative liberation. As art critic Clement Greenberg proclaimed Pollock “the most powerful painter in contemporary America” (Greenberg, 1947), he also cemented a cultural hierarchy. Artistic genius became synonymous with a select few—mostly white, male, and upper-class (Bystryn, 1978). The result was a model of creativity that was enigmatic, individualistic, and exclusionary. As Bystryn (1978) notes, the role of critics like Greenberg was central to defining what counted as art, and who could be called an artist.
The rise of Abstract Expressionism reinforced Enlightenment-era ideas about artistic genius: that true artists are born, not made. Rather than viewing creativity as a set of learnable, developmental skills, the public came to associate “real” art with the spontaneous brilliance of a select few. The average American found Abstract Expressionism difficult to relate to—critic Lincoln Kirstein (1948) even called it “elitist.” But that didn’t stop it from influencing how art was taught in schools.
Dewey’s Warning and the Art-as-Object Trap
This myth of genius echoes Enlightenment-era thinking, suggesting true artistry is a rare, innate gift (Delistraty, 2020). And it’s precisely what philosopher John Dewey warned against. In Art as Experience (1934), Dewey argued that art should not be reduced to objects or commodities. Instead, it should be understood as a dynamic experience—a way of engaging with the world, fostering curiosity, connection, and reflection.
Yet Abstract Expressionism helped steer American culture toward art-as-object. Paintings became high-value commodities, and artists became brands. As Marche (2003) notes, this shift fueled a perception of art as something remote, elitist, and mysterious—a club for a few geniuses rather than a practice open to all.
The Classroom Ripple Effect
These cultural forces seeped into American classrooms, shaping how art was taught—and who felt welcome making it.
Previous to this movement, in the 1940s, art education researcher Viktor Lowenfeld laid the groundwork for a different vision of art education. His research and teaching emphasized authentic, child-centered art education, grounded in the idea that creativity is a developmental skill, not an inborn trait. Lowenfeld’s work provided an antidote to the notion of art as mysterious genius, advocating for artistic growth through exploration, problem-solving, and personal meaning—a vision deeply connected to progressive ideals championed by Dewey.
But cultural momentum is powerful. Freedman (1988) explains that even as Lowenfeld’s theories gained traction, art teachers struggled under the influence of Abstract Expressionism’s aura of mystery and genius. In schools, art often became, in Freedman’s words, “displays of emotion and problems to be solved” (p. 22), disconnected from deeper inquiry or meaningful context.
When “Child-Centered” Lost Its Meaning
Ironically, the term “child-centered,” once rigorous under Lowenfeld’s model, became watered down. Instead of genuine student-led exploration, it sometimes became a label slapped onto activities inspired by the expressive gestures of Abstract Expressionism—but stripped of pedagogical depth (Freedman, 1988).
Teachers might have encouraged free-form painting, but without connecting it to critical thinking, observation, or personal meaning. In classrooms, art became either a therapeutic release or a technical craft—rarely a structured process of inquiry. The result? Creativity lost credibility as a valuable educational outcome. As Marche (2003) points out, Abstract Expressionism helped redefine art as individualism and emotion, further disconnecting it from the collaborative and critical practices that define real learning.
Why It Still Matters
All of this still shapes the way Americans think about art today. When someone claims they “can’t draw,” they’re echoing decades of cultural narratives suggesting art is reserved for geniuses. When art programs face cuts in schools, it’s partly because creativity is often misunderstood as less rigorous or practical than other subjects.
But Dewey’s vision remains powerful. Art, he insisted, is not just about objects—it’s about experience, growth, and connection. And educators like Lowenfeld remind us that creativity can be nurtured in everyone. The National Core Arts Standards (NCAS) attempt to re-center creativity in the curriculum, but often fail to define what creative thinking actually looks like—or how to assess it. Without clear frameworks, many teachers fall back on product-based evaluation or vague notions of self-expression.
So what if we reframed creativity not as a mysterious spark, but as a set of skills and dispositions anyone can grow? What if art classrooms prioritized inquiry, curiosity, and thoughtful exploration—not just finished products? Art education has the potential to be a crucible for 21st-century skills, but only if we move beyond the myths we’ve inherited.
—
References
Bystryn, M. H. (1978). Art galleries and culture: A study of power and cultural exchange. Social Research, 45(1), 108–125.
Delistraty, C. (2020, January 3). Why do we lionize the tortured artist? The Paris Review. [https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2020/01/03/why-do-we-lionize-the-tortured-artist/]
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. New York: Minton, Balch & Company.
Freedman, K. (1988). Artistic Learning and the Modernist Agenda. Studies in Art Education.
Greenberg, C. (1947). The new sculpture. Partisan Review, 14(5), 589–594.
Kirstein, L. (1948). The American Artist and the Industrial Age. The Magazine of Art.
Marche, S. (2003). How abstract expressionism killed the arts. The Walrus. [https://thewalrus.ca/how-abstract-expressionism-killed-the-arts/]
—
Curious how creativity can be nurtured—not just admired? Explore my workshops and retreats designed to help teams think differently and discover their own creative voice.
© 2025 Andrea Merello. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce this content without permission.
