The extraordinary artistic movement known as American Color Field Painting both continued and challenged prior esthetic traditions. Beginning in the late 1950s and continuing through the 1960s, this movement influenced the entire world of art.
American Color Field Painting was a combination of shared revolutionary techniques and unique individual solutions to the traditional problems and considerations of artistic expression. This new type of art reevaluated traditional pictorial elements including naturalistic perspective, color use, the function of line and shape, and the role of formatting.
Although individual Color Field painters developed distinct modes of expression, they hared a common emphasis on color as a central aspect of painting. They also shared a rejection of the contemporary focus on the conscious social and political responsibilities of art. Their love of materials and their joyous and strenuous endeavors to redefine the boundaries of art are among their exceptional contributions to the ongoing evolution of modern esthetic values.
Four of the major legacies of the Color Field Painters were an emphasis on the infinite potential for variations in light and color; the practice of reating multiple interpretations, known as a series, on a single theme; the relentless pursuit of the dual identity of art as both illusion and reality; and the use of landscape elements. These legacies were an extension of the practices begun by the Impressionists almost a century before.
The Impressionistic emphasis on distinct patches of solid color was carried to an extreme by Color Field painters like Kenneth Noland who created concentric rings of color in his "target" series. The scientific pproach to color that was prominent in the 19th century asserted that a pure color placed next to another color will result in a more dramatic optical effect than colors that have been muted through traditional shading and rendering.
Like many of the innovative Impressionists, the American Color Field painters sought to investigate the phenomenon of color contrasts in a deep and intuitive way. Foremost among the American Color Field painters were Helen Frankenthaler (1928- ), Morris Louis (1912-962) and Kenneth Noland (1924- ).
Frankenthaler’s pivotal work Mountains and Sea (1952) is an appropriately fluid approach to both abstraction and color contrast. The aquatic blues and greens are sometimes distinct and sometimes partially overlapping. The irregular, organic shapes are often separated from each other by intervening canvas, and the colors are soft, muted and atmospheric.
In Frankenthaler’s later paintings, such as the intensely colorful Tutti Frutti (1966) and the more geometric piece entitled The Human Edge (1967), the shapes of color touch and overlap slightly but do not interpenetrate one another. The chromatic contrasts are certainly more vivid than in the earlier Mountains and Sea. Although the tints in all three works are flat in a physical sense, they contain a ultitude of variations in opacity and tone. These variations are, in fact, hallmarks of Frankenthaler’s works and one of the great strengths of her style.
Morris Louis’s continuation of the Impressionist’s exploration of light and color resulted in two major avenues of expression. First, he produced a series of works, known as the Veils, in which he utilized multiplelayers of thinned paint to create translucent shapes. Like the Impressionist Claude Monet’s groundbreaking series of paintings of haystacks, cathedrals and water lilies, Louis fully investigated the color possibilities in each group of paintings that he produced based on a single idea.
In Louis’s Blue Veil (1958), for example, the succession of layers of yellow, red, green and blue are directly imposed upon one another. Only along the edges of the piece are the individual colors visible. In contrast with this ractice, many of Louis’s subsequent series, especially the Stripes and Unfurleds, allowed the colors to stand independently in almost stark juxtaposition to one another.
Other works, such as While Series II (1959-1960), are masterful combinations of these two approaches and include both overlapping colors and pure, unlayered hues.
The optical effects of flat tints of contiguous olors were perhaps nvestigated more thoroughly by Kenneth Noland than by any other American Color Field painter. Like many of the Impressionists, Claude Monet foremost among them, and like his contemporary and close friend Morris Louis, Noland also painted in series.
Noland’s series include the Circles, the Chevrons and the Stripes. Noland’s choice of the circle as the basic structure for a series of approximately 175 paintings is significant. Although some art historians claim that Noland’s use of the circle is devoid of symbolic meaning, thers disagree.
Diane Waldeman, author of Kenneth Noland: A Retrospective, discusses the appropriateness of Noland’s preference for the circle over the square or other geometric forms: "Clearly, the circle was a much more satisfying form than the square for Noland. The circle is related to the cosmos, while the square is most closely associated with man and manmade forms like architecture. The circle stands for eternity…. Because it has neither beginning nor end, the circle as, since antiquity, been symbolic of natural phenomenon, organic growth, mysticism and divinity."
The universality of the circle was particularly suitable for the abstract color language of Noland’s art. Noland’s selection of the circle is also related to his quest for a synthesis between meaning and method in art. Noland attempted to eliminate attention given to structure in order to focus on color resulted in his selection of this most basic geometric form—the circle. In this way, he could best achieve his objective f harmonizing the reality and the illusion inherent in art.
In his circle paintings, Noland successfully uses a simple arrangement of concentric circles (sometimes referred to as “targets”) to display his incredibly keen sense of color. These simple, geometric works pulsate with energy and movement. Noland’s Whirl (1960) is a delightful example of this ability. The concentric circles— beginning with an innermost red, then white, then black, then blue—spin so quickly that the outermost color cannot be ontained in a uniform band. Instead, the deep aquatic blue splashes out of its expected boundaries in humorous visual play.
This visual play, based on the dual identity of art as reality and illusion, is a key component of Color Field painting that is another important point of congruency with late Impressionism. Like the Impressionists, the Color Field painters in general viewed the canvas itself and the materiality of the paint as part of the real identity of painting. In contrast with this, the form and movement created by color is seen as part of the illusion. The attempt to balance and synthesize these two elements was the driving force behind many of the innovations of Frankenthaler, Louis and Noland.
Interestingly enough, the work of Louis similarly reduced pictorial elements to a minimum while retaining this playful relationship between reality and illusion. In many of his Stripe paintings, Louis allowed the drips at the bottom of each stripe to be visible when the painting was cropped and hung. However, rather than having the drips at the bottom of the paintings according to an orientation based on gravity, the pieces were hung so that the stripes appeared to be running upward and the “drips” were close to the top of the paintings.
Louis’s beautiful work Unfolding Light (1961) is an example of this approach. Obviously contrary to natural laws, this light-hearted positioning was a different and unique solution in the ongoing exploration of the dual identity of art.
Frankenthaler’s response to the problem of art’s dual nature often includes the unmistakable landscape elements that she shares with mpressionism. More than either Louis or Noland, the works of Frankenthaler are likely to feature horizontal patches of color clearly reminiscent of oceans, islands, horizons, skies and even cityscapes.
Although some critics have also seen landscape references in Louis’ horizontal motifs, Frankenthaler’s ties to the natural world are much more evident. Suggestive titles such as Arcadia and Eden indicate her conscious indebtedness to landscape art. Furthermore, the ephemeral quality of many of Frankenthaler’s images, including Mountains and Sea demonstrates her awareness of the fragility of both nature (the reality) and of artistic creativity (the illusion).
What, then, can be considered to be the definitive characteristics of Color Field painting? Among other names, Color Field painting has been alternately known as Post-Painterly Abstraction, New Abstraction, and Abstract Imagism. The influential art critic Clement Greenberg, a friend of Frankenthaler and a close associate of both Louis and Noland, used the term post-Painterly Abstraction. By this he meant the “blurred, broken, loose definition of color and contour.” Obviously this applies best to works like Frankenthaler’s Mountains and Sea and secondarily to Louis’s Veils.
Greenberg further differentiates the Color Field painters from the Abstract Expressionists by noting “the move towards a physical openness of design, or towards linear clarity, or both.” Certainly Frankenthaler, Louis and Noland all exhibited an openness of design in many of their works. Prime examples of this quality can be seen in Frankenthaler’s The Human Edge, Louis’s Unfolding Light, and Noland’s Sunshine.
Linear clarity is also present The Human Edge and in virtually all of the works of Kenneth Noland. Linear clarity is less emphasized in the works of Morris Louis, whose overlapping, blended colors are one of the most distinctive aspects of his masterful mature works.
The high-keyed, lucid color applied as pure hues rather than contrasts of light and dark also separates the Color Field painters from the typical Abstract Expressionist painting. As discussed above, the role of color, of course, is the most definitive aspect of Color Field painting in general. Their innovative techniques are not an end in themselves, but a means to get at color. Color is, indeed, the chief and universal language of the Color Field painters.
The names New Abstraction and Abstract Imagism, which were applied to Color Field painting by various art critics for convenience, are less descriptive than Greenberg’s term Post-Painterly Abstraction. Even these more generic names did, however, separate the works of the Color Field painters from Pop Art and other movements that combine color and optical effects with collage and other types of media. Color Field painting specifically continued the tradition of painting in its purist form.
Color Field painting is further separated from Pop Art and a number of other contemporary movements in ideal and aim. Color Field painting can be viewed as conservative and apolitical in comparison with the cynical, immoral view of life put forth by Pop Art. The use of amorphous, simplified or geometric shapes and the overwhelming emphasis on color makes the works of Frankenthaler, Louis and Noland universal in their language and message.
The sense of freedom and joy in the materials themselves and in the very act of creation are conveyed by the ever-new variations that each artist has mined from the rich vein of abstract color. These qualities grant to the works of Frankenthaler, Louis and Noland an ongoing freshness shared by only the best of the traditional masters. The works of Frankenthaler, Louis and Noland can best be described as lyrical, childlike, and unabashedly optimistic. They are a refreshingly bold celebration of life.
Article Use Policy: All content on this web site is protected by international copyright laws for intellectual property and may not be reproduced, used, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission.
Contact the author for permission to reprint articles for your own website, newsletter or other publications. Credit must be given to the author, a copyright notification must be included and a link to http://www.kathleenkarlsen.com.
Although individual Color Field painters developed distinct modes of expression, they hared a common emphasis on color as a central aspect of painting. They also shared a rejection of the contemporary focus on the conscious social and political responsibilities of art. Their love of materials and their joyous and strenuous endeavors to redefine the boundaries of art are among their exceptional contributions to the ongoing evolution of modern esthetic values. 
Like many of the innovative Impressionists, the American Color Field painters sought to investigate the phenomenon of color contrasts in a deep and intuitive way. Foremost among the American Color Field painters were Helen Frankenthaler (1928- ), Morris Louis (1912-962) and Kenneth Noland (1924- ).
Frankenthaler’s pivotal work Mountains and Sea (1952) is an appropriately fluid approach to both abstraction and color contrast. The aquatic blues and greens are sometimes distinct and sometimes partially overlapping. The irregular, organic shapes are often separated from each other by intervening canvas, and the colors are soft, muted and atmospheric. 
In Frankenthaler’s later paintings, such as the intensely colorful Tutti Frutti (1966) and the more geometric piece entitled The Human Edge (1967), the shapes of color touch and overlap slightly but do not interpenetrate one another. The chromatic contrasts are certainly more vivid than in the earlier Mountains and Sea. Although the tints in all three works are flat in a physical sense, they contain a ultitude of variations in opacity and tone. These variations are, in fact, hallmarks of Frankenthaler’s works and one of the great strengths of her style.
Morris Louis’s continuation of the Impressionist’s exploration of light and color resulted in two major avenues of expression. First, he produced a series of works, known as the Veils, in which he utilized multiplelayers of thinned paint to create translucent shapes. Like the Impressionist Claude Monet’s groundbreaking series of paintings of haystacks, cathedrals and water lilies, Louis fully investigated the color possibilities in each group of paintings that he produced based on a single idea.
In Louis’s Blue Veil (1958), for example, the succession of layers of yellow, red, green and blue are directly imposed upon one another. Only along the edges of the piece are the individual colors visible. In contrast with this ractice, many of Louis’s subsequent series, especially the Stripes and Unfurleds, allowed the colors to stand independently in almost stark juxtaposition to one another. 
The optical effects of flat tints of contiguous olors were perhaps nvestigated more thoroughly by Kenneth Noland than by any other American Color Field painter. Like many of the Impressionists, Claude Monet foremost among them, and like his contemporary and close friend Morris Louis, Noland also painted in series. 
Diane Waldeman, author of Kenneth Noland: A Retrospective, discusses the appropriateness of Noland’s preference for the circle over the square or other geometric forms: "Clearly, the circle was a much more satisfying form than the square for Noland. The circle is related to the cosmos, while the square is most closely associated with man and manmade forms like architecture. The circle stands for eternity…. Because it has neither beginning nor end, the circle as, since antiquity, been symbolic of natural phenomenon, organic growth, mysticism and divinity."
The universality of the circle was particularly suitable for the abstract color language of Noland’s art. Noland’s selection of the circle is also related to his quest for a synthesis between meaning and method in art. Noland attempted to eliminate attention given to structure in order to focus on color resulted in his selection of this most basic geometric form—the circle. In this way, he could best achieve his objective f harmonizing the reality and the illusion inherent in art.
In his circle paintings, Noland successfully uses a simple arrangement of concentric circles (sometimes referred to as “targets”) to display his incredibly keen sense of color. These simple, geometric works pulsate with energy and movement. Noland’s Whirl (1960) is a delightful example of this ability. The concentric circles— beginning with an innermost red, then white, then black, then blue—spin so quickly that the outermost color cannot be ontained in a uniform band. Instead, the deep aquatic blue splashes out of its expected boundaries in humorous visual play. 
Interestingly enough, the work of Louis similarly reduced pictorial elements to a minimum while retaining this playful relationship between reality and illusion. In many of his Stripe paintings, Louis allowed the drips at the bottom of each stripe to be visible when the painting was cropped and hung. However, rather than having the drips at the bottom of the paintings according to an orientation based on gravity, the pieces were hung so that the stripes appeared to be running upward and the “drips” were close to the top of the paintings. 
Although some critics have also seen landscape references in Louis’ horizontal motifs, Frankenthaler’s ties to the natural world are much more evident. Suggestive titles such as Arcadia and Eden indicate her conscious indebtedness to landscape art. Furthermore, the ephemeral quality of many of Frankenthaler’s images, including Mountains and Sea demonstrates her awareness of the fragility of both nature (the reality) and of artistic creativity (the illusion). 
What, then, can be considered to be the definitive characteristics of Color Field painting? Among other names, Color Field painting has been alternately known as Post-Painterly Abstraction, New Abstraction, and Abstract Imagism. The influential art critic Clement Greenberg, a friend of Frankenthaler and a close associate of both Louis and Noland, used the term post-Painterly Abstraction. By this he meant the “blurred, broken, loose definition of color and contour.” Obviously this applies best to works like Frankenthaler’s Mountains and Sea and secondarily to Louis’s Veils. 
Color Field painting is further separated from Pop Art and a number of other contemporary movements in ideal and aim. Color Field painting can be viewed as conservative and apolitical in comparison with the cynical, immoral view of life put forth by Pop Art. The use of amorphous, simplified or geometric shapes and the overwhelming emphasis on color makes the works of Frankenthaler, Louis and Noland universal in their language and message. 
The sense of freedom and joy in the materials themselves and in the very act of creation are conveyed by the ever-new variations that each artist has mined from the rich vein of abstract color. These qualities grant to the works of Frankenthaler, Louis and Noland an ongoing freshness shared by only the best of the traditional masters. The works of Frankenthaler, Louis and Noland can best be described as lyrical, childlike, and unabashedly optimistic. They are a refreshingly bold celebration of life. 
