In December 1952, critic Harold Rosenberg published an essay in ARTnews titled "The American Action Painters" that permanently altered how the world understood modern art. Rosenberg asserted that for a new generation of New York artists, the canvas was no longer a traditional picture plane meant to hold a painted scene. Instead, it had become "an arena in which to act." What went onto the linen was not a picture, but an existential event: a physical record of bodily movement, psychological tension, and raw kinetic energy.
Yet across the same Manhattan studios, another group of artists was pursuing an entirely opposite path. Where one wing threw paint with whole-body choreography, the other poured quiet, glowing washes of pigment that seemed to dissolve the physical canvas altogether. This internal divide split Abstract Expressionism into two distinct camps: Action Painting and Color Field. While history often lumps them together under one post-war banner, their materials, philosophies, and champions stood in fierce opposition.
The physical event versus the optical horizon
The split between Action Painting and Color Field hinges on how each movement treats the physical canvas. For Action Painters like Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, and Franz Kline, painting was an athletic, highly material struggle. Pollock famously unrolled raw cotton duck canvas directly onto the barn floor of his Springs, Long Island studio. Standing over the fabric, he used wooden sticks, trowels, syringes, and fluid commercial enamel house paint (such as Duco) to drip, fling, and splash paint in sweeping circular arcs. The painting became an indexical trace of his physical presence in the room.
De Kooning approached the canvas with equal violence, scraping down thick impasto oil layers dozens of times over two years on works like Woman I (1950–1952), leaving behind raw, muscular slashes of paint. For Rosenberg and the Action Painters, the finished canvas was valuable primarily as the artifact of an unrepeatable human performance.
Color Field painters rejected this kinetic bravado. Mark Rothko, Barnett Newman, and Clyfford Still sought transcendent stillness rather than athletic drama. Rothko applied ultra-thin, translucent washes of oil paint diluted with turpentine over delicate rabbit-skin glue sizing. Floating two or three softly feathering rectangles of contrasting hues over a dark ground, Rothko erased all evidence of individual brushstrokes. He wanted no painterly ego on the surface, leaving only an atmospheric envelope of color that seemed to hum with light from within.
In 1952, Helen Frankenthaler pushed this material retreat even further with her landmark canvas Mountains and Sea. By pouring oil paint thinned with turpentine directly onto unprimed canvas, she developed the "soak-stain" technique. The liquid pigment bled straight into the raw cotton fibers, fusing color and canvas into a single unified plane. When Morris Louis saw Frankenthaler's breakthrough in her studio, he famously remarked that she had created a bridge between Pollock and the future, inspiring his own poured Veils and Unfurleds.
Rosenberg versus Greenberg: the war of the critics
The distinction between action painting vs color field was not merely a matter of studio technique; it was weaponized by the two most influential art critics of the twentieth century. Harold Rosenberg championed Action Painting because his philosophical roots lay in existentialism. To Rosenberg, Pollock's dripping was an act of personal heroics in a post-WWII world stripped of moral certainties. The painter's biography and physical action were inseparable from the art.
Clement Greenberg bitterly disputed Rosenberg's thesis. Greenberg viewed Rosenberg's focus on painterly action and existential drama as romantic theater that ignored the actual formal evolution of painting. Greenberg argued for "medium specificity": the idea that modern art's destiny was to strip away illusions of three-dimensional depth and embrace the irreducible flatness of the picture plane. Greenberg dismissed gestural action painting as messy "apron-pocket" expressionism, throwing his immense critical weight behind Color Field painting and its successor, Post-Painterly Abstraction.
Greenberg admired Color Field precisely because it eliminated spatial depth and tactile texture in favor of pure optical sensation. In Newman's vast canvases, punctuated by vertical masking-tape stripes he called "zips" (first appearing in Onement I, 1948), Greenberg saw the perfection of self-critical modernism: pure color field activating space without narrative or gesture.
Immersive scale and the viewer's stance
Despite their aesthetic warfare, both wings shared one crucial innovation: monumental scale. Both camps abandoned easel painting in favor of wall-sized canvases measuring eight, ten, or twelve feet across. However, they demanded completely different physical stances from the viewer.
Pollock's massive drip fields were designed to submerge the viewer in a swirling, wall-to-wall web of rhythm, forcing the eye to trace the kinetic velocity of the artist's arm movements. In contrast, Rothko insisted that viewers stand remarkably close to his enormous canvases (roughly eighteen inches away). At that intimate range, the glowing rectangular fields overflowed the viewer's peripheral vision, swallowing their surrounding environment and inducing a meditative, near-religious sensation of awe.
The two wings also left vastly different legacies for the generations that followed. Action Painting's emphasis on process over product directly inspired the performance-based experiments of the Japanese Gutai group in 1954, Allan Kaprow's Happenings, and modern Performance Art. Meanwhile, Color Field's reduction of painting to pristine optical planes laid the groundwork for Hard-Edge Painting, Minimalism, and the modern appreciation of curated abstract art prints in contemporary interior spaces.
To view Abstract Expressionism as a monolithic movement is to miss its most compelling story. It was a rich, mid-century debate between movement and quietude, the bodily gesture and the radiant field: two radically different answers to the question of what art should become when representation ends.
0 comments