Imagine standing on the precipice of this massive
cultural earthquake. Right. You don't know it
yet, but the ground beneath your feet is about
to shift permanently. It's going to completely
reorient the entire globe's creative axis. Which
is a wild thing to try and picture. It really
is. We are heading back in time today to a very
specific, incredibly pivotal moment in cultural
history. We're talking about New York City, 1951.
Yes. And specifically... we are going to explore
the historic Ninth Street Art Exhibition. It
really remains one of those rare documented moments
where you can draw a thick, definitive before
and after line in the history of the global art
market. Definitely. And for our source material
today, we are pulling from a comprehensive, just
incredibly detailed Wikipedia article that covers
this exact event. It's a great source. So the
mission of our deep dive today is to explore
a truly wild story. We're going to look at how
a scrappy, completely DIY exhibition organized
by a group of broke artists in a dilapidated
building somehow managed to upend centuries of
tradition. Completely rewrote the rules. Yeah,
and we're going to see how they birthed a distinctly
American art movement that fundamentally changed
the world. Okay, let's unpack this. Because to
truly appreciate what these artists accomplished,
We have to understand the insurmountable wall
they were up against. Oh, absolutely. The wall
was huge. So set the scene for us. What did the
global art world look like prior to 1951? Well,
if we look at the landscape prior to this moment,
the undisputed headquarters of the art market
was Paris. And it had been for generations. Right.
It was all Paris. Exactly. The school of Paris
was the ultimate authority. All the prestigious
gallery owners. The wealthy patrons, the influential
museum curators, they all looked toward Europe.
It was the center of everything. Paris was the
center of the universe. And New York was, culturally
speaking, a provincial backwater. I mean, the
establishment was also incredibly rigid. They
favored established styles and proven commodities.
So if your work didn't have a ready market, the
gatekeepers simply ignored you. Wow. That really
paints a bleak picture for anyone trying to push
the envelope. If you were an American artist
in the late 1940s and you were experimenting
with highly abstract, aggressive new concepts,
you were essentially shouting into the void.
Worse than that, honestly, you weren't even considered
a real artist by the European gatekeepers. You
were just an American novelty. A novelty, right.
Yeah, you were completely isolated from the mechanisms
of success. No market, no prominent galleries
willing to take a risk on you, and zero international
respect. Which brings us to lower Manhattan in
the years following World War II. The downtown
scene. Exactly. This is where we find the subjects
of our deep dive today. Dozens of painters and
sculptors were living and working in this incredibly
gritty industrial environment. Specifically down
between 8th and 12th streets. Right, and 1st
and 6th avenues. They were huddled in cheap cold
water industrial lofts, places like the Coney
Slip. It was a creatively fertile environment,
but economically it was destitute. We really
have to consider the socioeconomic reality of
post -WWII America for these individuals. Right,
they were struggling. Tremendously. Many of these
artists survived the Great Depression because
of the Federal Art Project. That was the New
Deal program, right? Yes, a program that literally
paid them a living wage to paint murals and create
art for the public. But when that program ended,
the safety net vanished. Just gone overnight.
Exactly. They were left fending for themselves
in a city that, frankly, did not value their
work. The source refers to them collectively
as the Downton Group, and their work was not
exactly easy to digest. Not at all. We are not
talking about traditional portraits or serene
landscapes here. This was the nascent stage of
abstract expressionism. Pure, raw energy. Picture
massive canvases, aggressive splashes of paint,
heady drips, chaotic textures. It was art meant
to convey raw, visceral emotion rather than a
literal, representational image. And a lot of
that raw emotion stemmed directly from their
lived experiences. How do you mean? Well, many
of these artists, including figures like Willem
de Kooning, Franz Klein, Jack Torkoff, and Philip
Pavia, they had lived through the profound trauma
of the 20th century. The Great Depression. The
war. Exactly. They were pouring that collective
anxiety and existential dread right onto the
canvas. But to a traditional gallery owner looking
for a polite painting to sell to a wealthy banker.
It just looked like unsellable chaos. Complete
chaos. So because they were entirely shut out
by the establishment, they were forced to rely
on one another. The source mentions that in 1949,
members of this downtown group, led by Philip
Pavia, decided they needed a physical space to
gather. They needed a home base. Right. They
started meeting regularly at a rented loft located
at 39 East 8th Street. A location that came to
be known very simply as The Club. The club. Just
the club. The lack of a pretentious name really
speaks volumes about the unvarnished necessary
nature of this gathering space. It was a refuge.
And it was out of these weekly, likely very heated
discussions at the club that a crucial idea began
to take shape. They realized waiting around wasn't
working. Exactly. They realized that waiting
for a traditional gallery to validate them was
a fool's errand. They needed a launching pad
and they would have to build it themselves. If
we connect this to the bigger picture. these
artists were doing something far more profound
than merely socializing or complaining about
their rejection they were organizing they were
actively building an alternative infrastructure
the weekly meetings at the club functioned as
the incubator for a revolution they recognized
that a radical new form of expression requires
its own ecosystem to survive a revolution needs
a battlefield yeah Or in this case, a gallery
space. A very specific gallery space. Yes. And
the logistics of building this show are an absolute
masterclass in DIY determination. The venue they
ultimately secured was shockingly humble. Shocking
is the right word. They rented the basement and
the first floor of a condemned building at 60
East 9th Street. And the rent for the entire
20 -day run of the show from May 21st to June
10th, 1951 was $70. $70 for a 20 -day run in
a prominent Manhattan location. It's unbelievable.
Today, $70 might get you a modest lunch in that
exact same neighborhood, let alone a two -story
space. Let alone a Manhattan gallery. Right.
But the incredibly low sum reflects the dire
condition of the building. Wow. It was completely
decrepit and slated for demolition. Okay, wait.
We just established that these artists were broke,
some literally starving after the federal art
project ended. Yeah. How does a group of starving
artists afford even the $70 rent, let alone the
costs of transforming a condemned basement into
a gallery? Did they have a benefactor? They did.
And it is a name that would eventually become
massive in the art world. Leo Castelli. Castelli.
Yes. Castelli stepped up and covered the bill,
paying for most of the expenses out of his own
pocket. The source notes this was his first curatorial
effort, happening six years before he even opened
his famous world -renowned gallery. Yeah. Why
him? Was it just because he had the checkbook?
No, it was much more nuanced than that. Castelli
was part of the scene, but the artist deliberately
selected him to curate and hang the show because
they trusted his eye and his diplomacy. Diplomacy
being key there. crucial when you have an incredibly
eager desperate group of marginalized artists
all vying for prime wall space in a cramped basement
you need someone who can hang the work Someone
to keep the peace. Exactly. Castelli possessed
that specific kind of tact. That makes sense.
And the physical labor involved is just astonishing.
The artists could not afford contractors, so
they provided all the sweat equity themselves.
Getting their hands dirty. Literally. They were
in there sweeping up decades of debris, painting
over mold, installing makeshift lighting to turn
a condemned building into a space worthy of their
massive canvases. It highlights the sheer communal
force of the downtown group. Everyone contributed
their specific talents. Right. Take Franz Klein,
for instance. He would become a giant of abstract
art, known for his stark black and white strokes.
Well, he hand -lettered the promotional materials.
He made the poster. He designed the official
poster that gave the exhibition its formal name,
the Ninth Street Art Exhibition of Paintings
and Sculpture. And another member of the New
York school. Aaron Siskind documented the entire
event with a series of photographs. Capturing
the history in real time. And once word of this
exhibition started to leak out, even before the
Monday night preview, the excitement within the
community reached a boiling point. Claudia Roth
Pierpont from The New Yorker is quoted in our
source describing the intense rush to participate.
You have to understand, few of these artists
had ever received any significant notice from
the outside world. This was their singular chance
to be seen. Do or die. Yeah, the desperation
to be included was so intense that the organizers
had to implement a strict rule. Every single
artist was limited to one piece of art. Space
was at an absolute premium. And the source points
out an interesting discrepancy here. Franz Klein's
original hand -drawn poster only lists 64 names.
Right. But the final official count of participants
who managed to squeeze a piece into that building
was 74. Just sneaking those last 10 in and looking
at that roster today is staggering. You have
Jackson Pollock, Robert Rauschenberg, Mark Rothko,
David Smith, Hans Hoffman. It's a legendary lineup.
It is akin to looking at the roster of an obscure
minor league team and realizing every single
player went on to redefine their sport entirely.
That is a great comparison. But in May of 1951,
they were just trying to get anyone to look at
their single isolated painting in a basement.
Let's dive into the mechanics of how this actually
worked. They hang the art, they open the doors,
but how did they actually get the establishment
to care? That is the big question. How did this
event trigger the tectonic shift that moved the
cultural capital from Paris to New York? Well,
disruption on this scale requires two things.
It requires creators and intellectual champions.
The artists provided the creation, but the critics
provided the crucial intellectual framework.
Right. They needed someone to explain it to the
buyers. Exactly. The Ninth Street Show marked
the formal debut of the New York school, but
it was the critics who translated that raw visual
emotion into intellectual currency that wealthy
collectors could understand. The source highlights
two major critics here, Harold Rosenberg and
Clement Greenberg. What was their specific role
in elevating this from a basement show to a global
phenomenon? Rosenberg gave the movement its philosophical
weight. In his famous 1952 essay, The American
Action Painters, he likened artists such as de
Kooning and Klein to heroic existentialists wrestling
with self -expression. Heroic existentialists.
Yes. He argued that the canvas was no longer
a picture, but an arena in which to act. He made
the art sound vital, masculine, and deeply important.
Heroic existentialists wrestling with self -expression.
That is quite a sophisticated rebrand from starving
artists painting in a cold water loft. A massive
rebrand. It elevated their struggle into high
art. Then you had Clement Greenberg, who functioned
as a make -or -break authority for collectors.
He had that kind of power. Absolute power. Greenberg
boldly declared that for the first time in history,
the most advanced form of Western art was no
longer being produced in Europe. Taking a direct
shot at Paris. Direct shot. He argued that these
American painters were the true inheritors of
the European avant -garde tradition. So... Greenberg
is essentially telling the wealthy New York patrons,
you don't need to go to Paris to buy the future
of art. It is happening right down the street.
Right here in Manhattan. That kind of validation,
combined with the sudden attention of curators
like Alfred H. Barr for the Museum of Modern
Art, gave abstract expressionism immense, unstoppable
momentum. The symbiotic relationship between
the gritty artists and these high -minded critics
is what ultimately forced the door open. The
establishment had to come to their condemned
basement to see the future. I want to share a
fantastic quote from author Mary Gabriel that
the Wikipedia article features prominently. Regarding
the commercial aspect of the show, she writes,
Nothing sold, but no one cared. The exhibition
had earned the artists' attention on their own
terms. And that is the crux of the entire event,
attention on their own terms. Yes. The victory
was entirely existential. Not a single painting
had to be purchased for them to realize the paradigm
had shifted. As the source notes, it appeared
as though an invisible line had been crossed.
They proved they existed. Exactly. They had stepped
into a larger art world, proving they existed,
and proving that their communal infrastructure
could sustain them even when the wider American
public was not quite ready for their massive,
abstract canvases. It was a triumph of community.
But here's where it gets really interesting.
We have established that these artists completely
shattered the rules of traditional art. Right.
They were progressive. boundary pushing visionaries
operating outside the establishment. But what
the source reveals is that behind closed doors,
this renegade group was still clinging to some
deeply traditional, frankly sexist biases. This
is a vital, often overlooked aspect of the Ninth
Street show's complex legacy. In this highly
experimental atmosphere where everyone was an
underdog fighting for scraps, the source outlines
that there was an initial serious debate among
the male artists about whether or not to include
women in the exhibition at all. A very real debate.
The underlying concern was that including women
might diminish the exhibition's chances of being
taken seriously by the very critical and curators
they were trying to attract. Which is wild. It
exposes the pervasive boys club mentality that
dominated even the most avant -garde circles
of the time. I mean, think about it. You are
exhibiting in a condemned building that you had
to sweep the mold out of yourselves. Yeah. You
are painting completely non -commercial art.
And your primary concern is that letting a woman
hang a canvas might hurt your prestige. What's
fascinating here is the sheer historical irony
of that hesitation. Because of what happened
later. Exactly. Ultimately, they did relent.
The jury selected 61 men and 11 women to represent
the downtown scene. 11 women out of 72 total
artists initially counted. That ratio alone tells
a story. And the irony you mentioned is staggering.
Because out of those 11 women who almost didn't
make the cut, five went on to have. absolutely
massive international careers that defined the
very movement the men were trying to protect.
Titans of the industry. We are talking about
Grace Hartigan, Helen Frankenthaler, Joan Mitchell,
Elaine de Kooning, and Lee Krasner. Amazing names.
These five women became absolute pillars of abstract
expressionism. They did not diminish the seriousness
of the movement. They expanded its vocabulary
and its global reach. Lee Krasner's specific
journey is incredibly compelling within the source
material. She was the oldest of the women in
the group. But the text notes she was the last
to truly bloom artistically. Yes. Her massive
breakthrough only occurred after the tragic death
of her husband, Jackson Pollock. in 1956 the
source frames that loss as deeply painful yet
it undeniably sparked a remarkably productive
28 -year widowhood she just poured herself into
the work she did free from the immense overshadowing
presence of pollock krasner created some of her
most significant monumental work it really forces
a critical look at how many other voices were
marginalized delayed or entirely silenced by
the biases embedded within that community and
the legacy of those women is not just a history
historical footnote. It is a highly active modern
cultural conversation. The source points out
that in 2018, Mary Gabriel, the author we quoted
earlier, published a collective biography called
Ninth Street Women. Oh, fantastic book. The book
focuses specifically on Krasner, Elaine de Kooning,
Hartigan, Mischel, and Frankenthaler. And that
publication served as a major catalyst. It became
a bestseller and ignited a widespread resurgence
of interest in the underappreciated women of
the movement, prompting both academic and mainstream
reevaluations. The ripple effects are still expanding.
In 2019, Amazon Studios optioned Gabriel's book
to be developed into a television series by the
creators of The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. That's
huge mainstream exposure. And academically, UCLA
developed a specific art history class based
entirely on the text, dedicating an entire curriculum
to the women of the Ninth Street Show. The museum
and gallery world has also actively worked to
correct the historical oversight. In 2016, the
Denver Art Museum mounted a major groundbreaking
exhibition called Women of Abstract Expressionism,
featuring over 50 major paintings. Incredible.
And that same year, a prominent gallery in Los
Angeles, Hauser, Wirth & Schimmel, chose to debut
its new space with an exhibition focused entirely
on abstract sculpture by women from 1947 to 2016.
So those 11 women who were almost excluded from
a basement show. are now the focal point of university
courses and major museum retrospectives. They
forced their way into the narrative. They absolutely
did. So what does this all mean? When you look
at the totality of these details, the Coldwater
loss, the end of the Federal Art Project, the
$70 rent, the hand -lettered posters, the critical
champions, and the fierce debate over who even
gets to participate, what is the ultimate lesson
for you, the listener? It's a big question. To
me... The Ninth Street Show is the definitive
historical blueprint for creating your own space.
It proves that if the establishment is ignoring
you, you do not sit around waiting for their
permission. You do not wait for the gallery to
call. You find your peers, you pool your meager
resources, you secure the condemned space, and
you build the platform yourself. Yes. You force
the world to engage with your vision on your
own terms. I love that. You grab a hammer, you
sweep the floors, and you hang the art yourself.
I think this leaves us with a provocative question
to consider regarding our current cultural landscape.
This group of marginalized artists managed to
shift the tectonic plates of the global art market
using canvas, paint and a damp basement in 1951.
Right. If we look at our hyper digital, constantly
connected modern era, where is the equivalent
of that $70 basement today? Oh, that's interesting.
What overlooked, completely unmonetized, perhaps
digital spaces are currently incubated. the next
massive cultural revolution? There is a community
out there right now that the establishment is
entirely ignoring, quietly preparing to change
the world. We just might not be looking in the
right basements. That is a phenomenal thought
to end on. Keep looking for those hidden spaces.
Thank you for joining us on this deep dive into
the Ninth Street Art Exhibition. Keep exploring,
keep questioning the gatekeepers, and keep learning.
We will catch you next time.