Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
It is the contention of Clement Greenberg that the development of modern painting can be seen as a self-critical process whereby this art entrenches itself more firmly in its area of competence. The area of competence of each art, according to Greenberg, coincides with all that is unique to the nature of its medium. Each art form, then, has an essence (albeit one which is only revealed over time) and the constitutive limitations peculiar to painting are considered by Greenberg to be “the shape of the support, the properties of pigment” and above all “the flat surface.” At first sight such a formalist perspective appears to have the advantage of being able to offer an overall picture of the development of modern painting, a unified narrative leading from Manet to American abstract artists of Greenberg's own time, such as Jules Olitski. I shall be arguing here, however, that a clear gestalt is provided by Greenberg's theory only at the cost of eliminating consideration of meaning in art. My point is not that Greenberg gives too much attention to form and not enough to content, and that therefore we merely need to balance the scales. Simply to supplement Greenberg's discussion of the formal aspects of artworks with a consideration of their content would be to accept implicitly the strong division between these two aspects which he makes. It is that very separation which I am contesting: I do not believe that it is possible to make worthwhile statements about form whilst considering it, as Greenberg does, in a vacuum.
1 In this respect Greenberg differs from earlier formalist critic Clive Bell, for whom the essence of art is “significant form” (a term which is difficult to define – Bell himself does so by establishing a circular relationship between it and another of his key concepts, “aesthetic emotion”). Bell sees significant form as (by definition) present in all art, of whatever period. Bell and Greenberg can be seen as differing in two further respects: Greenberg looks for an essence of painting, whereas Bell speaks of an essence of art, Greenberg focuses on properties of artworks whilst Bell privileges the subjective responses they evoke. For Bell's views, see Art (London: Chatto and Windus, 1931).Google Scholar
2 Greenberg, Clement, “Modernist Painting” (first published 1961), in Frascina, F. and Harrison, C., eds., Modern Art and Modernism: a Critical Anthology (London: Harper and Row, 1982), 6.Google Scholar
3 Greenberg, Clement, “‘American-Type’ Painting”, in Frascina and Harrison, 97.Google Scholar
4 In “‘American-Type’ Painting” Greenberg only mentions Tobey and Pollock, but in “The Crisis of the Easel Picture” – in O'Brian, J., ed., Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism. Vol. 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 223–4Google Scholar – he includes Jean Dubuffet, Joaquin Torres Garcia, Rudolph Ray, Janet Sobel and others. In this 1948 he also offers the term polyphonic as an alternative to all-over.
5 “‘American-Type’ Painting”, Frascina, and Harrison, , 97.Google Scholar
6 See “The Crisis of the Easel Picture”, O'Brian, , 222.Google Scholar
7 Ibid.
8 Whilst I am allowing Greenberg a connection between Pollock and Picasso, I would want to argue with him over the nature of that link. Whereas he construes it in purely formal terms, I would want to consider subject matter as well – an example would be the obvious borrowing of imagery and style from Guernica (1937) in Pollock's so-called “psychoanalytic drawings” (c. 1939–40). I further see the involvement with Picasso as a phenomenon largely of the period prior to the emergence of the poured paintings, and would regard Picasso's works of the late “Synthetic Cubist” phase as being of more concern to Pollock than those of the “Analytical Cubist” period.
9 “‘American-Type’ Painting”, Frascina, and Harrison, , 97.Google Scholar
10 “Modernist Painting”, Frascina, and Harrison, , 9Google Scholar. As well as excluding critical and theoretical discourse from his narrative, it should be noted that Greenberg is also eliminating works (such as those produced by the Dada movement) which are critical of earlier art in a way which subverts rather than entrenches it.
11 Ibid., 9.
12 Greenberg dislikes Minimalist art because for him it seems a conscious application of a pre-existing theory: “Minimal art remains too much a feat of ideation, and not enough anything else. Its idea remains an idea, something deduced instead of felt and discovered,” – “Recentness of Sculpture” in Battcock, G., Minimal Art (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1968), 183Google Scholar. One case which could be used to demonstrate an influence of theory on modern art he does admire is that of Anthony Caro. This English sculptor was converted to the cause of formalist abstraction soon after coming into contact with Greenberg.
13 One advantage of choosing this particular strand of interest to document is that it is something which was not of particular importance for earlier American or European abstract art. This makes it easier to isolate the source of influence, but also helps us distinguish the novel qualities of the art of this time. Much post-war American abstract art does not evolve out of a dialogue with earlier abstract art (whether this be Mondrian or his American counterparts in the American Abstract Artists group). Even in the 1950S Rothko denied that his art was abstract, partly out of a desire to distinguish it from such earlier tendencies. See Chave, A. C., Mark Rothko, Subjects in Abstraction (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 24Google Scholar for a discussion of this issue.
14 Greenberg, Clement, “‘American-Type’ Painting”, revised version in Art and Culture (Boston: Beacon Press, 1961), 217.Google Scholar
15 In “The Crisis of the Easel Picture” Greenberg does point out (224) parallels to “polyphonic” painting in the work of James Joyce and Arnold Schoenberg, and indeed of course has borrowed that term from the study of music.
16 Suzuki, D. T., The Essence of Buddhism (Kyoto: Hozokan, 1968), 55Google Scholar, points out that “the Buddhist conception of ‘things’ as samskara (or sankhara), that is, as ‘deeds’, or ‘events’, makes it clear that Buddhists understand our experience in terms of time and movement.”
17 Needham, J., Science and Civilisation in China, Volume II (London: Cambridge University Press, 1956), 478.Google Scholar
18 Chisolm, L. W., Fenollosa: The Far East and American Culture (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1963), 226Google Scholar. For further comments on Fenollosa as an interpreter of the East see Clarke, D. J., The Influence of Oriental Thought on Postwar American Painting and Sculpture (New York: Garland Publishing, 1988), 26–30.Google Scholar
19 See Clarke, , 83–4Google Scholar. In addition to reading books by Watts, Lassaw attended his lectures and made his personal acquaintance. Watts was to visit Lassaw's studio.
20 Watts, A., The Way of Zen (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1962), 90.Google Scholar
21 Ibid., 91.
22 See Clarke, , 79–83.Google Scholar
23 Guston, Philip, letter to author, 20 09 1979.Google Scholar
24 Cage, J., in interview with the author, 30 08 1979.Google Scholar
25 Ibid.
26 Lassaw, I., “The Artist Speaks”, Art in America, 08/09 1965Google Scholar, quoted in Ashton, D., Modern American Sculpture (New York: Abrams, 1970), 33.Google Scholar
27 I. Lassaw, undated handwritten notes, Lassaw Papers, Archives of American Art.
28 Lassaw, I., undated handwritten notes, Lassaw Papers. The ideas ascribed to the artist here were also developed by him in conversation with the author, 15 08 1979.Google Scholar
29 Lassaw, I., statement, in The New Decade (New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1955), 52.Google Scholar
30 Tobey, M., Diary notes, 1934Google Scholar, copy in Wesley Wehr papers, Manuscript Collection, University of Washington. In his 1954 lecture “Why Nature in Art” Theodores Stamos articulates a similar position to Tobey (quoted Cavaliere, B. “Theodores Stamos in Perspective”, Arts, 12 1979, 112): “Western man regards himself as lord of the manor, centre of the universe. For him nature exists to serve him alone … [whereas in the Far East] it is not man's earthly surroundings tamed to his desires that inspires the artist, but it is the universe in its wholeness and its freedom.”Google Scholar
31 Viola Patterson, a Seattle artist and friend of Tobey who took some lessons from him in the 19205, recalled in interview with the author (19 September 1980) that he emphasized to her the importance of capturing volume.
32 M. Tobey, in interview with W. Seitz, quoted in F. Hoffman, “Mark Tobey's Paintings of New York”, Artforum, 04 1979, 25.Google Scholar
33 Tobey, M., “Japanese Traditions and American Art”, College Art journal, Fall 1958.Google Scholar
34 Tobey, M., letter to Dorothy Elmhirst (from Shanghai), 1934Google Scholar, Elmhirst Papers, Darlington Hall Archive, Devon.
35 I. Lassaw, printed note, Lassaw Papers, Archives of American Art. Elsewhere in the same statement Lassaw notes that the “European tradition is now dying, its Platonic, Aristotelian and Roman bases have become ineffectual in the comprehension of the world today” His own type of sculpture is based by contrast, he says, on “the idea of reality as process and relationship rather than ‘solid permanent mass’”. In conversation about these issues with the author (13 August 1979) Lassaw preferred to talk not of “matter” but of “mattering”, emphasizing a dynamic vision consonant with that which can be found in the Orient.
36 Tobey met Teng Gui (who commonly romanized his name as either Teng Kuei or T'eng Kwei, and often signed himself in Chinese as Teng Bai Ye) in Seattle in either 1922 or 1923. In 1929 they were to travel together to New York (where Teng helped in the production of a diorama showing Marco Polo meeting Kubla Kahn at the Brooklyn Children's Museum), and met up again when Tobey visited China in 1934. Teng had studied sculpture at the University of Washington, where he took his M.F.A. and later did some teaching. His Chinese style paintings were exhibited at the Henry Gallery, Seattle and the East West Gallery, San Francisco. After continuing his studies at Harvard, Teng returned to China, teaching at Yenching University in Beijing before moving to Shanghai. Teng was the author of “Art in Modern China”, The Open Court (Chicago), 43 (12 1933), 479–494Google Scholar, “Bamboo and Bamboo Painting”, journal: Royal Asiatic Society, North China Branch (Shanghai), 1934, 55–61Google Scholar, and ‘Zhihua lue shuo’ (“Brief Remarks on Finger Painting”), Yi Feng (Shanghai), 3, 5, 16 05 1935, 89.Google Scholar He continued painting and sculpting, and his work was reproduced in several magazines.
37 M. Tobey, transcript of taped interview with W. Seitz, 41, Seitz Papers, Archives of American Art. In an account of a lecture given by Teng Gui to the Shanghai Art Club in “Expressionism in Chinese Art: Chinese Authority's Address to Local Club” (The North-China Herald, Shanghai, 31 Jan. 1934 172) he is reported as say ing that “when a Chinese artist paints a tree, he must absorb its feeling and have it penetrate his head and eye, mind and heart.” Certain of the opinions I have already quoted Tobey as expressing are paralleled in Teng's lecture, indicating perhaps his influence on Tobey's thinking. Teng notes for instance that “in contrast to Western art, Chinese painting is lineal … while Western art is the massing of different colours to make a form.” He also points to the close study of nature made by the Chinese: “They realized that they were only a small part of this realm, and not the conquerors of nature, as the Greeks had believed.”
38 M. Tobey in International Association of Plastic Arts, Information Bulletin, 37 (02 1961), 16.Google Scholar
39 Tobey, M., Diary Notes, 1934.Google Scholar
40 Tobey, M., “Reminiscences and Reveries”, Magazine of Art, 10 1951, 230.Google Scholar
41 Tobey, M., letter to Dorothy Elmhirst (from Japan), 1934Google Scholar, Elmhirst Papers, Darlington Hall Archive, Devon. Tobey's view of Shanghai was not unusual. During 1934 The North-China Herald contained comment on several occasions about the noise, ugliness, or dirtiness of the city: e.g. 25 April 1934, 118 and 2 May 1934, 137.
42 Tobey, M., letter to Dorothy and Leonard Elmhirst (from Kyoto), 9 07 1934Google Scholar, Elmhirst Papers.
43 Tobey, M., letter to Dorothy Elmhirst (from Shanghai), 25 April 1934, Elmhirst Papers.Google Scholar
44 In his lecture on “Expressionism in Chinese Painting” Teng Gui is reported (North-China Morning Herald, 31 01 1934, 172)Google Scholar to have made an analogy between people and lines: “Mr. Teng Kuei then dealt with lines, comparing them to all types of human beings, some muscular and powerful and abrupt, and others showing the signs of decadence.”
45 Tobey, M., in Seitz, W., Mark Tobey (New York: Museum of Modern Art), 1962, 51.Google Scholar
46 Tobey, M., in Kuh, K., The Artist's Voice (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), 236.Google Scholar
47 Greenberg, C., “The Crisis of the Easel Picture”, in O'Brian, Collected Essays, 2, 224.Google Scholar
48 Ibid., 225.
49 Greenberg, C., “Complaints of an Art Critic”, in Harrison, C. and Orton, F., eds. Modernism, Criticism, Realism (London: Harper and Row, 1984), 7.Google Scholar
50 My wish has been to argue for a degree of relationship between actual properties of artworks and the intentions of their makers (in the context of Greenberg's devaluation – see my third paragraph – of conscious authorial intention). I am not intending to argue that the meaning of an artwork can be explained solely through a knowledge of authorial intention: I don't see meaning as something existing prior to or “behind” the work, as something “put into” the work by the artist to be “retrieved” at a later date by the viewer. Nor am I wishing to put forward the artist as a privileged interpreter of his or her work (which is not to say that artists of this time didn't make strenuous plays to occupy that role, by means of lectures, exhibition catalogue statements, interviews and articles in the art press, etc. – see note 54 on this, but also texts quoted in notes such as 26, 29, 30, 35, 40 and 46).
51 John Ferren, in interview with Paul Cummings, 7 June 1968, transcript page 40, Archives of American Art. Lassaw also gave readings from Suzuki's work in a talk at the Club, of which he was a charter member. 52 Ibid., 30.
52 ibid., 30
53 The most extended attempt to establish the context these paintings have in Newman's study of Jewish Mysticism is made by Hess, Thomas in Burnett Newman (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1971).Google Scholar
54 In a statement published in The New York Times (13 06 1943, 9Google Scholar, in Jewell's, Edward Alden “‘Globalism’ Pops into View”Google Scholar, quoted in Chipp, H. B., ed., Theories of Modern Art, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968, 545)Google Scholar Rothko and Adolph Gottlieb point away from purely formal readings of their abstracted images, asserting that “there is no such thing as a good painting about nothing.… The subject is crucial.…” When Rothko, David Hare, William Baziotes and Robert Motherwell founded a teaching institution in 1948 they showed a similar bias when they chose to call it the “Subjects of the Artist” school.
55 Key amongst museums which promoted a narrative of modern art's progress towards American Abstract Expressionism is New York's Museum of Modern Art. Its first director, Alfred H. Barr, had developed a formalist model of modern art history, expressed in its barest form by the diagram on the cover of the catalogue to the Museum's 1936 Cubism and Abstract Art exhibition. Greenberg's narrative of modernism is in many respects an extension of that provided by Barr (he adds post-war American painting into the picture) although there are differences of emphasis. Both privilege Cubism in their histories, but Barr's diagram sees an evolutionary triumph for abstract art (which he divides into two kinds – geometrical and non-geometrical) whereas Greenberg's view is that abstraction is not absolutely necessary to good modernist art. He is against references to recognizable entities (as he explains in “Modernist Painting”) because they tend to call up associations to three-dimensional space, which is the province of sculpture: “For the sake of its own autonomy painting has had above all to divest itself of everything it might share with sculpture” (7).
56 There is a certain irony that the story of Western art's triumphant progress to America should be based in part on an account of the work of certain artists who were looking to the East, and feeling if anything a sense of the inadequacy, the exhaustion, of Western values. See the statement by Lassaw quoted in note 3 5 for an instance of such an opinion.
57 “Avant-Garde and Kitsch” (first published Partisan Review, Autumn 1939)Google Scholar, in Greenberg, , Art and Culture, 3–21.Google Scholar
58 “The Decline of Cubism” (first published Partisan Review, Spring 1948)Google Scholar, in O'Brian, Collected Essays, 2, 215.Google Scholar
