Greenberg's hole
br...@wralaw.com
I decided that the biggest hole in Greenburgs theory is that he uses
'words' to decimate it. A word contains a concatanation of abstract
symbols(a,b,c...z) these symbols when used individually or together
make up sounds, these sounds like "cat" can then be used by the mind to
conjour up images and chemical concepts
like "love"(pea/'oxytocin') or "red". However concatanations of
abstract symbols('zymerg') that attempt to represent external
objects are only trying to turn writing into an illusionary
medium, further words and other concatenated items that turn
abstract symbols(...hijkl...) into sounds are also false because they
are not sounds but abstract symbols. Therefore the only
writing medium that reveals truth is that which evades both
sound and external concepts and simply concatenates abstract
symbols for their own sake (####ooo)@.
Bryn
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
christopher moss
the essential problem of speaking of a visual experience, for that
matter. I think Greenberg has many more problems than this, mostly that
he promoted a lot of bad art in the 50's and afterward. My main gripe on
hin is his insistence on flatness. I have however read very little
Greenberg (mostly by choice).
-cm
John Haber
with her along with Erik, Kay.
john
John Haber
Erik and Kay in this forum, is "flatness." Probably says more about
this forum than Greenberg.
John
Erik A. Mattila
way I see it -- FLAT!!!" (or was that Tony Quinn talking to Van Gogh?)
Erik
br...@wralaw.com
jha...@haberarts.com (John Haber) wrote:
> Poor Greenberg that all anyone remembers of him, at least outside of
> Erik and Kay in this forum, is "flatness."
Do you deny that he makes this assertion?
It is even central isn't-it?
I will enter a term reflexive (A=A), something
is itself, Although Greenberg never uses it(that
I am aware of)...
> Probably says more about this forum than Greenberg.
Doubt it. I dedicated this as "Greenbergs hole", it says
nothing about the rest of Greenbergs life, he probably
didn't insist on eating flat food or buying a flat toilette
or living in a flat house- which is why the assertion ends up
being a fallacy when taken as an absolute (he does ad-nasium).
-More accurately Greenberg +INSISTS+ on reflexive art,
and claims that 2-D art is that.
However a 3-D sculpture can't be reflexive And any
2-D artwork which is done with the artist thinking
about adhearing to a 'theory' isn't!!!
And writing isnt reflexive, so Justly if we are to
believe that 'reflexivism' is the highest form of
human existence Greenberg chose the worst profession
to get into, many times worse than illustrative
painting even....
Lets face facts critics are the first ones to lose
their reflexivism when looking at something...
Wine much more so than 'painting' aspires to reflexivism.
Rarely (if ever) do winemakers try to make a wine that
tastes like Duck or Cherries(they do) However when was the
last time that you read a wine-tasting note without references
to vanilla, spices, fruits etc. etc. etc?
If dirt water and sunlight turn into that! is It any suprise
that dirt water and sunlight turn into this? I don't think so!
If you follow the food chain thats what we are!
The mistake is assuming that anything is or isn't reflexive.
When we take the whole effect of an ancient highly figurative
painting, the history, culture, etc. the whole process becomes
reflexive. Separately no reflexive painting can be known to
exist if it does or doesn't.
> John
br...@wralaw.com
SS_Po...@webtv.net (christopher moss) wrote:
> interesting but isn't that the essential problem in all art criticism.
> the essential problem of speaking of a visual experience,
I think you are right... I even think that visual and verbal
experiences compete with each other. I think that that has
become the problem with the art establishment that "verbal"
experience has come to dominate, and thus selects an art that
can't compete with it.
> for that
> matter. I think Greenberg has many more problems than this, mostly
that
> he promoted a lot of bad art in the 50's and afterward. My main gripe
on
> hin is his insistence on flatness. I have however read very little
> Greenberg (mostly by choice).
Good for you...
> -cm
I haven't read too much either (except in school).
Alison A Raimes
<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
>Oh, typo, hope not Freudian slip. Meant to include Alison or lead
>with her along with Erik, Kay.
>
>john
I'm bored with having Greenberg thrust down my throat. If I heard my
teacher at Manchester tell me how he met Greenberg, who then gave him a
favourable review, I had to hear it a thousand times. How can one man
have so much power ..... or rather how can artists be so stupid to be
lead by one man.
Leave me out anytime you like, John ;-)
Alison.
christopher moss
interesting but isn't that the essential problem in all art criticism.
the essential problem of speaking of a visual experience,
re: I think you are right... I even think that visual and verbal
experiences compete with each other. I think that that has become the
problem with the art establishment that "verbal" experience has come to
dominate, and thus selects an art that can't compete with it.
for that matter.
__true but you do agree that these visual experiences must be talked
about in order to communicate to the comunity at large. I think it is
very important for artists and art lovers to converse and share ideas.
When these ideas amount to what ultimately happened in Greenberg's case
(an art movement borne out of citicism) it is very danerous. Art is not
and never will be about that. I tend to view this criticism as an
extension of critique, an important way of finding out who you are as an
artist and where you are going. I don't think I agree that the "verbal"
has come to dominate though (except on this forum but what else do we
have in a discussion group).
-cm
lake
out a tendency that had been growing in painting for nearly a hundred
years.Greenberg didn't invent it - he was trying to explain it. The
fact that his explanation was eloquent and plausible, and that nobody
else had a better idea, gave him a lot of influence.
- Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Erik A. Mattila
Modern Artist going to the studio, picking up a copy of the New York Times, and
reading the Art Crit colume to see what he/she would have to paint that day.
This thread may be the classic example of shooting the messenger.
Erik Mattila
Alison A Raimes
christopher moss <SS_Po...@webtv.net> writes
>interesting but isn't that the essential problem in all art criticism.
>matter. I think Greenberg has many more problems than this, mostly that
>he promoted a lot of bad art in the 50's and afterward. My main gripe on
>hin is his insistence on flatness. I have however read very little
>Greenberg (mostly by choice).
>
There was no *insistence* as such, Christopher, and to be honest, I
think that if you have not read very much of his work then you should
not dismiss him so readily. At least *know* what you are condemning.
For whatever reasons we criticise him, as we now look back on his impact
on the fifties New York art world, we should also consider the
possibilities that those who read him carelessly, are to blame. His
quest was never to create another elite in art. He had a passionate
belief in Abstract Art, and its inclusion into serious art discussion,
which he never faltered from. His devotion to breaking away from the
traditional, superior approach to representational art, and the
promotion of abstract art and equal merit on grounds of aesthetic value,
as opposed to cultural value, remained his primary driving force. What
happened was exactly what he opposed - New York Abstract Expressionism
became the absolute, and superior art form of the fifties. I think it
may be that he took too much of the rap for that, after all, we are not
all lemmings, are we ?
So, to his *promotion* of flatness. Its important to place ourselves
within the context of the time, where Greenberg was seeking a way to
explain abstract art in terms of its historical presence. Naturally the
thoughts of that time, particularly the Existentialists and the growing
interest in psychology amongst non-scholars, played an important role.
Primarily, though, Greenberg was seeking a new *language* through art.
The hollowing out of the picture plane from Giotto to Courbet, had
created a *stage* - an illusion that mirrored reality. This was what he
challenger. The loss of this comfortable, spatial illusion, that
provided us with the same kind of space that our bodies move in,
disturbed the viewer. There is nothing worse than the loss of comfort,
to many, but to the artist it is almost an essential aspect of their
work if it is to have any sort of impact on the viewer. The return to
Giotto's flatness, forced the viewer to consider another entity that he
was not immediately able to relate to. That, I think, was very much a
part of the 1950's thinking.
I am wondering which art in particular, you consider *bad* that
Greenberg promoted ?
Regards
--
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
http://raimes.homestead.com/index.html
mdeli
>I think Greenberg, in his references to "flatness", was merely pointing
>out a tendency that had been growing in painting for nearly a hundred
>years.Greenberg didn't invent it - he was trying to explain it.
Greenberg's idea of flatness governed what was allowed to enter the
modern sections of museums for thirty years. It still governs about
80% of what is allowed in.
He stated these ideas in "Art And Culture." You can find them after
you decode his Artspeak a bit.
>The
>fact that his explanation was eloquent and plausible, and that nobody
>else had a better idea, gave him a lot of influence.
His explination is stupid and shallow and isn't read anymore.
Greenberg invented Modern Artspeak. Before that the style of Ruskin
prevailed. Compare his stuff to that excessive blow-bag Schapiro.
Greenberg was a terrible writer and I suspect that if his name weren't
attached to it, it would by equivelent to a Rothlo imitation in terms
of the attention it would get.
Greenberg's theories are of little interest today. They had their
half-life of 20 years and so called art scholars are now interested
in a more modern line of bullshit; which probably won't last as long.
Greenberg also started the anti-kitcsh paranoia which has totally
lost hold except in modern art school indoctrination.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
lake
with your rhetoric is that it is totally reactionary. You haven't
proposed a single new idea since I've been reading you. If it weren't
for the Church of Modern Art to rail against, would you have anything
at all to say?
-Lake
John Haber
>how can artists be so stupid to be lead by one man.
I don't think it ever got that bad. For instance, Greenberg actually
did help Pollock's career by boosting his work -- but through reviews
of early paintings that did still have some clear imagery. He
abstained from reviewing most work after that, a sign that it
succeeded without him more than because of him. And by the time he
became the official dogma, a decade later, to struggle again, was just
when art was already off in other directions, such as Pop and Op Art.
Another five years gives art that does show his impact and art that
breaks obviously with it -- Stella and Noland, say, versus Minimalism.
But then Greenberg's not really a player, and the famous reviews are
by Michael Fried.
And, as I say, there's more to his work than flatness anyhow and far
from an escape from cultural context.
So I promise I'd never ram him down anyone's throat. I hardly quote
him. I just wanted to praise the people here who didn't have to jump
up and down and shriek against modern art when his name comes up.
John
br...@wralaw.com
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
> I think Greenberg, in his references to "flatness", was merely
pointing
> out a tendency that had been growing in painting for nearly a hundred
> years.
Art history perhaps says that the first "pure abstract" work of art
dates from about 1890, but art history also claims that the artwork
by the Moors several centuries earlier is abstract as well as.
It seems to me that most cultures have some "pure abstract" work,
so obviously this will be solved in the future when they think they
have invented some other type of artwork that has always been.
> Greenberg didn't invent it - he was trying to explain it. The
> fact that his explanation was eloquent and plausible, and that nobody
> else had a better idea, gave him a lot of influence.
I don't think thats it at all. If he had a good Idea he would
have taken the water with the solids.
> - Lake
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
Bryn
lake
Obviously there was plenty of "flat", or "abstract" art before the
painting that Greenburg was discussing. Equally obvious is the fact
that the abstaction of Picasso, et. al., had practically nothing in
common with that of the Moors, or the Japanese, or anyone else. It was
something new, which grew out of a highly "representational" tradition.
This was something unique - there were no precedents.
mdeli arrogantly dismisses this entire century-long trend as a
meaningless perversion of the true nature of painting. I think we need
to look at it more closely. I think we need more Greenbergs.
-Lake
br...@wralaw.com
SS_Po...@webtv.net (christopher moss) wrote:
> (christopher moss) wrote:
> interesting but isn't that the essential problem in all art criticism.
> the essential problem of speaking of a visual experience,
> re: I think you are right... I even think that visual and verbal
> experiences compete with each other. I think that that has become the
> problem with the art establishment that "verbal" experience has come
to
> dominate, and thus selects an art that can't compete with it.
> for that matter.
> __true but you do agree that these visual experiences must be talked
> about in order to communicate to the comunity at large.
I suppose it is natural to talk about something you experience.
But keep in mind that with visual or musical experience 'talk'
is a translation. Its one thing to try to use words to communicate
what an experience is, and another when words become the experience.
Consider that saying something is "red" can become arbitrary if
the speaker is not extensively experienced in seeing "red."
Very often a "painting" is a translation of sometimes a "daydream"
or nightdream, or some other type of induced vision(insanity,
observation, drugs, media experiments/hoax)... And therefore
talking about "it" can either place the ball farther away from
the origin, or seek to explain "it" in another way... But we
might as well talk about the "visionary" state that leads to
art in the first place, than the art itself, which is merely
a symptom.
> I think it is
> very important for artists and art lovers to converse and share ideas.
> When these ideas amount to what ultimately happened in Greenberg's
case
> (an art movement borne out of citicism) it is very danerous. Art is
not
> and never will be about that. I tend to view this criticism as an
> extension of critique, an important way of finding out who you are as
an
> artist and where you are going. I don't think I agree that the
"verbal"
> has come to dominate though
Well I think in Greenbergs neck of the woods, it did. In mine it
didn't.
Verbally I've always pointed out that art critics don't call
themselves art enthusiasts, or in schools we don't have a positive
term to describe the class discussing an artists work...
Greenbergs theory is false because he say's it is 'true' and a
person cannot only dream in (what he believes are) abstract
shapes, without being clinically "insane." The odds that
Greenberg or Pollack lead a 100% abstract existance are about
several trillion to one, so long as art is about living in
this universe the fact remains that some 'real' art will
accidently be mistaken for pictures of things people see in
various visionary states(listed above, as dreams, religious
states, clear observations etc.)
> (except on this forum but what else do we
> have in a discussion group).
> -cm
Bryn
br...@wralaw.com
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
> In article <25008-38...@storefull-295.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> christopher moss <SS_Po...@webtv.net> writes
> > I think Greenberg has many more problems than this, mostly that
> >he promoted a lot of bad art in the 50's and afterward. My main
gripe on
> >hin is his insistence on flatness. I have however read very little
> >Greenberg (mostly by choice).
> > -cm
> There was no *insistence* as such, Christopher, and to be honest, I
> think that if you have not read very much of his work then you should
> not dismiss him so readily. At least *know* what you are condemning.
I think your stance is all-right... but Greenberg does in a strong
sense give a theory that states that non-flat art is "false." etc.
This reminds me of a thread I read on Islam. There are many apologists
who state that people of other religions and even Athiests can live in
peace under Islamic Law. However the Koran does planley state that
all non-believers must convert or be put to death. The ambiguity in
fact stems from the fact that some Islams believe that all other
religions secrety worship "Allah." So even in highly right-wing
environments christians, jews, and Hindu's are allowed to live
as second class citizens. And the Sufists even believe that science
is a secret way of worshiping "allah"(and they are very vague on
being Strictly alligned with Islam in the first place)so even
athiests and tourists are allowed to visit more liberal Islamic
cultures. -Although it is always interpretation, apologists always
make the mistake of preserving something that they are sentimental
about, which is wrong in black and white.
Ironically some of the best Abstract art in my opinion is that
produced by the Moors, and of course much of the carpetry of
Persia. If Greenberg were only a 'art enthusiast' then I would
have no problem with him, but he in fact wages Jihad on all
art having +any+ subject matter. It is there in black and
white.
> For whatever reasons we criticise him, as we now look back on his
impact
> on the fifties New York art world, we should also consider the
> possibilities that those who read him carelessly, are to blame.
Regardless he did plainly state that his may was the "truth"...
But he is a man and clearly fallable I forgive him, Just not
the logical legacy ...
But I think you are definitely right though. I certainly would
hate it if somebody took what I wrote as Cardinal truth... Half
the time I don't know what I wrote or if I wrote...
However this is his 'deconstruction' if you will.
I doubt if Giotto held the view of a 1950's abstractionist or was
able to paint like Carravaggio and Rothko and chose to paint like
Giotto...
Things just don't happen like that, they never have, and won't
in the near future.
> was not immediately able to relate to. That, I think, was very much a
> part of the 1950's thinking.
Bryn
Alison A Raimes
>I think your stance is all-right... but Greenberg does in a strong
>sense give a theory that states that non-flat art is "false." etc.
Can you cite where he says this for me please ? I just finished reading
some of his papers and have not come across it.
christopher moss
ali...@see.signature.for.address (Alison A Raimes) Re: Greenberg's
hole
There was no *insistence* as such, Christopher, and to be honest, I
think that if you have not read very much of his work then you should
not dismiss him so readily. At least *know* what you are condemning.
_True, I do need to read and see a lot more stuff than I have, I am
however quite young and I don't have the experience of some of my peers
and contempraries. I agree here.
For whatever reasons we criticise him, as we now look back on his impact
on the fifties New York art world, we should also consider the
possibilities that those who read him carelessly, are to blame. His
quest was never to create another elite in art. He had a passionate
belief in Abstract Art, and its inclusion into serious art discussion,
which he never faltered from. His devotion to breaking away from the
traditional, superior approach to representational art, and the
promotion of abstract art and equal merit on grounds of aesthetic value,
as opposed to cultural value, remained his primary driving force.
_Yes. agreement # 2. As far as addresssing abstract painting on the same
grounds as representational art I agree too. Aesthetics is always about
visual poetry and hardly about a "subject".
What happened was exactly what he opposed - New York Abstract
Expressionism became the absolute, and superior art form of the fifties.
I think it may be that he took too much of the rap for that, after all,
we are not all lemmings, are we ?
_no, I dislike lemmings too. They're creapy! (lol)
So, to his *promotion* of flatness. Its important to place ourselves
within the context of the time, where Greenberg was seeking a way to
explain abstract art in terms of its historical presence. Naturally the
thoughts of that time, particularly the Existentialists and the growing
interest in psychology amongst non-scholars, played an important role.
Primarily, though, Greenberg was seeking a new *language* through art.
_yep.
The hollowing out of the picture plane from Giotto to Courbet, had
created a *stage* - an illusion that mirrored reality. This was what he
challenger. The loss of this comfortable, spatial illusion, that
provided us with the same kind of space that our bodies move in,
disturbed the viewer.
_I don't think so, space can be a wonderful thing to play with and this
is where I disagree mostly. I've been grappeling with this issue of
space and flatness for a while as a painter and I find it hard to
subscribe to any sort of doctrine that regards spacial illusionism as
inferior to flatness and vice versa. I like the way that Picasso and
Braque were playing with space when they painted together and I like the
way that Cezanne before them would sometimes disregard space in order to
acheive that shimmering patterning of paint that he was so good at.
There is nothing worse than the loss of comfort, to many, but to the
artist it is almost an essential aspect of their work if it is to have
any sort of impact on the viewer.
_the only thing that makes me uncomfortable is bad art, regardless of
spacial illusion.
The return to Giotto's flatness, forced the viewer to consider another
entity that he was not immediately able to relate to. That, I think, was
very much a part of the 1950's thinking.
_A big part of my thinking right now is why Giotto is such and important
painter. A year ago I went to Padoua to see his arena chappel fresco
cycle. That was the first time I had to get up close and personal with
any of his works. What amazed me even more that his jump from
iconograpic work of the past to work that addressed space (the dawn of
the Rennissance) was his fantastic ability to make shapes come alive and
dance around the picture plane, now that's exciting!!!!
I am wondering which art in particular, you consider *bad* that
Greenberg promoted ?
Regards
_I don't particurlarly care for the "color field painters" such as Mark
Rothko or painters like Ad Reinhardt of Barnett Newman, or Elsworth
Kelly of the so called "Post Painterly Abstractionists".
_I do respond to painters like Pollock, and de Kooning and Gorky (though
he getts attacked a lot for the way he came to painting through Cezanne
and Miro, I don't think those two are bad heros to have).
_However I don't ever want to give the impression that I hate the
movements, it's just that the art that appeals most to me right now is
the stuff with personality. Painters like Hans Hofmann and Louis
Frankenthaller are some who excite me while I find Morris Louis' work to
be quite dull. And I cant stand Frank Stella' stuff at all.
_sorry it took so long to repond, I was away for a week in Naples (yet
another art journey). There's some truly amazing stuff there at the
archaeological museum and the Mystery villa cycle at Pompeii was mind
blowing. I should explain here that although it is off the subject a big
part of furthering my understanding of art is to begin at the beginning
and try to work through things up to the present.
_ Thanks for bearng with me.
-cm
christopher moss
br...@wralaw.com Re: Greenberg's hole
I think your stance is all-right... but Greenberg does in a strong sense
give a theory that states that non-flat art is "false." etc.
_he may no have come right out and said it but yes, in a round about way
he did insist on flatness.
If Greenberg were only a 'art enthusiast' then I would have no problem
with him, but he in fact wages Jihad on all art having +any+ subject
matter. It is there in black and white.
_I think that maybe it is sometimes misunderstood that the AbEx painters
weren't painting without subject matter but that the paint itself had
become the subjectmatter for them. This is a very Greenbergian
observation that I think was misconstrued into the idea of "colorfield
painting", which I don't find too exciting (as I stated earlier).
But I think you are definitely right though. I certainly would hate it
if somebody took what I wrote as Cardinal truth... Half the time I don't
know what I wrote or if I wrote...
However this is his 'deconstruction' if you will.
_I woud hat for anyone to do that to myself too but I don't think
Greenberg actually cared if what he said was taken as doctrinate truth.
I think he liked that whole aspect a great deal. I know I have to read
more of his stuff but it takes a very large ego to say a lot of the
things he said.
-cm
br...@wralaw.com
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
> Please explain, "he would have taken the water with the solids"??
what I said: If he had a good Idea he would
have taken the water with the solids.
> Obviously there was plenty of "flat", or "abstract" art before the
> painting that Greenburg was discussing.
As long as there have been human civilizations with art I think.
> Equally obvious is the fact
> that the abstaction of Picasso, et. al., had practically nothing in
> common with that of the Moors, or the Japanese, or anyone else.
Except they were both abstract.
> It was
> something new, which grew out of a highly "representational"
tradition.
> This was something unique - there were no precedents.
"Representational" is neither monolithic;
Its a catch-22 really; I will only accept that any abstract
art does anything new in the context that "representational"
is not coherant, and neither is abstract.
> mdeli arrogantly dismisses this entire century-long trend as a
> meaningless perversion of the true nature of painting.
What Deli needs to learn(and myself someday hopefully) is that
his contribution to art is what he paints and not what he says.
> I think we need
> to look at it more closely. I think we need more Greenbergs.
Since Greenberg really didn't paint he really didn't offer much
to abstraction other than a literary backdrop(which logically
turns it into real illustration!).
> -Lake
br...@wralaw.com
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
> >sense give a theory that states that non-flat art is "false." etc.
> Can you cite where he says this for me please ?
I suppose everywhere. What I have read by Greenberg is more of
a Cascade of words that lead into more and more self-referent
speculations. My .02 remains with the fact that he "is" a
writer. Come to think of it Brenton didn't know Jack either.
Most authorities have concluded that Abstract art is stricly
proscribed because Greenberg speculates that ...something
something something...
If you asked me honestly I would say that Greenberg nearly
says nothing. What you say in your previous post Greenberg
didn't say... I can quote nothing by Greenberg that is
coherant except if taken way out of context... However
based on reading his writings the maxiom 'flat' was
invented, if asked why the blame was passed on to Greenberg...
Nearly all art historians have agreed on this and virtually
no artists or critics have even the courage to state their
own opinion as their own -nor even the ambition to plagarise.
What you said in your prev post. is the same thing if you take
a hard-stance on it, Hence the deconstructive element. For Allah,
Dali was in fact a very serious abstract painter.
What he does say is that not following his formulae is trying to
make art into a lie, I've read it, he doesn't paint it. His
writing begs the 'fallacy' I originated in this thread. If you
read my post to "John" it is really the self-referent speculation,
And what is entirely self-referent writing(if there is even any?)
Since Greenberg didn't paint it makes his musing innoculant
from criticism, after all if he did we would just say that
he is trying to back up his own crapy art... But how can
he know anything about art if he doesn't paint? Isn't
this like a Virgin talking about sex -as an expert!!!??
But the begining question is can't we apply the same sort of
reasoning to writing? After all I read books, I consider
literature to be a serious artform. What would writing that
has no reference to things outside of the text look like? Is
the continued animated daydream contained in most literature,
because the daydream isn't really happening, bad or even banned
art? Hasn't all art theory by refering to the daydream of
entering a museum and seeing a painting on the wall, fallen
into the trap of hallucination? And isn't the continual
rhetoric of 'culturalization', 'philosophizing' also
illusionary... since by definition the past doesn't exist?
The mistake is that no one would take a painters paintings
on literature as 'dicto proof' that he is an expert on
literature. A writer on art is never an expert on art.
> I just finished reading
> some of his papers and have not come across it.
Once this became Greenbergs legacy he did not quickly come out
and deny it or elaborate. Any coherant theory on art by
greenberg exists in the same place as Pollacks drip figures.
Bryn
> Alison
Norman Strand~
of art. A few years ago I saw a show of Jim Dyne's (sp?) work at the Phoenix,
AZ art museum and he seemed to be going against "flatness" in his work. The
work was all bright red. Some of the paintings seemed to undulate out from the
walls in interesting curves. When I saw it I was thinking that he spent most
of his time figuring out interesting ways to strech his canvas in a non-flat
way. some of his work had garden tools coming out of it and onto the floor.
All painted one color. I did not like the work, but it must have made an
impression because I can still remember it. I did not take the guided tour to
get the docent's words about the work.
Was Jim Dyne's work a reaction the Greenberg's ideas of flatness, or did this
work happen independantly of the art theorys of Greenberg.
Norman Strand
--
Intel, Corp.
5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
Chandler, AZ 85226
lake
are vitally important to painting - especially to new ways of painting.
Just because critics don't paint is no reason to suppose that their
insight and analysis is invalid, or less valid than that of people who
do paint. Painters themselves are rarely articulate when it comes to
explaining their own work - a painter may repond to criticism, but it
is not hers proper role to initiate it.
Critical writing is the principle avenue by which new art enters
mainstream connsciousness. We can refute Greenberg (or Derrida or
Barthe or whoever) - in fact we should refute them if we don't agree -
but we can't deny the significance of their contribution.
Unfortunately painters rarely posess enough verbal skill to engage
in effective intellectual combat with a reigning philosopher-king. It
is just as rare for a painter today to challenge Derrida, as it was for
a painter of yesteryear to challenge Greenberg. So we fight with our
paintbrushes instead. Still, we're all gonna need our own literary
champions, sooner or later.
Erik A. Mattila
was influenced negatively or positively by Greenberg. Short of that it's
speculation. By 'evidence' I mean a statement by the artist that such was the
case, a record of comments or conversation etc. or even a photograph of Dyne with
a Greenberg book. It's just not enough to say 'it seems reasonable that this
could have been' and have any credibility in the field of Art History.
I once tried to write a paper which claimed that Delacroix was politically
motivated with his salon piece, "Dante and Virgil in Hell." I did the researcch,
and unearthed a bits and pieces of a very good argument to support this, but it
was all prima facie and circumstancial evidence. I simply couldn't find the
'smoking gun..' It was a big dissapointment to me, because I felt (and still
do) that the painting was a political statement.
Erik Mattila
br...@wralaw.com
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
> Just because critics don't paint is no reason to suppose that their
> insight and analysis is invalid, or less valid than that of people who
> do paint.
I think it is. To a large degree the how and "why" of painting is
'nonverbal.' Critics to a large degree imparted a sense of though
shalt not ever to art... and then artist do. Modernism has proven
it. The critic simply has except the movement of art as being
"true" that was as the last critic put it "false."
Art has never been subjective to scientific standards (nor should
it right now) of classification and review. What makes people do
art is a combination of culture and instinct, and thus psychology.
Visual art has been proven scientifically to involve non-verbal
parts of the brain(mainly the right-hemisphere) and often even
nonsocial parts of the brain as well. Much of modern art criticism
is based on purely looking at art as a subjective reaction to
social proscriptions, and the animation of verbal theories. These
theories impart less completion of the visual experience than
either an extensive inquiry into visual experience ... ie. the
physics of light, temperal lobe epilepsy, religious, psychedelic,
dream and daydream experiences, or the painting itself.
Despite all types of classification the experience itself is
highly dynamic, I would honestly have to say that "all" my
experience incorperates what I am likely to paint... Involving
all types of visual experience, including emotional responses
to them vs. the headache of translating them into art. I
]would honestly say that I hope I don't start creating art
out of a negative or positive reaction to art theory
brbrbbrynnnn
lake
words. But consider a painter like James Ensor. His work is so rich in
meaning that volumes could be written about it. Yet during his life not
a single critic spent a single word on it. Nobody paid any attention to
him, and I think he was bitter about it.
Do you think art would be better served if writers ignored ALL painters
like that?
br...@wralaw.com
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
> Essentially, I agree with you - painting can never be summed-up in
> words. But consider a painter like James Ensor. His work is so rich in
> meaning that volumes could be written about it. Yet during his life
not
> a single critic spent a single word on it. Nobody paid any attention
to
> him, and I think he was bitter about it.
> Do you think art would be better served if writers ignored ALL
painters
> like that?
Yes because "ALL" painters would then be authentic rather than
seeking out the center of attention like a small child... Perhaps
they should daydream like one?
BTW. I wouldn't really go too too far... I wouldn't censor them,
But for +RIGHT NOW+ I say screw them to bring balance to the
force; if you will.
If people don't take art criticism with a grain of salt I will
continue to them with too much salt... They say its bad for the
heart but I know it kills the bacteria and germs...
> -Lake
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
Bryn