Modernist art: the critic speaks

Reading: Art in Theory 1900-2000 pps 773-9 Clement Greenberg's Modernist Painting.

The purpose of this first project is twofold: firstly to glean information from the essay about Modernism in painting; secondly to start become accustomed to the nature and protocols of academic reading.

For me, the first is possibly more important as I start a long way back in understanding Art.  The second aim is a more o a matter of reminding and updating myself on good practice.

We are asked to consider what Greenberg is talking about, his arguments, his references to other writers, and his use of quotations, making notes and researching unfamiliar words

Arguments

Art avoided the dumbing down effect that the Enlightenment had on religion by the use of Modernism, the essence of which Greenberg defines as the "use of the characteristic methods of a discipline to criticise the discipline itself", a sort of  inbuilt tacit feedback mechanism.

Whereas Old Masters viewed the limitations of the unique nature of fine art - the use of pigment, the nature of a rectangular presentation, and, more important, the  flatness of the support, the one characteristic "unique and exclusive to art" -  Modernism embraced and made a virtue of them. The Impressionists made no illusion that they were using real paint, and "sacrificed verisimilitude".  In Modernism, you see a picture before the content thereof, in direct contrast to how an Old Master is viewed.

(I can see here the resonance with the arguments made by Kemp regarding the perceived threat of photography to fine art (Kemp, unknown).  Artists could not possibly hope to compete with the realism of the new medium in mid 19th century, so instead took a positive attitude towards the differences between the mediums, eschewing realism for impressionism).

Greenberg then qualifies his argument: Modernist painting has in principle not "abandoned the representation of recognizable objects......." [rather] "...the representation of the kind of space [they] can inhabit." In order to create its own genre, "painting has had to divest itself of everything it might share with sculpture", and thus became abstract. Painting became abstract because it had to in order to differentiate itself from other art forms.

Art has a history of maintaining a distance from sculpture despite an early debt to it (creating the illusion of a three dimensional medium).  As early as 16th century, colour was used as the differentiating factor. Modernism continued this direction but replacing colour with "optical experience" as opposed to "optical experience [including] tactile associations." Thus shading and modelling were ignored by the Impressionists.

At this point, Greenberg backtracks somewhat with three qualifications to his argument. Firstly he points out that the differentiation between Modernist Art and other art forms goes only so far - there is no absolute flatness in Modernist painting, there is some optical illusion, for example. He acknowledges a relationship with science - in order to be a subject of pictorial art, Modernism demands that a theme be translated into strict two-dimensional terms. The analogy is with physiology: a physiological problem requires a physiological response not a psychological one. (I think this is oversimplified; Greenberg forgets that many advances in science are interdisciplinary - the application of conclusions and methodologies of one discipline in another. In social sciences, for example, economics borrows very heavily from mathematics).

Modernism has not had an established set of norms, it is not a theory, but more of an aggregation of individual practices and experiences; it is quintessentially individual.

Lastly. Modernism is as much a continuation of the past as a break. It has dispensed with many pre existing norms yet "continue (sic) to provide the experience of art in all its essentials." Modernism does not seek to lower the standing of Old Masters, but to appreciate them in new light.

In brief summary, I believe Greenberg's central tenet is that Modernist Art is defined by self criticism of the medium, that it developed out a perceived need to differentiate two dimensional painting from other art forms, yet while doing so maintains ties with pre existing art, and thus essentially represents continuity in Art.

As mentioned above, all this is new to me so it would be unwise to draw too many conclusions until getting further into the course. The essay is well written and I believe the main points are well made; the fact that Greenberg qualifies his own arguments - implicitly not overstating  his case -  I tend to respect his arguments and conclusions.   

Unfamiliar words

dialectical tension: Yahoo answers indicates the tension between two opposing views - the process by which one becomes dominant

verisimilitude: Free dictionary defines as the" the quality of appearing to be true or real".

Who does he mention - work of others

The essay is essentially about ideas, and therefore Greenberg quotes others more to demonstrate his arguments than to make any value judgments on their work. He does not seek to provide wide references as this is a thought provoking essay, not a summary of  others' work. These are some of the key people whose work is mentioned. Of these, I reviewed some paintings of David and Mondrian in order to understand better the points Greenberg makes.

Kant - first real Modernist, important because was first to criticise criticism.

Corot - an artist who had no fixed ideas about art.

Cezanne - reacted against Impressionism.

David - revived sculptural painting but his best pictures demonstrate strong colour, which was the main differentiating characteristic of art over sculpture. Two examples:

The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons 1789

Sappho and Phaon 1809

Accessed from Google search 28 December 2013

Mondrian - Piet Mondrian who exhibited extreme form of Modernism, carring Cubism to the point of abstraction. A couple of images are below:

No. VI / Composition No.II 1920

T00915

The Tree A c.1913

T02211

 (from: www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/piet-mondrian-1651 [Accessed 28 December 2013])

Conclusion and learning outcomes

I am pleased that understood the essay far better than I thought I might. The argument wanders slightly but managed to analyse and summarise the key points. The arguments made sense and definitely learned a lot about the Modernist school. Could relate to previous reading and present critical argument.

Reference: 

Kemp D. (unknown) Photography vs. Impressionism - A different history of art of the 19th and 20th centuries. Available  from http://www.dafyddkemp.com/photography.pdf [Accessed 28 December 2013]