From Clements Greenberg: the collected
essays and criticism vol.4, ed. John O’Brain (Univ, of Chicago press,1993):
What is art?
Clement Greenberg, spent almost all his life critiquing art, yet a lot of
enquiries still occur of what is art all about. In his text he explains that Modernist
art is a continuation; an extension of the past art eras. However, it preserved
a more essential identity for art, that was greatly concealed in the past and
masked under the influence that art is a limitation of which should be over
pasted. While that is the result of use of critic from within.
According to
Greenberg Modernist art is the basic awareness of what the art experience can
produce in the use of the old techniques or traditional methods of art in a
more mindful way. He relates the rise of modernism to “Kantianism” [1].
As the philosopher “Kent” used logic to establish the limits of logic,
Modernist used the limits of art to establish art itself with itself. In a
sense that distinct from the realistic and naturalistic times, the limitation
of what a painting can propose was no longer a problem to be concealed but,
more of an opportunity to be exposed. The debate, primarily constitute upon the
importance of the medium. In the point of which the flatness of the surface or
the shape of the support or even the properties of the pigments, were all perceived
as negative characteristics of a painting in the Renaissance period. All of
which have deviated to be the fundamentals and strong points of the modern art
movement. With that acknowledged, the
main concentration was on the expression that the given forms, the textures,
the brush strokes, the values and the contrast can be revealed. Greenberg uses
Manet’s shunning of the glazes and under painting techniques as an example to
prove that paint suppression had indeed no longer served the identity of art [1].
Manet’s shift toward painting have very well proposed new questions of what art
is, that is around were the Impressionist period began. It is later when
“Cezanne”, the post-impressionist painter scarified accuracy in his paintings
to be able to fit the image in the canvas frame [1]. Definitely “Jackson Pollock” adopted this identity and
gave it even more meaning with in abstract expressionism. “I want to express my
feelings I don’t want to illustrate them,” said Jackson Pollock in his short
film. [2] He explained that sometimes he uses brushes to apply paint
but he preferred to simply use a stick as he lays the paint on the paper taped
to the ground so he can ramble freely around it. While he likes to use
untraditional tools to paint in [2], Greenburg states that modernism
does not damage old value but yet helps create new ones.
This new
perspective or view created new set of norms. A fresh approach toward painting
and the identity of art is clear. The flatness of the painting, which was first
an obstacle, became a vital factor and the brush strokes, which were first to
be covered, became the language of art itself. This challenged artist to ask
more questions. Further more interrogating art’s existence amongst us and its
purpose. This experimentation created the “Avant-garde” movement, the breaking
of the norms. Nevertheless, the question of the relationship between art and
science was yet to be opened. On one hand the Renaissance implied scientific
theories to overcome what they thought was the weakness “the flat surface”.
They used the vanishing points, the golden ratio and the grid, all to achieve sculptural
illusions, as to overcome the horizontalness and create a third dimensional
volume. On the other hand modernist relies on the practice rather than the
theory of art, as Greenburg wrote, “the first mark made on a canvas destroys
its flatness” [1]. He argues that science and art meet only in its
meth-ology; actually it is all of asking questions and looking for the answers,
that might be so complicated that they can’t be answered. Art in the
Renaissance period was more of pictorial art were the art it self didn’t matter
[3]. At the time art was a mean to an end or even a tool to deliver
certain messages. Modernism is art stands individually as art; it is simply art
for art’s sake.
Greenberg’s
definition of modern art is the surpassing of the norms of the pervious art to
the very limit of abstraction. It is simply creating images rather than
pictures. [1] Modern art should be approached by everyone but not
understood by everyone. Greenberg’s understanding of what art should be have
certainly shifted the ideality of art to be more of what art itself can be. His
worries about art losing its identity in between all the new perspectives have
pushed the bar of criticism. But did art lose its identity or did it simply gain a
new one identity ?
references:
