Clark on Greenburg

Clement Greenburg’s

Theory of Art

Reviewed by

T.J. Clark

Clark hashes over Greenburg’s theory and history of Art and culture.

Clack first questions Greenburg’s lack of explanation for the superiority of abstract art but its historical justification in Greenburg’s opinion.

Greenburg’s usual points are related to a specific political or cultural upheaval in society that ends in change.

Clark goes over Greenburg’s hopes for the Marxist ideals and the coming of the Avant–Guard.

Boil it all down in 100 years, 1850 to 1950 more political, social, cultural and aesthetic changes were made in Western Europe than in the past 300 years.

Art, literature, music, poetry all moved forward with each significant political, cultural shock.

These new political theory’s where attempts to re align society to adjust for massive changes in economic bases of newly industrialized nations. Then the old agrarian nations found the cities filling with industrial workers. New ideas were need to deal with new problems of massive immigration into cities not prepared for them, I get it.

Very little is new in this, mans life has always been structured to adapt to survive.

The old world was vanishing.

The Avant-Guard appeared to fill a vacuum, new approaches to painting, new views of color, new brush stroking, new concepts. Art moves ahead of the times

Artistes saw these changes coming, here I agree with Greenburg in his interest in Kant, now I see how along with Freud and Marx he saw art turning to the unknown, to the secrets of the mind, to the cognitive, to the action of painting itself. The artists’ ability to peel back the outer layer of thought and see those boils just under society’s skin.

You can see Greenburg’s problem in trying to explain Abstract Expressionism ,the compression of changes accelerated from 1901 t0 1950, confronted with more major changes in political, social, economic and culture than in the past 400 years.

How do you interpret this new art? On what historical base can you stand? Out of what school did it come from?

Greenburg seemed to be at a loss.

Romanticism, Impressionism, Modernism??

Why did Greenburg turn his back on Jackson Pollack?

Pollack’s work was filled with those places just beneath the surface, it was non subjective, filled with movement, emotion and color.

Is all that is above not what Kant, Freud and Marx were looking for?

Did Greenburg fear the new, the abstract?

I think Tansey’s painting of Pollack walking on the water

illustrates Greenburg’s predicament. I love it a Modernist applauding abstract expressionism, go figure.

It seems Greenburg wanted a revolution, change, wanted to be near the risk takers in the movement of modernism

Clark sees Greenburg’s inner turning and search for another social order, his impatience with the pretense of risk, modernism has blurring the edges of between art and life.

Clark defines the result of modernism is an art whose object is nothing but itself, which never tires of discovering that that self is pure as only pure negativity can be.

Is he thinking of the European model?

Is he thinking of art in the US?

Has the arrogance of the old aristocracy rubbed off on art in general?

If it has come to art for arts sake where does that leave our audience?? Is it already limited to a very small group?

Are we as artists that self absorb, do we need a mirror

a really big clean one.

My head is spinning again.

Drew