There have been some further constructions of what I wrotethat go over into preposterousness: That I regard flatness andthe inclosing of flatness not just as the limiting conditionsof pictorial art, but as criteria of aesthetic quality in pictorialart; that the further a work advances the self-definition of anart, the better that work is bound to be. The philosopher or arthistorian who can envision me -- or anyone at all -- arrivingat aesthetic judgments in this way reads shockingly more intohimself or herself than into my article.
I want to take this chance to correct an error, one of interpretationan not of fact. Many readers, though by no means all, seem tohave taken the 'rationale' of Modernist art outlined here as representinga position adopted by the writer himself that is, that what hedescribes he also advocates. This may be a fault of the writingor the rhetoric. Nevertheless, a close reading of what he writeswill find nothing at all to indicate that he subscribes to, believesin, the things that he adumbrates. (The quotation marks aroundpure and purity should have been enough to show that.) The writeris trying to account in part for how most of the very best artof the last hundred-odd years came about, but he's not implyingthat that's how it to come about, much less that that'show the best art still has to come about. 'Pure' art was a usefulillusion, but this doesn't make it any the less an illusion. Nordoes the possibility of its continuing usefulness make it anythe less an illusion.
All values are human values, relative values, in art as wellas elsewhere. Yet there does seem to have been more or less ofa general agreement among the cultivated of mankind over the agesas to what is good art and what bad. Taste has varied, but notbeyond certain limits; contemporary connoisseurs agree with theeighteenth-century Japanese that Hokusai was one of the greatestartists of his time; we even agree with the ancient Egyptiansthat Third and Fourth Dynasty art was the most worthy of beingselected as their paragon by those who came after. We may havecome to prefer Giotto to Raphael, but we still do not deny thatRaphael was one of the best painters of his time. There has beenan agreement then, and this agreement rests, I believe, on a fairlyconstant distinction made between those values only to be foundin art and the values which can be found elsewhere. Kitsch, byvirtue of a rationalized technique that draws on science and industry,has erased this distinction in practice.
The style was very similar to , a method of painting launched in Paris in 1913 by two American painters, Morgan Russell (1886-1953) and Stanton MacDonald- Wright (1890-1973).
Clement Greenberg’s essay on Modernist Painting can be read @
It was very much as a critic that Greenberg claimed to utilize the activities of reason (or of critical discourse) to critique the activities of modern art. He, therefore, proposed a critique of painting that utilized tools not taken from the activities of painting; it was not as a painter but as a critic that Greenberg offered to critique modern painting. Green- berg depicted the way the practice of painting was self-critical. But painting could only address itself to this problem with nontheoretical means:
It embraces American Scene Painting and Regionalism.
Greenberg states ‘What modernism has shown is that through the past did appreciate these matters justly it often gave wrong or irrelevant reasons for doing so. In some ways this situation is hardly changed today. Art criticism and art history lag behind Modernism as they lagged behind pre-Modernist art.’
In 1937, the Nazis removed all modern works from German art museums.
During the final phase of the "modern" period several types of appeared, including (pioneered by Robert Rauschenberg 1950s) and (pioneered by Wolf Vostell and Andy Warhol late-50s/60s), however, because these forms are more closely associated with , we deal with them in our article on (1970 onwards).
Greenberg modernism essays;Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or a dishonest tradesman.
Greenberg, Kant, and Modernism? | Joachim PissarroClements essay has feed me new meanings and a deeper understanding of what i hold as an understanding of modernism, and the interpretations of the art work attached to this period. I was especially elated at the rationale of the foremost stand points, that of ‘the rectangle canvas’ the subject view of the painting at it foremost was that of a two dimensional plane. This was echoed within Greenburgs essay and as disseminated within the lecture. Greenburg’s maybe defining the separation between the art forms by qualifing that the work created by the painter could now be created by the sculptor as illustrated within the work of Mondrian.
A celebration of flatness and formalism?