Research: Modernism,
Greenberg, Mondrian and Pollock
Introduction
The
influential critic Clement Greenberg wrote in his article “Avant Garde and
Kitsch” in 1939 about the good artist painting “cause” and the bad artist
painting “effect”. The Abstract Expressionists’
use of gesture was caught up with notions of authenticity and even of “purity
of intent”. For example, the artist,
Jackson Pollock talked about wanting to paint from his emotions not to
illustrate them.
“Avant-Garde and Kitsch” by
Clement Greenberg, 1939
Writing in
the Partisan Review in 1939, Clement Greenberg sets out to examine anew the
relationship between an individual’s aesthetic experience and the social and
historical contexts in which that experience takes place.Greenberg wrote this article at the start of his career as an art critic and his views developed over time. His comments coincide with the commencement of World War II, and reflect the social and political unrest in Europe, the rise of Communism in Soviet Russia, the Nazi Party in Germany and the Fascists in Italy. The article has overtones of contemporary Marxist philosophy. However, although dated in style, the essay captures many thoughts and arguments which are still relevant today and capable of stirring valid debate.
Greenberg’s Arguments
Greenberg’s
arguments centre on the concepts of “avant-garde” art and “kitsch” – kitsch in
this context deriving from the German term for “trash”.
He puts
forward the argument that as society develops and becomes more complex,
accepted beliefs and traditions are thrown into question. In the past, the
problem has solved itself by society falling back on “Alexandrianism” and its accepted
cultural norms, together with reliance on the Old Masters. However, in this
way, nothing new, he suggests, is produced.
Change has
been able to happen only by a new kind of criticism of society – a “superior
consciousness of history”. These new perspectives were absorbed by artists and
poets in the latter part of the 19th century with the birth of the avant-garde.
The role of the avant-garde was to keep culture moving and raise the level of
artistic purity with the concept of “Art for art’s sake”, where subject matter
or content becomes something to be avoided. In Greenberg’s view, in search of
the absolute, the avant-garde has arrived at “abstract” or “non-objective” art,
where the expression matters more than what is being expressed. Certain artists, in moving towards an avant-garde style of art, have derived their chief inspiration from the medium they work in, together with use of space, surface, shapes, colours etc., sometimes to the exclusion of other factors. Greenberg cites Picasso, Braque, Mondrian, Kandinsky, Brancusi, and “even” Klee, Matisse and Cézanne in this category. A good example of the point Greenberg makes is the work of Piet Mondrian, which focuses on the abstract quality of line and colour, with no subject matter. (See example below).
Piet
Mondrian, Composition with Yellow, Blue and Red, 1937-42, The Tate, London.
However, if avant-garde art means that “its best artists are artists’ artists”, then the result is an alienation of the “masses” who are unwilling or unable to access the craft’s “secrets”.
It is no coincidence therefore, Greenberg continues, that with the rise of the avant-garde, there has been a rear-guard reaction - with the rise of the cultural phenomenon in the West of “Kitsch”:
“popular,
commercial art and literature with their chromeotypes, magazine covers,
illustrations, ads, slick and pulp fiction, comics, Tin pan Alley music, tap
dancing, Hollywood movies, etc., etc.” (Greenberg,
p. 4)
Greenberg
blames the rise of kitsch on industrialisation, universal literacy, and the
loss of folk culture as people moved to the cities. To fill the void, and
create a culture fit for their own consumption, kitsch developed for those who
were “insensible to the values of genuine culture”. The phenomenon creating a
“universal” culture, even spreading to crowd out and deface native cultures
across the world.A drawback to kitsch, Greenberg argues, is that it can be harnessed by political regimes for its own ends. Kitsch in a democracy enables the illusion that the masses actually rule, but in fact a style or culture can be imposed – for instance, in Soviet Russia, where, he says, the masses have been conditioned to admire “socialist realism”. However, he continues, a superior culture is inherently a more critical culture, and the avant-garde too “innocent” and difficult to inject effective propaganda into it.
Historically, art developed through patronage. Artists were given their subject matter and they had little to consider and develop, apart from their medium and artistic technique. This began to change in the Renaissance when, according to Greenberg, “inflections of the personal” become legitimate through the introduction of feelings and sentiment, but even so, strictly within the confines of accepted norms. Only with Rembrandt do we see individuals, freed from religious or royal patronage, beginning to appear.
By way of illustration, Greenberg considers Repin’s Cossacks and Picasso’s Woman with a Fan, as if seen through the eyes of a Russian peasant.
He argues that “Bad” art (kitsch or synthetic art, as illustrated by Repin) imposes self-evident meanings through realism. The “effect” is built in through heightened reality. Repin produced works slowly and carefully. They were the result of close and detailed study.
Ilya
Repin, Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks to Sultan Mehmed IV of the Ottoman
Empire, 1891, oil on canvas
Whereas,
Greenberg argues, “Good” art (genuine art, as illustrated by Picasso)
encourages the cultivated spectator to project values as a result of
reflection. The “cause” is the need for thought and interpretation. Avant-garde
art, Greenberg says, uses processes to
create a work which makes the spectator think (e.g. cubism).
Pablo
Picasso, Woman with a Fan, 1907, oil on canvas
Whereas
Kitsch, it is argued, achieves its effects all in one go - without the viewer
having to think, interpret or put any work into the experience. This is one
explanation, according to Greenberg, why kitsch has become so popular.The outcome of avant-garde art is therefore abstract or non-objective art, often with an emphasis by the artist on the techniques and medium in which they work, with expression, as stated above, mattering more than what is being expressed.
Jackson Pollock
A good
example of the work of the abstract expressionists, where the emotions of the
artist are paramount, is Jackson Pollock (1912-1956)Video: contemporary film by Hans Namuth:
In the
video, we see Pollock at work outside his Long Island studio and he explains
his approach to his work. Through the video it is clear to see that Jackson is
working from his emotions as he goes about his painting. It is a process led by
intuition rather than having a predetermined subject matter.
Pollock
enjoys working on a large canvas, direct on the floor he is “nearer, more part
of the painting”, since this way “I can walk around it, work from the four
sides and literally be in the painting.”He compares his way of working with the Indian sand painters of the West. He uses a brush to apply the paint, but also a stick, or he pours it straight out of the can. He likes a dripping, fluid paint, which works best for this method. He will also use sand, broken glass, pebbles, string and nails to get the effects he wants.
His method is a “natural growth out of need”, saying, “I want to express my feelings rather than illustrate them”. He says that he can control the flow of the paint and there is “no accident” and “no beginning and no end”. Pollock has no fear of change, or of destroying the image – “a painting has a life of its own. I try to let it live.”
His
‘all-over’ gestural style also has overtones of automatic writing and the
drawing techniques of the Surrealists, with rhythms of paint and dense layers
of trails across the surface of the canvas -
as can be seen in the example below.
Jackson Pollock, Autumn Rhythm (Number 30),
1950
This
method is very direct, but is only one way in which an artist can express his
or her emotions, and many other means can be used.Conclusions
There is no doubt that Greenberg’s views, as expressed in this essay, are greatly influenced by the political and social turmoil of the time. Many artists fled Europe and took refuge in the USA. Many, if not most, would be classed by Greenberg as avant-garde. Their work often being classed as “degenerate” in Nazi Germany. Some took up important positions in art education and their views became very influential. Take for example Black Mountain College, founded in North Carolina in 1933. Teaching was experimental and interdisciplinary. The Bauhaus teacher, Josef Albers, was one of its first teachers and the artists Willem and Elaine de Kooning, Robert Rauschenberg, Cy Twombly, composer John Cage and dancer and choreographer Merce Cunningham all attended. I would say that in Greenberg’s terminology, the school concentrated on “cause” rather than “effect”. This is apparent from the highly original work of the artists referred to above.
However,
there are gaps and flaws in some of Greenberg’s arguments and his reasoning is
open to criticism. Greenberg
takes the high ground and conducts his essay from that point of view. There is
no flexibility, no nuanced arguments. It is all very black and white – “good”
art versus “bad” art, with nothing in between. According to Greenberg, "kitsch" can be manipulated, but
avant-garde art cannot.
He skips
over previous cultures and civilisations with little if no comment. He refers
to “Alexandrianism”, but only in the context that he considers its principles
propped up the prevailing artistic culture before “avant- garde” took off (in the
latter part of the 19th century). He skips over the Renaissance with a comment
that it was a period when “inflections of the personal” crept in. Rembrandt is
“written off” as a “lonely” artist, with no attempt to mention his masterfully
tender painting and subtle expressiveness.
There is
no consideration of time. For instance, was the decoration of Ancient Greek
pottery “kitsch”? After all, they were produced for the “masses” and depict
everyday scenes in vividly realistic terms. But when we now look at them, I
would argue they have “cause” as well as “effect”. They need thought and
interpretation. Similarly, are we to categorise the Roman murals at Pompei as
“kitsch” with their trompe l’oeil vistas, including temples, fountains and
gardens, and early form of perspective?
I would
say that the argument, although very influential, is too simplistic. In my
view, the concepts of “avant-garde” and “kitsch” are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
What about Pop Art? Where does that fit in? There must be a more sophisticated
approach to the appreciation of the visual arts which is flexible enough to
adapt to previous centuries, different styles and tastes, and which takes
account of emotions and future developments.A broader approach, in my opinion is preferable, which includes consideration of the formal elements of the visual arts, combined with an appreciation of the expression of the individual artist contained within the work achieved through a variety of means.
Willette, J. (2011) The Historical Context of “The Avant-Garde and Kitsch”, 1939 by Clement Greenberg. Art History Unstuffed. 11 November 2011. [Online] Available from:
http://arthistoryunstuffed.com/the-avant-garde-and-kitsch-1939/
No comments:
Post a Comment