Modernist Painting

Clement Greenberg
Forum Lectures (Washington, D. C.: Voice of America), 1 !" Arts Yearbook #, 1 !1 ($nre%ised) Art and Literature, &'ring 1 !( (slightl) re%ised) The New Art: A Critical Anthology, ed. Gregor) *attcoc+, 1 !! Peinture-cahiers thori ues, no. ,- , . /# (titled 0La !einture moderniste0) "sthetics Contem!orary, ed. 1ichard 2ostelanet3, 1 /, #odern Art and #odernism: A Critical Anthology. ed. 4rancis 4rascina and Charles 5arrison, 1 ,6.

Modernism incl$des more than art and literat$re. *) no7 it co%ers almost the 7hole of 7hat is tr$l) ali%e in o$r c$lt$re. .t ha''ens, ho7e%er, to be %er) m$ch of a historical no%elt). Western ci%ili3ation is not the first ci%ili3ation to t$rn aro$nd and 8$estion its o7n fo$ndations, b$t it is the one that has gone f$rthest in doing so. . identif) Modernism 7ith the intensification, almost the e9acerbation, of this self-critical tendenc) that began 7ith the 'hiloso'her 2ant. *eca$se he 7as the first to critici3e the means itself of criticism, . concei%e of 2ant as, the first real Modernist. :he essence of Modernism lies, as . see it, in the $se of characteristic methods of a disci'line to critici3e the disci'line itself, not in order to s$b%ert it b$t in order to entrench it more firml) in its area of com'etence. 2ant $sed logic to establish the limits of logic, and 7hile he 7ithdre7 m$ch from its old ;$risdiction, logic 7as left all the more sec$re in 7hat there remained to it. :he self-criticism of Modernism gro7s o$t of, b$t is not the same thing as, the criticism of the <nlightenment. :he <nlightenment critici3ed from the o$tside, the 7a) criticism in its acce'ted sense does= Modernism critici3es from the inside, thro$gh the 'roced$res themsel%es of that 7hich is being critici3ed. .t seems nat$ral that this ne7 +ind of criticism sho$ld ha%e a''eared first in 'hiloso'h), 7hich is critical b) definition, b$t as the 1,th cent$r) 7ore on, it entered man) other fields. A more rational ;$stification had beg$n to be demanded of e%er) formal social acti%it), and 2antian self-criticism, 7hich had arisen in 'hiloso'h) in ans7er to this demand in the first 'lace, 7as called on e%ent$all) to meet and inter'ret it in areas that la) far from 'hiloso'h). We +no7 7hat has ha''ened to an acti%it) li+e religion, 7hich co$ld not a%ail itself of 2antian, immanent, criticism in order to ;$stif) itself. At first glance the arts might seem to ha%e been in a sit$ation li+e religion>s. 5a%ing been denied b) the <nlightenment all tas+s the) co$ld ta+e serio$sl), the) loo+ed as tho$gh the) 7ere going to be assimilated to entertainment '$re and sim'le, and entertainment itself loo+ed as tho$gh it 7ere going to be assimilated, li+e religion, to thera'). :he arts co$ld sa%e themsel%es from this le%eling do7n onl) b) demonstrating that the +ind of e9'erience the) 'ro%ided 7as %al$able in its o7n right and not to be obtained from an) other +ind of acti%it). <ach art, it t$rned o$t, had to 'erform this demonstration on its o7n acco$nt. What had to be e9hibited 7as not onl) that 7hich 7as $ni8$e and irred$cible in art in general, b$t also that 7hich 7as $ni8$e and irred$cible in each 'artic$lar art. <ach art had to determine, thro$gh its o7n o'erations and 7or+s, the effects e9cl$si%e to itself. *) doing so it 7o$ld, to be s$re,

narro7 its area of com'etence, b$t at the same time it 7o$ld ma+e its 'ossession of that area all the more certain. .t 8$ic+l) emerged that the $ni8$e and 'ro'er area of com'etence of each art coincided 7ith all that 7as $ni8$e in the nat$re of its medi$m. :he tas+ of self-criticism became to eliminate from the s'ecific effects of each art an) and e%er) effect that might concei%abl) be borro7ed from or b) the medi$m of an) other art. :h$s 7o$ld each art be rendered 0'$re,0 and in its 0'$rit)0 find the g$arantee of its standards of 8$alit) as 7ell as of its inde'endence. 0P$rit)0 meant self-definition, and the enter'rise of self-criticism in the arts became one of selfdefinition 7ith a %engeance. 1ealistic, nat$ralistic art had dissembled the medi$m, $sing art to conceal art= Modernism $sed art to call attention to art. :he limitations that constit$te the medi$m of 'ainting -- the flat s$rface, the sha'e of the s$''ort, the 'ro'erties of the 'igment -- 7ere treated b) the ?ld Masters as negati%e factors that co$ld be ac+no7ledged onl) im'licitl) or indirectl). @nder Modernism these same limitations came to be regarded as 'ositi%e factors, and 7ere ac+no7ledged o'enl). Manet>s became the first Modernist 'ict$res b) %irt$e of the fran+ness 7ith 7hich the) declared the flat s$rfaces on 7hich the) 7ere 'ainted. :he .m'ressionists, in Manet>s 7a+e, ab;$red $nder'ainting and gla3es, to lea%e the e)e $nder no do$bt as to the fact that the colors the) $sed 7ere made of 'aint that came from t$bes or 'ots. CA3anne sacrificed %erisimilit$de, or correctness, in order to fit his dra7ing and design more e9'licitl) to the rectang$lar sha'e of the can%as. .t 7as the stressing of the inel$ctable flatness of the s$rface that remained, ho7e%er, more f$ndamental than an)thing else to the 'rocesses b) 7hich 'ictorial art critici3ed and defined itself $nder Modernism. 4or flatness alone 7as $ni8$e and e9cl$si%e to 'ictorial art. :he enclosing sha'e of the 'ict$re 7as a limiting condition, or norm, that 7as shared 7ith the art of the theater= color 7as a norm and a means shared not onl) 7ith the theater, b$t also 7ith sc$l't$re. *eca$se flatness 7as the onl) condition 'ainting shared 7ith no other art, Modernist 'ainting oriented itself to flatness as it did to nothing else. :he ?ld Masters had sensed that it 7as necessar) to 'reser%e 7hat is called the integrit) of the 'ict$re 'lane: that is, to signif) the end$ring 'resence of flatness $nderneath and abo%e the most %i%id ill$sion of three-dimensional s'ace. :he a''arent contradiction in%ol%ed 7as essential to the s$ccess of their art, as it is indeed to the s$ccess of all 'ictorial art. :he Modernists ha%e neither a%oided nor resol%ed this contradiction= rather, the) ha%e re%ersed its terms. ?ne is made a7are of the flatness of their 'ict$res before, instead of after, being made a7are of 7hat the flatness contains. Whereas one tends to see 7hat is in an ?ld Master before one sees the 'ict$re itself, one sees a Modernist 'ict$re as a 'ict$re first. :his is, of co$rse, the best 7a) of seeing an) +ind of 'ict$re, ?ld Master or Modernist, b$t Modernism im'oses it as the onl) and necessar) 7a), and Modernism>s s$ccess in doing so is a s$ccess of selfcriticism. Modernist 'ainting in its latest 'hase has not abandoned the re'resentation of recogni3able ob;ects in 'rinci'le. What it has abandoned in 'rinci'le is the re'resentation of the +ind of s'ace that recogni3able ob;ects can inhabit. Abstractness, or the non-fig$rati%e, has in itself still not 'ro%ed to be an altogether necessar) moment in the self-criticism of 'ictorial art, e%en tho$gh artists as eminent as 2andins+) and Mondrian ha%e tho$ght so. As s$ch, re'resentation, or ill$stration, does not attain the $ni8$eness of 'ictorial art= 7hat does do so is the associations of things re'resented. All recogni3able entities (incl$ding 'ict$res themsel%es) e9ist in three-dimensional s'ace, and the barest s$ggestion of a recogni3able

entit) s$fffices to call $' associations of that +ind of s'ace. :he fragmentar) silho$ette of a h$man fig$re, or of a teac$', 7ill do so, and b) doing so alienate 'ictorial s'ace from the literal t7o-dimensionalit) 7hich is the g$arantee of 'ainting>s inde'endence as an art. 4or, as has alread) been said, three-dimensionalit) is the 'ro%ince of sc$l't$re. :o achie%e a$tonom), 'ainting has had abo%e all to di%est itself of e%er)thing it might share 7ith sc$l't$re, and it is in its effort to do this, and not so m$ch -- . re'eat -- to e9cl$de the re'resentational or literar), that 'ainting has made itself abstract. At the same time, ho7e%er, Modernist 'ainting sho7s, 'recisel) b) its resistance to the sc$l't$ral, ho7 firml) attached it remains to tradition beneath and be)ond all a''earances to the contrar). 4or the resistance to the sc$l't$ral dates far bac+ before the ad%ent of Modernism. Western 'ainting, in so far as it is nat$ralistic, o7es a great debt to sc$l't$re, 7hich ta$ght it in the beginning ho7 to shade and model for the ill$sion of relief, and e%en ho7 to dis'ose that ill$sion in a com'lementar) ill$sion of dee' s'ace. Bet some of the greatest feats of Western 'ainting are d$e to the effort it has made o%er the last fo$r cent$ries to rid itself of the sc$l't$ral. &tarting in Venice in the 1!th cent$r) and contin$ing in &'ain, *elgi$m, and 5olland in the 1/th, that effort 7as carried on at first in the name of color. When Da%id, in the 1,th cent$r), tried to re%i%e sc$l't$ral 'ainting, it 7as, in 'art, to sa%e 'ictorial art from the decorati%e flattening-o$t that the em'hasis on color seemed to ind$ce. Bet the strength of Da%id>s o7n best 'ict$res, 7hich are 'redominantl) his informal ones, lies as m$ch in their color as in an)thing else. And .ngres, his faithf$l '$'il, tho$gh he s$bordinated color far more consistentl) than did Da%id, e9ec$ted 'ortraits that 7ere among the flattest, least sc$l't$ral 'aintings done in the West b) a so'histicated artist since the .#th cent$r). :h$s, b) the middle of the 1 th cent$r), all ambitio$s tendencies in 'ainting had con%erged amid their differences, in an anti-sc$l't$ral direction. Modernism, as 7ell as contin$ing this direction, has made it more conscio$s of itself. With Manet and the .m'ressionists the 8$estion sto''ed being defined as one of color %ers$s dra7ing, and became one of '$rel) o'tical e9'erience against o'tical e9'erience as re%ised or modified b) tactile associations. .t 7as in the name of the '$rel) and literall) o'tical, not in the name of color, that the .m'ressionists set themsel%es to $ndermining shading and modeling and e%er)thing else in 'ainting that seemed to connote the sc$l't$ral. .t 7as, once again, in the name of the sc$l't$ral, 7ith its shading and modeling, that CA3anne, and the C$bists after him, reacted against .m'ressionism, as Da%id had reacted against 4ragonard. *$t once more, ;$st as Da%id>s and .ngres> reaction had c$lminated, 'arado9icall), in a +ind of 'ainting e%en less sc$l't$ral than before, so the C$bist co$nter-re%ol$tion e%ent$ated in a +ind of 'ainting flatter than an)thing in Western art since before Giotto and Cimab$e -- so flat indeed that it co$ld hardl) contain recogni3able images. .n the meantime the other cardinal norms of the art of 'ainting had beg$n, 7ith the onset of Modernism, to $ndergo a re%ision that 7as e8$all) thoro$gh if not as s'ectac$lar. .t 7o$ld ta+e me more time than is at m) dis'osal to sho7 ho7 the norm of the 'ict$re>s enclosing sha'e, or frame, 7as loosened, then tightened, then loosened once again, and isolated, and then tightened once more, b) s$ccessi%e generations of Modernist 'ainters. ?r ho7 the norms of finish and 'aint te9t$re, and of %al$e and color contrast, 7ere re%ised and rere%ised. Ce7 ris+s ha%e been ta+en 7ith all these norms, not onl) in the interests of e9'ression b$t also in order to e9hibit them more clearl) as norms. *) being e9hibited, the) are tested for their indis'ensabilit). :hat testing is b) no means finished, and the fact that it becomes dee'er as it 'roceeds acco$nts for the radical sim'lifications that are also to be seen in the %er) latest abstract 'ainting, as 7ell as for the radical com'lications that are also seen in it.

Ceither e9treme is a matter of ca'rice or arbitrariness. ?n the contrar), the more closel) the norms of a disci'line become defined, the less freedom the) are a't to 'ermit in man) directions. :he essential norms or con%entions of 'ainting are a the same time the limiting conditions 7ith 7hich a 'ict$re m$st com'l) in order to be e9'erienced as a 'ict$re. Modernism has fo$nd that these limits can be '$shed bac+ indefinitel) -- before a 'ict$re sto's being a 'ict$re and t$rns into an arbitrar) ob;ect= b$t it has also fo$nd that the f$rther bac+ these limits are '$shed the more e9'licitl) the) ha%e to be obser%ed and indicated. :he crisscrossing blac+ lines and colored rectangles of a Mondrian 'ainting seem hardl) eno$gh to ma+e a 'ict$re o$t of, )et the) im'ose the 'ict$re>s framing sha'e as a reg$lating norm 7ith a ne7 force and com'leteness b) echoing that sha'e so closel). 4ar from inc$rring the danger of arbitrariness, Mondrian>s art 'ro%es, as time 'asses, almost too disci'lined, almost too tradition- and con%ention-bo$nd in certain res'ects= once 7e ha%e gotten $sed to its $tter abstractness, 7e reali3e that it is more conser%ati%e in its color, for instance, as 7ell as in its s$bser%ience to the frame, than the last 'aintings of Monet. .t is $nderstood, . ho'e, that in 'lotting o$t the rationale of Modernist 'ainting . ha%e had to sim'lif) and e9aggerate. :he flatness to7ards 7hich Modernist 'ainting orients itself can ne%er be an absol$te flatness. :he heightened sensiti%it) of the 'ict$re 'lane ma) no longer 'ermit sc$l't$ral ill$sion, or trom!e-l$oeil, b$t it does and m$st 'ermit o'tical ill$sion. :he first mar+ made on a can%as destro)s its literal and $tter flatness, and the res$lt of the mar+s made on it b) an artist li+e Mondrian is still a +ind of ill$sion that s$ggests a +ind of third dimension. ?nl) no7 it is a strictl) 'ictorial, strictl) o'tical third dimension. :he ?ld Masters created an ill$sion i of s'ace in de'th that one co$ld imagine oneself 7al+ing into, b$t the analogo$s ill$sion created b) the Modernist 'ainter can onl) be seen into= can be tra%eled thro$gh, literall) or fig$rati%el), onl) 7ith the e)e. :he latest abstract 'ainting tries to f$lfill the .m'ressionist insistence on the o'tical as the onl) sense that a com'letel) and 8$intessentiall) 'ictorial art can in%o+e. 1eali3ing this, one begins also to reali3e that the .m'ressionists, or at least the Ceo-.m'ressionists, 7ere not altogether misg$ided 7hen the) flirted 7ith science. 2antian self-criticism, as it no7 t$rns o$t, has fo$nd its f$llest e9'ression in science rather than in 'hiloso'h), and 7hen it began to be a''lied in art, the latter 7as bro$ght closer in real s'irit to scientific method than e%er before -- closer than it had been b) Alberti, @ccello, Piero della 4rancesca, or Deonardo in the

1enaissance. :hat %is$al art sho$ld confine itself e9cl$si%el) to 7hat is gi%en in %is$al e9'erience, and ma+e no reference to an)thing gi%en in an) other order of e9'erience, is a notion 7hose onl) ;$stification lies in scientific consistenc). &cientific method alone as+s, or might as+, that a sit$ation be resol%ed in e9actl) the same terms as that in 7hich it is 'resented. *$t this +ind of consistenc) 'romises nothing in the 7a) of aesthetic 8$alit), and the fact that the best art of the last se%ent) or eight) )ears a''roaches closer and closer to s$ch consistenc) does not sho7 the contrar). 4rom the 'oint of %ie7 of art in itself, its con%ergence 7ith science ha''ens to be a mere accident, and neither art nor science reall) gi%es or ass$res the other of an)thing more than it e%er did. What their con%ergence does sho7, ho7e%er, is the 'rofo$nd degree to 7hich Modernist art belongs to the same s'ecific c$lt$ral tendenc) as modern science, and this is of the highest significance as a historical fact. .t sho$ld also be $nderstood that self-criticism in Modernist art has ne%er been carried on in an) b$t a s'ontaneo$s and largel) s$bliminal 7a). As . ha%e alread) indicated, it has been altogether a 8$estion of 'ractice, immanent to 'ractice, and ne%er a to'ic of theor). M$ch is heard abo$t 'rograms in connection 7ith Modernist art, b$t there has act$all) been far less of the 'rogrammatic in Modernist than in 1enaissance or Academic 'ainting. With a fe7 e9ce'tions li+e Mondrian, the masters of Modernism ha%e had no more fi9ed ideas abo$t art than Corot did. Certain inclinations, certain affirmations and em'hases, and certain ref$sals and abstinences as 7ell, seem to become necessar) sim'l) beca$se the 7a) to stronger, more e9'ressi%e art lies thro$gh them. :he immediate aims of the Modernists 7ere, and remain, 'ersonal before an)thing else, and the tr$th and s$ccess of their 7or+s remain 'ersonal before an)thing else. And it has ta+en the acc$m$lation, o%er decades, of a good deal of 'ersonal 'ainting to re%eal the general self-critical tendenc) of Modernist 'ainting. Co artist 7as, or )et is, a7are of it, nor co$ld an) artist e%er 7or+ freel) in a7areness of it. :o this e9tent -and it is a great e9tent -- art gets carried on $nder Modernism in m$ch the same 7a) as before. And . cannot insist eno$gh that Modernism has ne%er meant, and does not mean no7, an)thing li+e a brea+ 7ith the 'ast. .t ma) mean a de%ol$tion, an $nra%eling, of tradition, b$t it also means its f$rther e%ol$tion. Modernist art contin$es the 'ast 7itho$t ga' or brea+, and 7here%er it ma) end $' it 7ill ne%er cease being intelligible in terms of the 'ast. :he ma+ing of 'ict$res has been controlled, since it first began, b) all the norms . ha%e mentioned. :he Paleolithic 'ainter or engra%er co$ld disregard the norm of the frame and treat the s$rface in a literall) sc$l't$ral 7a) onl) beca$se he made images rather than 'ict$res, and 7or+ed on a s$''ort -- a roc+ 7all, a bone, a horn, or a stone -- 7hose limits and s$rface 7ere arbitraril) gi%en b) nat$re. *$t the ma+ing of 'ict$res means, among other things, the deliberate creating or choosing of a flat s$rface, and the deliberate circ$mscribing and limiting of it. :his deliberateness is 'recisel) 7hat Modernist 'ainting har's on: the fact, that is, that the limiting conditions of art are altogether h$man conditions. *$t . 7ant to re'eat that Modernist art does not offer theoretical demonstrations. .t can be said, rather, that it ha''ens to con%ert theoretical 'ossibilities into em'irical ones, in doing 7hich it tests man) theories abo$t art for their rele%ance to the act$al 'ractice and act$al e9'erience of art. .n this res'ect alone can Modernism be considered s$b%ersi%e. Certain factors 7e $sed to thin+ essential to the ma+ing and e9'eriencing of art are sho7n not to be so b) the fact that Modernist 'ainting has been able to dis'ense 7ith them and )et contin$e to offer the e9'erience of art in all its essentials. :he f$rther fact that this demonstration has left most of o$r old %al$e ;$dgments intact onl) ma+es it the more concl$si%e. Modernism ma)

ha%e had something to do 7ith the re%i%al of the re'$tations of @ccello, Piero della 4rancesca, <l Greco, Georges de la :o$r, and e%en Vermeer= and Modernism certainl) confirmed, if it did not start, the re%i%al of Giotto>s re'$tation= b$t it has not lo7ered thereb) the standing of Deonardo, 1a'hael, :itian, 1$bens, 1embrandt, or Wattea$. What Modernism has sho7n is that, tho$gh the 'ast did a''reciate these masters ;$stl), it often ga%e 7rong or irrele%ant reasons for doing so. .n some 7a)s this sit$ation is hardl) changed toda). Art criticism and art histor) lag behind Modernism as the) lagged behind 're-Modernist art. Most of the things that get 7ritten abo$t Modernist art still belong to ;o$rnalism rather than to criticism or art histor). .t belongs to ;o$rnalism -- and to the millennial com'le9 from 7hich so man) ;o$rnalists and ;o$rnalist intellect$als s$ffer in o$r da) -- that each ne7 'hase of Modernist art sho$ld be hailed as the start of a 7hole ne7 e'och in art, mar+ing a decisi%e brea+ 7ith all the c$stoms and con%entions of the 'ast. <ach time, a +ind of art is e9'ected so $nli+e all 're%io$s +inds of art, and so free from norms of 'ractice or taste, that e%er)bod), regardless of ho7 informed or $ninformed he ha''ens to be, can ha%e his sa) abo$t it. And each time, this e9'ectation has been disa''ointed, as the 'hase of Modernist art in 8$estion finall) ta+es its 'lace in the intelligible contin$it) of taste and tradition. Cothing co$ld be f$rther from the a$thentic art of o$r time than the idea of a r$'t$re of contin$it). Art is -- among other things -- contin$it), and $nthin+able 7itho$t it. Dac+ing the 'ast of art, and the need and com'$lsion to maintain its standards of e9cellence, Modernist art 7o$ld lac+ both s$bstance and ;$stification. Postscri't (1 /,) :he abo%e a''eared first in 1 !" as a 'am'hlet in a series '$blished b) the Voice of America. .t had been broadcast o%er that agenc)>s radio in the s'ring of the same )ear. With some minor %erbal changes it 7as re'rinted in the s'ring 1 !( n$mber of Art and Diterat$re in Paris, and then in Gregor) *attcoc+>s antholog) The New Art (1 !!). . 7ant to ta+e this chance to correct an error, one of inter'retation an not of fact. Man) readers, tho$gh b) no means all, seem to ha%e ta+en the >rationale> of Modernist art o$tlined here as re'resenting a 'osition ado'ted b) the 7riter himself that is, that 7hat he describes he also ad%ocates. :his ma) be a fa$lt of the 7riting or the rhetoric. Ce%ertheless, a close reading of 7hat he 7rites 7ill find nothing at all to indicate that he s$bscribes to, belie%es in, the things that he ad$mbrates. (:he 8$otation mar+s aro$nd '$re and '$rit) sho$ld ha%e been eno$gh to sho7 that.) :he 7riter is tr)ing to acco$nt in 'art for ho7 most of the %er) best art of the last h$ndred-odd )ears came abo$t, b$t he>s not im'l)ing that that>s ho7 it had to come abo$t, m$ch less that that>s ho7 the best art still has to come abo$t. >P$re> art 7as a $sef$l ill$sion, b$t this doesn>t ma+e it an) the less an ill$sion. Cor does the 'ossibilit) of its contin$ing $sef$lness ma+e it an) the less an ill$sion. :here ha%e been some f$rther constr$ctions of 7hat . 7rote that go o%er into 're'ostero$sness: :hat . regard flatness and the inclosing of flatness not ;$st as the limiting conditions of 'ictorial art, b$t as criteria of aesthetic 8$alit) in 'ictorial art= that the f$rther a 7or+ ad%ances the self-definition of an art, the better that 7or+ is bo$nd to be. :he 'hiloso'her or art historian 7ho can en%ision me -- or an)one at all -- arri%ing at aesthetic ;$dgments in this 7a) reads shoc+ingl) more into himself or herself than into m) article.