its an essay. question 1.

In Clement Greenberg's exposition "Modernist Painting", Greenberg asserts that there is no definitive break from the Modernist artists methods and the traditional ways of the Old Masters, rather, that Modernist painters either built upon and/or broke down the theories and practices of the past in the name of progress. He theorizes, correctly so, that without the well established concepts and techniques of the latter-day academic artists, Modernist art would be hollow and without meaning, and lack the poignancy required to advance and maintain the movement. Modern art advanced from and through traditional art in an act of self-preservation, to adjust an outdated value system and reexamine what the art experience truly is. In this regard, I wholeheartedly agree with Greenberg's position; art may be marked and categorized by movements and periods, but it is constantly evolving, building upon itself, unraveling and elaborating, so as to remain a viable source for perpetuating and stimulating the imagination.
It seems to me that the initial goal of Modernist artists was not to wholly eradicate the traditions and fundamentals of the Old Masters, but to disassemble the previously accepted approaches to art and clarify them. This was done through the process of self-criticism, which sought to examine the medium through the medium, to address why the Old Masters practiced what they did, and to investigate as to wether these practices were necessary to artistic involvement. The 'purification' or self-definition of specific mediums was required in order to fulfill the Kantian self-criticism; from the Modernist painters perspective this meant stripping away any concept acquired through other mediums, such as sculpture and theatre, and focusing on what made painting a unique form of expression, the flatness of a canvas, the exploration of light vs. color, etc. A good example of this is Piet Mondrian's (iconic?) work, which focuses primarily on black lines and colored rectangles, imitating the frame of the piece, drawing attention to and incorporating it into the work, and thus creating a commentary on the flat landscape of the canvas itself. Regarding the issue of color and its use, American artist Helen Frankenthaler devised a technique of pouring and soaking canvas in pigment, marrying color and structure, and invariably creating a discussion about the range and limitations of paint itself. Manet and the Impressionists also explored color, but delved deeper into the effects of light and optical interpretation. He/They created illusions based on texture and light play, allowing the viewers eye to mix the colors, and drawing heavy attention to the medium itself, all the while making a bold statement that what was created was not a picture, but a painting. Despite the experimental nature of these artists' works, they are not altogether abandoning the conventions of traditional techniques, quite the contrary. They were analyzing established norms, and furthering the study of what painting can do as a medium. Greenberg clearly states that continuity is vital to the preservation of art, that modern art needs the past on many levels, least of all if only to stand as a reference point. Without the lessons of past art, new art would have no context, and therefore change would be irrelevant.

Bonus question:
Reason and progress go hand in hand with the self-criticizing nature of the Modernist movement. Modernism is defined by the characteristics of reason and logic, shifting the collective mindset to that of self-consciousness and self-discovery. Modernist artists followed suit, employing self-criticism as a method for further exploring their respective mediums through testing and experimentation. Progress was discovered through pushing limits and breaking down traditional customs, keeping art as a whole fresh and free from stagnation.

Samuel Dunning