Clement Greenberg, in his well-known essay “Modernist Painting,” argues that modernist painting flows from traditional painting, and does not represent a break from the past but rather a natural progression from it. Greenberg defines modernism as art that turns on itself to self-criticize, and in doing such, establishes that art (paining, in this case) even more firmly in its unique competencies. I agree with Greenberg’s statement that modernism is an extension of the traditional. In this essay I will demonstrate the fluidity of the movement from traditional to modern using examples from the work of the great modernists Paul Cezanne, Edouard Manet, Wassily Kandinsky, and Piet Mondrian, in addition to Greenberg’s ideas regarding the uniqueness of painting and the movement to self-criticism that occurs in modernist painting.
Modernist painting, as described by Greenberg, is defined by a self-criticism that is not present in traditional painting. Where the Old Masters used tools and techniques to “minimize” certain aspects of painting (the two-dimensionality of the surface, the confines of the canvas, etc.), modernists embraced these features and sought not to hide them but to highlight them, using the unique characteristics of the discipline of painting to criticize that discipline from within. For example, Edouard Manet embraced the flatness of the canvas he worked on. Rather than attempt to show depth and “trick” the viewer into a feeling of space within the painting, Manet’s work avoids depth and instead allows the eye to “see” immediately that the work in question is flat, as indeed all paintings are. By avoiding extensive use of shadow around his figures, such as in Manet’s Plum Brandy, Manet creates an image that is clearly a two-dimensional representation, embracing the flatness of the painting surface rather than attempting to disguise it.
Other modernist painters engage in self-criticism in different ways. Paul Cezanne is known for making the confines of the canvas explicit by forgoing “correctness” in order to fit his image into the space of the canvas. Rather than attempt to conceal the limitations of the canvas, Cezanne often morphed the shape and layout of his subjects in order to make them conform to the limited space and shape of a painting. This can be seen clearly in his work Still Life with Plaster Cupid, where table and background shapes are clearly distorted in order to allow them to “fit” on the canvas.
Wassily Kandinsky and Piet Mondrian both extended the work of the first modernists into the truly abstract. In order to fully embrace the two-dimensionality and confined space unique to the art of painting, these artists embraced abstract forms and thus rid painting of all that it might share with the art of sculpture. As seen in Kandinsky’s Composition VIII and Mondrian’s Composition A, the geometric shapes, use of color and absence of shading all eliminate any doubt in the viewer’s eye that the composition might have three dimensions, or that it may continue beyond the limitations of the canvas. These artists truly embraced the fact that a painting is merely a picture, and, Greenberg argues, may be seen as some of the “purest” of paintings, as they fully embrace that which is unique only to the art of painting.
While some may see these facts about modernist painting as indicators that the modernist movement is separated from the past and does not flow from it, I am in agreement with Greenberg that modernism is in fact an extension of traditional painting. Greenberg states that the flatness of a painting has always been a significant fact; modernism simply made it the primary fact. Indeed, without the paintings of the Old Masters to look back upon, modernists would have had no basis for the rejection of three-dimensionality and embrace of spatial limitation. The self-criticism of modernist painting grew directly from the traditional history of painting and cannot be separated from it. All painting converges in anti-sculpture; modernism may be seen as a reaction to or unraveling of the basic tenets of traditionalism, but it is thus necessarily an extension of traditional painting rather than an entirely new art.
Modernist painting, as described by Greenberg, is defined by a self-criticism that is not present in traditional painting. Where the Old Masters used tools and techniques to “minimize” certain aspects of painting (the two-dimensionality of the surface, the confines of the canvas, etc.), modernists embraced these features and sought not to hide them but to highlight them, using the unique characteristics of the discipline of painting to criticize that discipline from within. For example, Edouard Manet embraced the flatness of the canvas he worked on. Rather than attempt to show depth and “trick” the viewer into a feeling of space within the painting, Manet’s work avoids depth and instead allows the eye to “see” immediately that the work in question is flat, as indeed all paintings are. By avoiding extensive use of shadow around his figures, such as in Manet’s Plum Brandy, Manet creates an image that is clearly a two-dimensional representation, embracing the flatness of the painting surface rather than attempting to disguise it.
Other modernist painters engage in self-criticism in different ways. Paul Cezanne is known for making the confines of the canvas explicit by forgoing “correctness” in order to fit his image into the space of the canvas. Rather than attempt to conceal the limitations of the canvas, Cezanne often morphed the shape and layout of his subjects in order to make them conform to the limited space and shape of a painting. This can be seen clearly in his work Still Life with Plaster Cupid, where table and background shapes are clearly distorted in order to allow them to “fit” on the canvas.
Wassily Kandinsky and Piet Mondrian both extended the work of the first modernists into the truly abstract. In order to fully embrace the two-dimensionality and confined space unique to the art of painting, these artists embraced abstract forms and thus rid painting of all that it might share with the art of sculpture. As seen in Kandinsky’s Composition VIII and Mondrian’s Composition A, the geometric shapes, use of color and absence of shading all eliminate any doubt in the viewer’s eye that the composition might have three dimensions, or that it may continue beyond the limitations of the canvas. These artists truly embraced the fact that a painting is merely a picture, and, Greenberg argues, may be seen as some of the “purest” of paintings, as they fully embrace that which is unique only to the art of painting.
While some may see these facts about modernist painting as indicators that the modernist movement is separated from the past and does not flow from it, I am in agreement with Greenberg that modernism is in fact an extension of traditional painting. Greenberg states that the flatness of a painting has always been a significant fact; modernism simply made it the primary fact. Indeed, without the paintings of the Old Masters to look back upon, modernists would have had no basis for the rejection of three-dimensionality and embrace of spatial limitation. The self-criticism of modernist painting grew directly from the traditional history of painting and cannot be separated from it. All painting converges in anti-sculpture; modernism may be seen as a reaction to or unraveling of the basic tenets of traditionalism, but it is thus necessarily an extension of traditional painting rather than an entirely new art.
No comments:
Post a Comment