The Persistence of Clement Greenberg
By Dan Starling
Fifty years after “Avant-Garde and Kitsch” was first published,
contemporary artists, critics and curators were asked to comment on their impression
of Clement Greenberg’s writing . John Miller responded by saying, “Avant-Garde
and Kitsch” “still exerts a powerful resonance” . “Avant-Garde
and Kitsch”, along with “Towards a Newer Laocoon” written
within one year, initiated Greenberg’s hegemony of art criticism that
would last for fifteen years. Greenberg established his own voice by evoking
a reaction from his readers. The reason that Greenberg’s writing was influential
is because of his clarity of vision through the separation of art and politics.
While at the same time he inspired his readers by enforcing the virtues of democracy
in a time of war. Greenberg also created a space in which the artist could act
on specifically American terms. As well, by placing kitsch in opposition to
avant-garde painting, Greenberg struck a chord with a basic preoccupation of
culture. Many of these same themes are still dealt with in our society. The
essential elements of Clement Greenberg’s “Avant-Garde and Kitsch”
and “Towards a Newer Laocoon” are what made these writings influential
in their time and what give them lasting relevance.
Today, artist Peter Halley acknowledges his own “undying fascination”
with Greenberg . Similarly, one wonders why, as a newcomer in 1939, Greenberg
was able to gain so much attention. The first response that Greenberg received
after the publication of “Avant-Garde and Kitsch” was largely positive
. This initial reaction came from a close circle of Greenberg’s peers
who shared his views. Greenberg himself writes:
Dwight Macdonald tells me that no article printed in Partisan Review has stirred
up so much comment as mine and received such universal praise, etc. The only
dissent came from Meyer Schapiro, who says in addition that I borrowed some
of his ideas. The praise warms me, but I’m afraid I lack a critical audience;
the piece is full of loopholes which no one seems to have noticed .
Greenberg started a controversy by the way he wrote seriously and forcefully
about his subject. This was part of establishing his own voice. In “Avant-Garde
and Kitsch” Greenberg often uses harsh generalizations and unjustifiable
claims. For example he says, “there has always been on the one side the
minority of the powerful – and therefore the cultivated – and on
the other the great mass of the exploited and poor – and therefore the
ignorant” . Greenberg turns opinion into truth. It is this kind of generalized
statement that gives Greenberg’s writing a force but it is also why he
cannot understand why its appeal.
Greenberg acknowledges the fact that there are many weak points in his writing.
These deficiencies are used to attack his writing. He was by no means an art
historian and studied poetry and literature at university . In 1937 Schapiro’s
major ideas about art were published in his writing “Nature of Abstract
Art” . Greenberg uses Schapiro’s idea of the progression of the
art towards modernism and the formation of abstract art. However, Greenberg
takes a different approach by eliminating the political movements that Schapiro
keeps in balance with art . Greenberg came to write critically about painting
because he saw it as holding the lead of cultural advancement . Expressing his
interest in this medium Greenberg states:
It’s much easier to write about writing than about not-writing, like painting.
And I have learned so much about painting, too. What a shame to waste it. But
everyone dislikes technical criticism of painting; and there’s no other
decent kind. What’s wanted is horseshit. And the horseshit is so easy
to write brilliantly, but I shan’t .
This is exemplary of Greenberg’s attitude in “Avant-Garde and Kitsch”
and “Towards a Newer Laocoon”. It seems as though Greenberg does
not know exactly what he is talking about. At the same time, the reader feels
inclined to agree with him. While Greenberg was the editor of Partisan Review
from 1940 to 1942 many readers wrote in to comment on his writing. Balcomb Greene
writes that Greenberg’s views are “significant even to people not
agreeing with him” . However, it was hard for anyone to pinpoint what
they like. Accordingly, because of the lack of historical collaboration, many
people criticized his writing. In response, Parker Tyler writes that Clement
Greenberg has a “shocking disregard” for his private opinions and
he uses “words so lacking in a genuine sense of critical proportion”
. Greenberg was not only criticized for his opinions, but for his use of incorrect
information. Elliott Carter says that in “Towards a Newer Laocoon”
Greenberg is “wrong in practically every point he makes about music”
. The readers’ responses object both to Greenberg’s own opinions
and also to his historical accuracy. In the same way, many art critics would
take their shots at Greenberg’s criticism by calling it irresponsible.
George L. K. Morris, a contemporary critic of Greenberg’s, slanders his
writing by saying that “one must stretch a point to call it criticism
at all – rather it is an appraisal-sheet built around a thesis”
. One almost cannot imagine how Greenberg’s writing managed to survive
such an onslaught. One reason is the emergence of abstract art in America. An
important part of Greenberg’s writing is that unlike other criticisms
is it demands a response from the reader. Whether good or bad, Greenberg forces
the reader to engage with him.
The division in the art community created by Greenberg’s writing is analogous
to the world at war. The critical stage on which Clement Greenberg’s first
writings were received was one of political turmoil. At the beginning of the
Second World War the European nations we too preoccupied to devote any time
to the subject of art. Only in America could the subject be explored, if only
on paper. This would pave the way for the domination of American art after the
war . The confusion created by the war is averted in “Avant-Garde and
Kitsch” and “Towards a Newer Laocoon” in favor of clarity.
The uneasy balance of politics and art in the writing of Schapiro stifled the
advance the art . Greenberg realized that it would be too problematic to talk
about culture and politics at the same time and therefore politics is avoided
when he writes about art . Subject matter is problematic and therefore it also
is absent when Greenberg champions abstract art . In “Avant-Garde and
Kitsch” Greenberg clarifies the role of the avant-garde artist:
…the true and most important function of the avant-garde was not to ‘experiment’,
but to find a path along which it would be possible to keep culture moving in
the midst of ideological confusion and violence. Retiring from public altogether,
the avant-garde poet or artist sought to maintain the high level of his art
by both narrowing and raising it to the expression of an absolute in which all
relatives and contradictions would be either resolved or beside the point. ‘Art
for art’s sake’ and ‘pure poetry’ appear, and subject
matter or content becomes something to be avoided like a plague .
The emphasis is taken off of the political situation of the time and focussed
on art and artists. In isolation, artists were free to create works of ‘pure’
art. In “Towards a Newer Laocoon” Greenberg explains how painting
has progressed to the point where the arts “have been hunted back to their
mediums... isolated, concentrated and defined” . Simplistically, painting
is just about paint and canvas with no modeling of form or containment of ideas.
Greenberg values the inherent worth of art. Finally, Greenberg concludes by
stating that: “I find that I have offered no other explanation for the
present superiority of abstract art than its historical justification. So what
I have written has turned out to be an historical apology for abstract art”
. Through the use of sarcasm Greenberg emphasizes the unnecessary qualification
of abstract art. As well, the divorce of art and politics is justified historically
by Greenberg through the birth of abstract art.
This formula targeted an American audience at the time. The most significant
development in the minds of Americans was World War II. Americans were contemplating
the future of capitalism and democracy in the face of Fascism. In an interview
Greenberg recognizes the political situation he was addressing and offers
this reason as evidence for the success of his writing: “My friends and I disdained
Stalinism, and the notion of a proletarian culture had been discredited years
before. ‘Avant-Garde and Kitsch’ was written in that climate, not
in answer to it…so I spelled out in ‘Avant-Garde and Kitsch’
what many people half-knew or half-believed. That’s why my article went
over” . In promoting these half-truths Greenberg solidifies many issues;
the fuel was the topic of capitalism. The notion of America existing in a world
where Europe was a German state was openly discussed in the press by Greenberg
and others. Greenberg wrote “An American Perspective” for Horizon
in 1940 in which he treats the war as a battle between Capitalism and Democracy
. On the one side Greenberg equates capitalism and kitsch with Fascism and on
the other, democracy and freedom with high culture . In “Avant-Garde and
Kitsch” Greenberg states that the Fascist regimes “cannot raise
the cultural level of the masses – even if they wanted to – by anything
short of a surrender to international socialism, they will flatter the masses
by bringing all culture down to their level” . Culture is threatened by
kitsch; it is therefore an assault on democracy. It is not surprising that this
attack on Capitalism comes at the end of the depression. At this time the system
of capitalism was seriously in question. Moreover, Greenberg states that “the
avant-garde forms the only living culture we now have, the survival in the near
future of culture in general is thus threatened” . This attack on democracy
is at the heart of American values. Tactfully, Greenberg separates art from
politics for clarity’s sake while at the same time he inspires his audience
with wartime metaphors.
Greenberg singles out kitsch as the rallying point for his theoretical position.
Kitsch is able to absorb the assault of the problems of culture because it
is indefensible. Greenberg denounces kitsch and sheds on to it his scorn:
Kitsch is mechanical and operates by formulas. Kitsch is vicarious experience
and faked sensations. Kitsch changes according to style, but remains always
the same. Kitsch is the epitome of all that is spurious in the life of our
times. Kitsch pretends to demand nothing of its customers except their money –
not even their time .
For all of these reasons, the public loves kitsch. However, people still
want to believe that there is something culturally more powerful. This is
in line with a utopian vision or of ‘the American dream’. People want to
believe that their quality of life can improve. Part of this aspiration is the
pursuit of knowledge. At the time, people wanted an indictment of mass culture
to give them something to aspire to . Part of Greenberg’s preservation
of high culture was keeping the dream alive. It was not a coincidence that while
the world was at war people were dreaming of a better life.
In his writing Greenberg is trying to save art from having to justify itself
under Capitalism. In “Avant-Garde and Kitsch” Greenberg says that
the elite class to whom culture actually belongs is shrinking . This depletion
of intellectuals will leave the future of high culture in jeopardy. The fear
for Greenberg is that art will have to justify its position in a consumer world
along with everything else. Unlike class, capital is a great leveler because
it makes no subjective distinctions . In a consumer society people have to be
sold on the things that they buy. In 1947, Greenberg wrote:
In the face of current events, painting feels, apparently, that it must be
more than itself: that it must be epic poetry, it must be theatre, it must
be an atomic bomb, it must be the rights of Man. But the greatest painter
of our time, Matisse, preeminently demonstrated the sincerity and penetration
that go with the kind of greatness particular to twentieth century painting
by saying that he wanted his art to be an armchair for the tired business
man .
Greenberg is hanging on to the greatness of painting in the face of an inadequate
ruling class to appreciate it . As culture declines, Greenberg inserts the
notion of art becoming an independent source of values .
This notion was inspirational to artists. Using his rhetoric of kitsch, Greenberg
set up a position for American artists who failed to understand its importance
. Greenberg gave inspiration to artists because they could oppose kitsch
on an intellectual level by following the historical formulation of abstract
art . By evoking the concepts of democracy and the freedom of the individual
artist in “Avant-Garde and Kitsch” and “Towards a Newer Laocoon”,
Greenberg talks about the avant-garde culture in America even before there is
such a thing. Greenberg’s examples of high cultural artists are European.
He uses the specific example of Picasso . The issues of gender are untouched
in Greenberg’s writing. There is no doubt that when Greenberg talked about
artists he was addressing a male audience . Greenberg took the hegemony of western
masculinity for granted. However, the positions he created were valuable for
ambitious women painters . Greenberg’s writing preceeds the great American
painter. In essence, Greenberg was calling for an American artistic avant-garde.
Greenberg gave the artist something to aspire to and a position that was valuable
. In the Nineteenth Century Charles Baudelaire gave his generation of artists
a place in which they could work by exploring the spaces of modern life . Similarly,
Greenberg made it possible for the artist to act in the Twentieth Century .
The principles that are the basis of Clement Greenberg’s writing are still
valid today. The article “The Greenberg Effect: Comments by Younger Artists,
Critics, and Curators”, which appeared in Arts Magazine, is a valuable
source of personal views about “Avant-Garde and Kitsch”. Many responses
point out flaws in Greenberg’s argument and relate that they do not apply
today. Peter Halley says that “Avant-Garde and Kitsch” has “little
to offer us after half a century”. Conversely, David Reed plainly states
that Greenberg’s “cultural analysis” in “Avant-Garde
and Kitsch” is still “basically correct” . Greenberg’s
writing has the power to elicit a strong response in people even today and no
one can deny the importance of his writing. The response is an important part
of Greenberg’s writing because it still initiates a debate.
People are attracted to Greenberg’s clear and direct style. Through the
process of multiculturalism art is not accepted by all if its message is problematic.
For example, the photography exhibition Committed to the Image: Contemporary
Black Photographers at the Brooklyn Museum of Art this year was labeled anti-Catholic
by New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani . The exhibition displayed photographs that
portray Jesus Christ as a naked woman. Furthermore, art that is seen to denigrate
or debase a minority group in any way may be denied federal funding . Curator
Lisa Phillips says, “it is likely that the only inoffensive and fundable
art in the future will be abstract” . Thus, the abstract art that Greenberg
describes as being free from ideas once again is appropriated as a symbol of
liberty.
Art that challenges our thinking has blurred the line between high and low
culture. Kitsch corresponds to art or entertainment that reinforces our beliefs
rather than challenging them and does not tell us something that we do not
already know . Lisa Phillips writes that we have an “institutionalized”
avant-garde that is used as a “marketing tool for the masses” .
The avant-garde has been turned into kitsch and has the power of expression
to critique modern society . This reversal of Greenberg’s argument seriously
debases its potency, but has the underlying principle been lost? Today it is
much harder to make clear cut distinctions as Greenberg did. Greenberg recognizes
this difficulty in “Avant-Garde and Kitsch” by saying that when
“all the verities involved by religion, authority, tradition, style, are
thrown into question, and the writer or artist is no longer able to estimate
the response of his audience to the symbols and references with which he works”
the response is not calculated. Painter Stephen Westfall acknowledges that “Avant-Garde
and Kitsch” was written when the term ‘high culture’ could
be used with certainty and its enemies (Stalinism, Fascism, kitsch) could be
easily fingered . Today it is hard to agree on what the standards of culture
should be because there are so many opposing views. The fact that today it is
more difficult to agree does not mean that people have lost the desire to achieve
higher standards. People want to believe that there is a goal to be reached;
the goal may however be more personal. It is a fundamental part of one’s
aspirations in life.
Artists pursue this goal today and Greenberg’s writings are a source of
inspiration. His ideas are so persistent that the phenomenon of mass culture
described in “Avant-Garde and kitsch” is still dealt with by artists
at the cusp . Furthermore, editor Meyer Raphael Rubenstein says that Greenberg’s
writing “now reads like a set of instructions for today’s avant-garde”
. Still, there are different opinions that exist about the effect of Greenberg’s
writing on artists. Artist David Reed notes, in limiting the definition of what
painting can be, Greenberg did a “disservice to succeeding generations
of painters” . In fact, Greenberg recognized that the avant-garde is always
evolving. In “Towards a Newer Laocoon” Greenberg maintained the
idea that the historical standards he derived were not the “only valid
standards through eternity” and in the future they might be replaced .
Fifty years ago, artists made their careers by following Greenberg’s formula;
today they do so by breaking it. The combination of art and ideas has become
the new symbol of the avant-garde.
Throughout his career Greenberg tried to deny this tendency of artistic practice.
In 1987 Clement Greenberg had a public debate at the University of Ottawa
in which he related a story about viewing an exhibition of Canadian landscape
paintings in a New York gallery. He met a young man who was the lawyer for
the Art Dealers’
Association of America and discovered that this painting “wasn’t
for him” . Greenberg saw that these painted landscapes were “uncontaminated
by idea or ideas” and concluded that this was the source of distaste for
the gentleman . In his writing Greenberg is trying to hold on to the idea that
art did not have to explain its existence, that it was great just because. The
enforcement of the ‘because’ solidified his position as the leading
art critic in The United States and the World. The most substantial assault
on this kind of Greenbergian theory is offered by T. J. Clark. During a discussion
with Clement Greenberg, Clark articulated that the problem with Greenberg was
that he has become a “spokesman for a kind of devastating, artistic self-satisfaction
and laziness” . The danger with this is with promoting the clichés
that plague art historical criticism.
The advantages and dangers of Greenberg’s theory were clear in their time
and persist today. Try as one might there is no removing the importance of Greenberg
from the fabric of social communication through art. Although Clement Greenberg
claimed that ‘abstract is clear’, it still confuses even cultivated
viewers because it is not clear in explaining its message or existence. Sometimes
it strives to be political and sometimes it does not. Greenberg saw some artwork
as being apolitical even when the artist considered the artwork very political.
The artwork needs Greenberg for its justification just as the importance of
Greenberg was based on the artwork. By keeping art separate from politics Greenberg
was making his own claim about the political statement of art. In this way abstract
art is as overtly political as any other form of art.
Bibliography
Carter, Elliot. “Musical Controversy.” Letter
to the editor. Partisan Review VIII, 1 (January-February 1941): 80.
Clark, T. J. “Clement Greenberg’s Theory of Art.” In Pollock and After: The Critical Debate. New York: Haripeland and Row, 1985.
Clark, T. J. The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the art of Manet and his followers. 1st ed. (New York: Knopf 1985).
Clement Greenberg 1909-1994, “Demagoguery.” Art Monthly (July-August 1994): 12-13.
De Duve, Thierry. Clement Greenberg Between the Lines. Paris: Dis Voir, 1996.Greenberg, Clement. “An American View”. Horizon II, 8 (August 1940):76-83
Greenberg, Clement. “Avant-Garde and Kitsh.” Partisan Review VI, 5 (Fall 1939): 34-49.
Greenberg, Clement. The Harold Letters: 1928-1943. Washington D.C.: Counterpoint, 2000.
Greenberg, Clement. “Towards a Newer Laocoon.” Partisan
Review VII, 4 (July-August 1940):
296-310.
Greene, Balcomb. “Why Not Keep Quiet?” Letter to the editor. Partisan Review VIII, 4 (July-August 1941): 348-349.
Guilbaut, Serge. “The New Adventures of the Avant-Garde in America.” In Pollock and After: The Critical Debate. New York: Haripeland and Row, 1985.
Halley, Peter. “The Greenberg Effect: Comments by Younger Artists, Critics, and Curators.” Arts Magazine (December 1989): 60.
Hart, Paul. “The Essential Legacy of Clement Greenberg from the Era of Stalin and Hitler.” The Oxford Art Journal 11, 1 (1988): 76-87.
Kramer, Hilton. “Clement Greenberg & the Cold War.” The New Criterion (March 1993): 4-9.
McCool, Grant. “Nude female Jesus denounced as ‘anti-Catholic’.” The Vancouver Sun (Friday, February 16, 2001): A16.
Miller, John. “The Greenberg Effect: Comments by Younger Artists, Critics, and Curators.” Arts Magazine (December 1989): 61.
Morris, George L. K. “On Critics and Greenberg: A Communication.” Partisan Review XV, 6 (June 1948): 681-685.
Ostow, Saul. “Avant-Garde and Kitsch, Fifty Years Later: A Conversation with Clement Greenberg.” Arts Magazine (December 1989): 56-57.
Phillips, Lisa. “The Greenberg Effect: Comments by Younger Artists, Critics, and Curators.” Arts Magazine (December 1989): 61-62.
Pollock, Griselda. “Pollock on Greenberg.” Art Monthly (July-August 1994): 16-18.
Reed, David. “The Greenberg Effect: Comments by Younger Artists, Critics, and Curators.” Arts Magazine (December 1989): 62.
Rubenfeld, Florence. “The Greenberg Effect: Comments by Younger Artists, Critics, and Curators.” Arts Magazine (December 1989): 62-63.
Rubenstein, Meyer Raphael. “The Greenberg Effect: Comments by Younger Artists, Critics, and Curators.” Arts Magazine (December 1989): 63.
Tyler, Parker. “’View’ Objects.” Letter to the editor. Partisan Review VIII, 3 (May-June 1941): 255.
Westfall, Stephen. “The Greenberg Effect: Comments by Younger Artists, Critics, and Curators.” Arts Magazine (December 1989): 64.