Guston’s work lies somewhere between crude and funky. The funky he projected was only possible given his vast knowledge of “art,” and the crude was a public declaration that he was so sophisticated that he could be coarse and get away with it. A funny dynamic that he largely got away with. Only someone who danced in the rarified halls that he inhabited would dare. And because he knew everyone, and was erudite in his specialized way, he was celebrated as we seem to do with like men.
The book is a surprisingly good read, and Guston gives art (at the time that he was lecturing) a good run for its money. Guston was clearly as much intellectual as artist, and certainly was the opposite of stupid. In fact it was his verbal brilliance that swept away his dissenters. I suspect the imagery won't be admired in the future and that his legacy will be minor. Then again, I never would have predicted that the art world would become what it is today.
The Harold Rosenberg conversation had a somewhat hostile audience in which someone challenged the crudity as a put-up job. It was, most certainly, artifice. But it served an expressive purpose. I liken Guston to someone like Sengai or Bada Shanren, both of whom could paint in a classical manner and elected not to for the sake of authenticity and integrity. That would have been a hard thing to describe in Western art terms, but it's a running theme in the Eastern canon.
The crudity works, on its terms, because it was Guston's own, and certainly that part of his oeuvre is more individual and distinctive than his abstractions. However, that does not make it work, necessarily, for those who respond first and foremost to the purely visual apart from meaning or message. But yes, it was legitimate, because it was genuine.
Beginning in the 70s women artists would figuratively mutilate themselves in order to punish men. It was actually referred to as scatological art – part of the feminist vanguard. I’d suggest that Guston pretty much did the same with his own work once he discovered his association with the CIA mission. He needed to purge himself from feelings of betrayal to his previous political/social allegiance. This would explain his bizarre rage against his own AbEx work. His inner torment manifested itself by making really ugly (scatological) paintings to punish those who duped him – and to punish himself. Whoever heard of an artist raging against his former work like that? Normally, it’s just a natural progression. Happens all the time.
"This is an occupation known as painting, which calls for imagination, and skill of hand, in order to discover things not seen, hiding themselves under the shadow of natural objects, and to fix them with the hand, presenting to plain sight what does not actually exist." Cennino Cennini, The Craftsman's Handbook, ca. 1437
Even Yale? It was one of the places designated to commence the decline.
The indifference you mention in the opening paragraphs, which is closely tied to ignorance and/or stupidity, is something I noticed in artists a good while earlier than 2018. It would appear to be irrational, except it is apparently so prevalent that one suspects it is a kind of endemic disorder aided and abetted by the mindless cult of the "new and different" (neither of which guarantees worth).
Of course, to me art is a continuum, meaning art history is critically important, and those who ignore or neglect it as if it were irrelevant and useless strike me as neither credible nor respectable. In other words, if you're an artist, lack of interest in the art that came before you shows an appalling lack of aesthetic curiosity, if not absurd arrogance, and if your art truly does not relate to anyone else's, it's quite unlikely that it will connect with me. I don't want "new and different" but as good as or better.
Have you actually read the Guston book? He's clearly seeped in thousands of years of art imagery. He's sly, completely aware of what he's creating, and the apparent crudity of his images is a con.
I was not referring to Guston, but to artists who don't know art history, don't especially care to know it and don't think there's any real point bothering with it.
No insights here into Guston's mind. My point was simply that he was a highly sophisticated image maker, who was as aware of ancient Greek imagery as he was of Diane Arbus' photographs.
The use and abuse of art
Barzun, 1972
MFA 1976
This little book gave me a concussion.
Dazed and confused ever since
First I'm hearing of it, thanks for the referral. Interesting that even Hilton Kramer thought it was reactionary.
https://archive.ph/IuHu2
From what Kramer writes in that article, I doubt he actually read the book/lecture very closely. And was “reacting” himself.
I'll investigate it for myself. Thank you again.
By the way, I have your Nymph & Satyr print on my wall.
A gift from a friend here in Miami
I'm honored!
Thought provoking and a fun ride with you and Philip and your readers. Keep it moving.
Guston’s work lies somewhere between crude and funky. The funky he projected was only possible given his vast knowledge of “art,” and the crude was a public declaration that he was so sophisticated that he could be coarse and get away with it. A funny dynamic that he largely got away with. Only someone who danced in the rarified halls that he inhabited would dare. And because he knew everyone, and was erudite in his specialized way, he was celebrated as we seem to do with like men.
The book is a surprisingly good read, and Guston gives art (at the time that he was lecturing) a good run for its money. Guston was clearly as much intellectual as artist, and certainly was the opposite of stupid. In fact it was his verbal brilliance that swept away his dissenters. I suspect the imagery won't be admired in the future and that his legacy will be minor. Then again, I never would have predicted that the art world would become what it is today.
The Harold Rosenberg conversation had a somewhat hostile audience in which someone challenged the crudity as a put-up job. It was, most certainly, artifice. But it served an expressive purpose. I liken Guston to someone like Sengai or Bada Shanren, both of whom could paint in a classical manner and elected not to for the sake of authenticity and integrity. That would have been a hard thing to describe in Western art terms, but it's a running theme in the Eastern canon.
The crudity works, on its terms, because it was Guston's own, and certainly that part of his oeuvre is more individual and distinctive than his abstractions. However, that does not make it work, necessarily, for those who respond first and foremost to the purely visual apart from meaning or message. But yes, it was legitimate, because it was genuine.
Gadfly here with a different viewpoint.
Beginning in the 70s women artists would figuratively mutilate themselves in order to punish men. It was actually referred to as scatological art – part of the feminist vanguard. I’d suggest that Guston pretty much did the same with his own work once he discovered his association with the CIA mission. He needed to purge himself from feelings of betrayal to his previous political/social allegiance. This would explain his bizarre rage against his own AbEx work. His inner torment manifested itself by making really ugly (scatological) paintings to punish those who duped him – and to punish himself. Whoever heard of an artist raging against his former work like that? Normally, it’s just a natural progression. Happens all the time.
https://alexanderadamsart.substack.com/p/philip-guston-dissenting-painter
Gadflies always welcome, but ... Could you furnish some hard data to corroborate any of this?
If you are interested you should read Frances Stoner Saunders, The Cultural Cold War for background on Rockefeller family, MOMA, AbEx, CIA, etc.:
https://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Cold-War-World-Letters/dp/1595589147/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2KR12ZJZQHL7L&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.MVbcW-Ry34lGvEvwCNqfPc0tc-eb-yflq42vLOfj5SgTLy_fgyk7nZTCFGrjXVswztlaQGxC4k70YOTgg2JlVKCC_oKibXi2qt1nQ5JetQhTKGlpwoBIiTu9b4AYombUiNyeqWiPOjkuTrrXz-b9yUMyB-PmvwYDnVRWFkmHlTKMM8qAXim3NYKzovm878qYmrYAXqjAgpx7SvaqKVgsPuGxNafW2bIsIsKDllR0Oww.A_c4XFyZbgO-OFWSLmi8hQVNGByN4u0AL74-bx_jpq8&dib_tag=se&keywords=frances+stonor+saunders&qid=1710723538&s=books&sprefix=frances+stoner+saunders%2Cstripbooks%2C1551&sr=1-1
Please read Adams article and my comments at the liink to Adams above for my summary.
"This is an occupation known as painting, which calls for imagination, and skill of hand, in order to discover things not seen, hiding themselves under the shadow of natural objects, and to fix them with the hand, presenting to plain sight what does not actually exist." Cennino Cennini, The Craftsman's Handbook, ca. 1437
Even Yale? It was one of the places designated to commence the decline.
The indifference you mention in the opening paragraphs, which is closely tied to ignorance and/or stupidity, is something I noticed in artists a good while earlier than 2018. It would appear to be irrational, except it is apparently so prevalent that one suspects it is a kind of endemic disorder aided and abetted by the mindless cult of the "new and different" (neither of which guarantees worth).
Of course, to me art is a continuum, meaning art history is critically important, and those who ignore or neglect it as if it were irrelevant and useless strike me as neither credible nor respectable. In other words, if you're an artist, lack of interest in the art that came before you shows an appalling lack of aesthetic curiosity, if not absurd arrogance, and if your art truly does not relate to anyone else's, it's quite unlikely that it will connect with me. I don't want "new and different" but as good as or better.
Have you actually read the Guston book? He's clearly seeped in thousands of years of art imagery. He's sly, completely aware of what he's creating, and the apparent crudity of his images is a con.
". . . the apparent crudity of his images is a con."
So, Guston was kind of shitting on his audience?
He was reconciling the ethos of expressionist paint handling with his desire to create images.
I was not referring to Guston, but to artists who don't know art history, don't especially care to know it and don't think there's any real point bothering with it.
Thanks for the clarification.
No insights here into Guston's mind. My point was simply that he was a highly sophisticated image maker, who was as aware of ancient Greek imagery as he was of Diane Arbus' photographs.