Well, I made it through “Surface”, chapter 2, whew! A few comments.
Towards the end of the chapter, Schreyach draws an analogy between Avery and Newman and states…”Newman’s conception (what Greenberg further calls his “invention, inspiration, or even intuition”) determines the painter’s creation of an abstract symbol that transcends the physical conditions of its appearance of an image.” An important observation and one I think applies to all successful painting, whether it be a symbol or representation of an object. The sum is greater than the parts.
He goes on to say “Obviously, the process of understanding works of art begins and ends in experience, and our perception of the work’s intended effects is fundamental to interpretation. But the artist’s meaning is not delivered by the encounter itself. Pictorial sensation requires explanation. Thus, formal criticism aims to move beyond the description of the object toward an account of what the work means.” This is an important statement, drawing a distinction between “experience” and “meaning”, and the critics role. I’m not sure I agree. It seems to imply that seeing in and of itself is not enough to understand “meaning”.
Dec 27, 2023·edited Dec 28, 2023Liked by Franklin Einspruch
The problem with bad critics, like bad artists, is that they can get enough "validation" not only to stick around but to escalate their output, both in quantity and in dubiousness, not to say noxiousness.
Part of the "problem" over Greenberg may be that he was Jewish, but I expect the key factor is that he was the genuine article and could not function otherwise, meaning he was himself and called it strictly as he saw it--not as a dogma drone or a fashion follower or an opportunist. Since all of the latter types are compromised, as in defective goods, they try to justify themselves by attacking the real deal.
Well, I made it through “Surface”, chapter 2, whew! A few comments.
Towards the end of the chapter, Schreyach draws an analogy between Avery and Newman and states…”Newman’s conception (what Greenberg further calls his “invention, inspiration, or even intuition”) determines the painter’s creation of an abstract symbol that transcends the physical conditions of its appearance of an image.” An important observation and one I think applies to all successful painting, whether it be a symbol or representation of an object. The sum is greater than the parts.
He goes on to say “Obviously, the process of understanding works of art begins and ends in experience, and our perception of the work’s intended effects is fundamental to interpretation. But the artist’s meaning is not delivered by the encounter itself. Pictorial sensation requires explanation. Thus, formal criticism aims to move beyond the description of the object toward an account of what the work means.” This is an important statement, drawing a distinction between “experience” and “meaning”, and the critics role. I’m not sure I agree. It seems to imply that seeing in and of itself is not enough to understand “meaning”.
The problem with bad critics, like bad artists, is that they can get enough "validation" not only to stick around but to escalate their output, both in quantity and in dubiousness, not to say noxiousness.
Part of the "problem" over Greenberg may be that he was Jewish, but I expect the key factor is that he was the genuine article and could not function otherwise, meaning he was himself and called it strictly as he saw it--not as a dogma drone or a fashion follower or an opportunist. Since all of the latter types are compromised, as in defective goods, they try to justify themselves by attacking the real deal.