Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
by Paul Henrickson,Ph.D.
©2006
My doubts about Miss. Siedschlag were based on nothing more than the
lack of breadth I felt she possessed. But this was not her fault alone, but
a characteristic of the entire system of State supported colleges where
always some middle ground must be sought for any decision and
consequently it would only have been by accident that any
extraordinary personality would have been hired for any position
anywhere.
Ten years later, after I had been teaching art in the public system I
understood more about where her point of view lodged. That, together
with the understanding that where institutions of higher education are
concerned their overall reputation of being expert in their areas must be
preserved. It is a matter of the ideal being in conflict with reality which
is fed by the terror of having, at any time at all, to deal with actuality.
Much of the same cloak of paranoia masks the pubic comments of those
viewed by the masses as expert in their fields. Be it known, now, that the
level of expertness is quickly undercut by anything new the expert might
hear, but manages to put the face on it that he had known it all along.
Some of Greenberg’s comments have this feel about them. “Taste” was
the title of Greenberg’s talk to the Western Michigan group and he
began his talk with a reference to the philosopher Kant’s position that
the faculty one exercised while experiencing anything aesthetically was
simply “taste”. Well , now, that statement seems acceptable, I suppose.
But why do I have the lingering feeling that something essential is
missing here?
Barnett Newman
Turner: “Departure of the Fleet”
Jacques Louis David: “Amour and Psyche”
Having just rescued himself Greenberg then proceeds to, once again,
over extend himself by stating that “Growth means increasing openness,
catholicity, inclusion more than exclusion.”
I would disagree with the notion that there is more inclusion than
exclusion in a “developing” individual taste. I would also disagree with
the opposite notion that there is more exclusion than inclusion. It may
be true that as one becomes more sophisticated that one’s tolerance of
different or alternative ways of expression is greater—more inclusive—
but one’s rejection of failed processes is broader, more severe, and
unyielding…maybe.
The search of the critic for the language that adequately expresses his
perceptions is essentially a moral search and only truthful accuracy, or
as near to it as one can get, is acceptable. This implies that the critic
himself may not, at any one particular time or another hit exactly the
right note that resonates with his perceptions and those of his readers.
Writing a scheduled weekly art review can be very hazardous in this
regard, just as abiding by a teaching or class schedule can be very
inhibiting to growth and development.
On first observation I should like to point out that the major differences
between Pollack and Newman, that is within the general are of a
destructuralization of the western traditional concept of picture
making, that is the pictorialization of external visual phenomena as we
see in such works as historical illustrations, landscape, still lives and
portraits they are 180 degrees apart in that Pollack includes a
multiplicity of elements and Newman wished to diminish the visual data
quite nearly to the point of exhibiting a blank canvas. Of course, having
done that he would have to have confronted the issue of the existence of
the canvas itself.
In the word “aesthetic” there had been no idea of its having been
joined, as if in marriage, to the concept of beauty. It is properly
associated with simple sense perception and this can be either pleasant
or unpleasant, beautiful or ugly. The use of the word “anesthetic”
should help us to understand the difference. That is simply a noun
which describes a substance that dulls the senses so that one feels
neither pleasure nor pain, sees or hears a thing. I conclude, therefore,
that the word aesthetic should simply refer to the engagement of the
senses in some sensation or other, good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant,
beautiful or ugly. Keeping this distinction in mind it also allows us more
freedom in the investigation of an aesthetic experience. When, as
currently happens, we associate the word with only one sort of
experience, the beautiful as opposed to the ugly, we loose out on
knowing, or being able to talk about, one half of the world, as it were. It
also seriously inhibits our ability to discuss intelligently whatever
differences may exist between, say, a beautiful valentine found attractive
by a 10 year-old, a painting by Bougereau and an unfinished Paul
Cezanne.
Greenberg’s use of the word “taste” which, of course, was the subject of
this talk at Western Michigan might have been less troublesome for me
had he tried to distinguish taste which I associate with conventional
opinion and “perception” which I understand to mean an ability
possessed by an individual.
Now, in his discussion on the way “taste” has functioned in the Western
World Greenberg tells us that it has done so in a “pretty normal way”.
This statement, however, throws me into confusion for I haven’t the
vaguest idea of what the “normal” functioning of that might be. I’ve
done a fair amount of traveling throughout the world, including the
west and would be hard pressed to describe what might be called
“normal” taste for what seems to “normal” wherever you are looking
for it seems to be similarity, in level and in kind, of education. This
observation seems to support the contention that taste is learned and in
this Greenberg and I agree. This observation also seems to underscore
the difference in meaning between the words “taste” and “perception”.
“Taste” is learned and “perception” is an individual and largely
independent development.
The very fact that Greenberg can speak of Pollack’s paintings “really
going over around 1960” referring to the sales records and Newman’s
“apotheosis” referring to the results of the admiration his works
encouraged, are words which refer nearly exclusively to class action,
mass thought. “Perception” is a word that does not suggest “class
action” or might we say “fashion”. In “fashion” one notices the right
things for the wrong reasons (and we notice them in order not to disagree
with our peers) and “perception” does not thrive in that environment. Of
itself “perception” is a-singular behavior and, as such, is the property ,
characteristic, or responsibility of an individual, “fashion”, on the other
hand is entirely political, dictatorial, socially determined and, generally,
not insightful.
The artist has a set of tools with which he creates an image and,
generally speaking, the more complex and delicately balanced these
tools are employed, the more richly informative the final image
becomes. This does not mean that the final image need be visually
complex or confusing, but only that what is there on the canvas touches
a great variety of references to which the observer has access.
It is at that point that the viewer’s perceptive abilities come into play. In
a sense the observer recreates the process of image making and is a
participant in the ultimate meaning of the work. The meaning resides
with the viewer, the artist, who has sought-out these relationships
transmits his observations through a medium into a form, be it a
painting, sculpture, architecture, or dance. If the transmission has been
successful and the observer has, through his developed perceptive
talents responded, that response is an aesthetic response. He may not
have liked what he experienced, but that is another matter.
One subject Greenberg does not cover at all in this talk is the nature of
creative activity. Somehow there seems to be a lingering assumption that
all the artists may be creative to some degree or another. One supposes
there may be degrees of creativeness, but in that event what kinds of
decisions are made in order to determine the particular degree of
creativeness a particular artist may have. This suggests criteria and in
order to arrive at a list of appropriate criteria one needs an awareness
of the characteristics involved in the creation of a work of art. At some
point thereafter one will need to develop a vocabulary adequate to
discuss the issues.
The pull to be indistinguishable from the crowd is strong and the battle
of survival for the individual intense. So, when Greenberg states that
many artists are looking for ways to enter the history book
and that they do so in ways that simply indicate a difference...and
nothing more than just a difference … from the crowd, he is absolutely
correct. What I, very regrettably, miss, in this Western Michigan talk at
any rate, is any attempt on his part to extend his intellectual efforts
further than to simply indicate the problem. I should like to see at least
one suggestion as to a possible alternative behavior. I have not seen it.
I will say this much for the time being, and let the details follow, that the
identification of creativeness in the fine arts is a complex task and
involves a degree of intellectual humility not often found among critics
and rarely, as well, among historians. By and large what rules the
majority of people also rules them, the need not to be isolated from the
crowd. Elsewhere, I have tried to demonstrate how one might identify
the creative aspects in the work of individual artists, but have been
unable to come up with a process of analysis that would seem to be
appropriate for all. The only system, then, that I can suggest is the same
system that creative artists use in their work and that is a single focus on
the issue you are facing, be flexible in your use of the tools you have, but
do not change the focus. Seek for the aesthetic truth.