“The Old Masters created an illusion of space in depth that one could imagine oneself walking into, but the analogous illusion created by the Modernist painter can only be seen into; can be travelled through , literally or figuratively, only with the eye.”- Clement Greenberg
In 1960, Clement Greenberg seeks to create underlying principles in his publication, The Collected Essays and Criticism. Greenberg makes a lot of evaluations and assessments about modern paintings that are generally accepted and held as a standard for the most part. However, despite his best efforts, some of his assertions are shrouded in oversight and lack the necessary premises to be established as entirely objective and affirmative. Greenberg claims that the Old Masters …show more content…
Modern paintings, he declares, associate themselves predominantly to the essence of flatness. As noted earlier, depth - which is primarily associated with the sculptural effect- is a gateway to the imagination of presence. Would then flatness which has abandoned the sculptural, then not create any space inhabitable to man? Greenberg is somewhat right in this assessment, but he fails to establish what kind of space is being depicted. Another painting by Henri Matisse -The Red Studio, 1911- takes the theme of flatness in representation to the extreme. This painting is very similar to the Night Café. However, they differ in a unique and simple way: the background and foreground are not differentiated. The red color of the painting blends these two planes into one flat plane, depending on how one chooses to look at it. Only flat and planar figures meet the eye as one physically guides his or her eyes through the space, agreeing totally with Greenberg’s assertions. This flatness is even more emphasized at the left corner where what we know to be the intersection of two walls has no vertical line showing where they meet. Coupled with the question of what is foreground and background, Matisse creates a visual duality within the space: the floor becomes the objects and the objects the floor. This space depicted lies in the marginal boundary between complete flatness and sculptural …show more content…
These include, but are not limited to: What Greenberg deem as modern painting? By which criteria does he judge a painting to b modernist or not? Would Greenberg then, not regard Matisse as a modern painter? What paintings was he looking at in making these statements? Was he referring to a specific movement within modernist paintings? Regardless of its controversies, Greenberg’s assessments are not without merit. But to provide a stronger argument that could be fact checked to the highest degree, these basic questions and more should be addressed. In failing to do this, Greenberg’s claims are generalized and thus fail to provide a solid foundation through which these claims can be validated and universalized, albeit their
In 1960, Clement Greenberg seeks to create underlying principles in his publication, The Collected Essays and Criticism. Greenberg makes a lot of evaluations and assessments about modern paintings that are generally accepted and held as a standard for the most part. However, despite his best efforts, some of his assertions are shrouded in oversight and lack the necessary premises to be established as entirely objective and affirmative. Greenberg claims that the Old Masters …show more content…
Modern paintings, he declares, associate themselves predominantly to the essence of flatness. As noted earlier, depth - which is primarily associated with the sculptural effect- is a gateway to the imagination of presence. Would then flatness which has abandoned the sculptural, then not create any space inhabitable to man? Greenberg is somewhat right in this assessment, but he fails to establish what kind of space is being depicted. Another painting by Henri Matisse -The Red Studio, 1911- takes the theme of flatness in representation to the extreme. This painting is very similar to the Night Café. However, they differ in a unique and simple way: the background and foreground are not differentiated. The red color of the painting blends these two planes into one flat plane, depending on how one chooses to look at it. Only flat and planar figures meet the eye as one physically guides his or her eyes through the space, agreeing totally with Greenberg’s assertions. This flatness is even more emphasized at the left corner where what we know to be the intersection of two walls has no vertical line showing where they meet. Coupled with the question of what is foreground and background, Matisse creates a visual duality within the space: the floor becomes the objects and the objects the floor. This space depicted lies in the marginal boundary between complete flatness and sculptural …show more content…
These include, but are not limited to: What Greenberg deem as modern painting? By which criteria does he judge a painting to b modernist or not? Would Greenberg then, not regard Matisse as a modern painter? What paintings was he looking at in making these statements? Was he referring to a specific movement within modernist paintings? Regardless of its controversies, Greenberg’s assessments are not without merit. But to provide a stronger argument that could be fact checked to the highest degree, these basic questions and more should be addressed. In failing to do this, Greenberg’s claims are generalized and thus fail to provide a solid foundation through which these claims can be validated and universalized, albeit their