MEDIA
FORMALISM
Differs from
Formalism (Proper)
Critic Clement
Greenberg.
http://cas.uchicago.edu/workshops/wittgenstein/files/2007/10/Greenbergmodpaint.pdf
•
Forum
Lectures (Washington, D.C.: Voice of America), 1960;
•
Arts Yearbook 4, 1961 (unrevised)
•
Art and Literature, Spring 1965 (slightly revised); The New
Art: A Critical Anthology, ed. Gregory Battcock,
1966;
•
Peinture-cahiers théoriques, no. 8-9, 1974 (titled “La peinture moderniste”); Esthetics
Contemporary, ed. Richard Kostelanetz, 1978;
•
Modern Art and Modernism: A Critical Anthology, ed. Francis Frascina and Charles Harrison, 1982;
•
Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism vol. 4, ed. John OʼBrian, 1993.
Clement Greenberg (1909 – 1994) proposes an
interpretation of the history of the last 150 years of art, according to which
modernism is a natural response to the intellectual and cultural currents of
the times. He offers a brand of
formalism different from the classical formalist position. He emphasizes the tendency painting of this
period their drive toward self‑criticism.
"The
essence of Modernism lies, as I see it, in the use of the characteristic
methods of a discipline to criticize the discipline itself not in order to
subvert it, but to entrench it more firmly in its area of competence" (Greenberg- "Modernist Painting")
Artists (painters) bring out what is unique
and essential to painting, removing whatever factors are accidental to
painting, such as, according to Greenberg, representation and illusion. The end
result is often abstract paintings that are
themselves about the conventions and limitations of painting. Thus painting is to be “about” painting. Painting is its exploration of its own
limitations, such as two‑dimensionality and the shape of the frame. These
qualities are very different from the sublimity, beauty, or significance that
classical formalists find in the formal qualities of artworks. Nevertheless it shares a fundamental
principle with the classical formalism we have examined: autonomy.
"Each
art had to determine, through the operations peculiar to itself, the effects
peculiar and exclusive to itself. By doing this each medium, would, to be sure,
narrow its area of competence, but at the same time it would make its
possession of this area all the more secure." (Greenberg- "Modernist
Painting")
·
Conception
of a Self‑validating Autonomy
·
No
values external to the artwork used to assess the artwork as an artwork
·
Perhaps
the purist form of “Art for art's sake”
Differs from Formalism (Proper)
Considering art is about art
Consider the distinction is between first‑order
(or ordinary) use of language to talk about the world and second‑order
use of language, to talk about language itself rather than the world. In second‑order
study of language, the language itself is the object of study. The specific appropriate object of
investigation is what he calls the limiting conditions or norms of an art
medium.
Investigating the conventions of an art is
the same as investigating the medium:
"It
quickly emerged that the unique and proper area of competence of each art
coincided with all that was unique to the nature of its medium.”
Limiting condition of painting is flatness
(two‑dimensionality), the enclosing frame shape, and "norms of
finish, of paint texture, and of value and color contrast.” Artists (should) examine the conventions and
nature of the medium, that is, they mention forms instead of
using them.
1. Every artistic medium has a nature, which
it has uniquely, determined by the norms governing the artistic medium.
2. The nature of an art is identical to the
nature of its medium.
3. Those elements of artworks that concern the
nature of the medium are critical for appreciation of and criticism of
artworks.
4. The
best artworks are those that explore their nature (within the constraints of
their art‑historical context.)
Propositions (1) and (2) are implied
throughout "Modernist Painting."
Propositions (3) and (4) are obvious critical
principles suggested by Greenberg's various remarks about the history of art. We can derive a general, if as yet sketchy,
theory of art from these four propositions if we add a fifth proposition
defining what art is,
5. A necessary and sufficient condition for X
to be a work of art is that X be a work in some art medium.
·
Explains
the importance that critics place on novelty (not just now, but historically as
well)
·
Preserves
the autonomy of art.
·
Explains
why copies (and derivative works in general) are of less artistic value.
·
Stresses
the importance of looking at a work of art in the context of art history and
the “art world.”
Problems with Media Formalism:
·
Each
of propositions (1) through (4) is questionable.
·
It
is difficult to categorize all works of art into some medium or another.
·
Further,
do art media each have an individual essence?
·
What
support is there for the evaluative claims, (3) and (4), which say that we
ought to look for this exploration in every artwork and that those artworks
that most plainly and consistently explore such issues are the best artworks?
·
Many
practices can be construed as consistent in their own way. That does not make
them necessarily valuable.
If we view the "progress" of art
historically as aiming toward the goal of pure painting, painting with all
irrelevant features removed, then those artists who have been and are now
contributing to this goal may seem to be producing art that is in accord with
their historical task and therefore more valuable. But here we are assuming that there is a
historical process inevitably leading toward this goal a picture of history
rejected by many thinkers and also that the value of art is to be found only in
contributions to this "progress."
To summarize: For the media
formalist, form has to do with the relation of a work to the limitations and
norms of its medium. Media formalism thus has difficulty accounting for work in
mixed media or in no salient medium. This theory ignores the first‑order
sensory, emotional, or mimetic responses to a work almost entirely in favor of
a second‑order response to a work as art about the nature of art.
For
my money, this view leaves us with the view that art is the work (and only of
interest to) a small tribe of specialists who are only interested in talking to
each other. It runs the danger of being rather incestuous
and self-absorbed. Not at all clear what
the values and purpose is of art “from the outside.” Note it does not see art as inextricably
linked to the “condition of human life.”