Exercise 2.3. ‘What would count as examples of ‘utter flatness’. List just five things an artist might do to exploit the idea. In other words what kind of things might one out in a gallery wall that could pass for an abstract or figurative paint but also reveal themselves to be everyday object’.

As Matthew Israel (2012) says: ‘Accordingly for Greenberg, painting could not be three dimensional, which was the domain of sculpture; it could not be representational, which was the domain of literature; and it could not generate dramatic effects outside its material, which was the domain of theatre’. The nature of its medium determines all these limitations -the rectangular shape of the supports, the pigment’s properties, and the most important – the fact surface of the canvas. This flatness was buried by Old Masters when they created three-dimensional illusions, figurative Art and was rediscovered by Modernists who are exploring the two-dimensional visualisation on the canvas- their Art to call the world’s attention to Art. Many artists had been influenced by Greenberg’s ideas and concentrated on visual experience, which became the central element. The subject matter greatly diminished or even was omitted. Such artists as Helen Frankenthaler, Morris Louis, Kenneth Noland, Jules Olitski used to leave large parts of their canvases untouched and untreated, bare to draw the viewer’s attention to the physical shape and flatness of the canvas. 

As an answer for the task in this exercise, I think the following ‘utterly flat’ objects could be placed on a wall in a gallery, that could pass for an abstract or figurative paint but also reveal themselves to be everyday object’:

an untreated or partially treated canvas, a mirror, a flat-screen TV or computer monitor, a piece of unwrinkled paper, a piece of flat glass, a piece of monochrome colour unwrinkled fabric,  a bedsheet. 

Below is my reflection on Greenberg’s ideas about Art.

The whole idea of ‘utter flatness’ as ‘medium’s specificity’ originated in the 18th century, when Herman philosopher Gotthold Ephraim Lessing published this work – Laocoon: An Essay on the Limits of Painting and Poetry. He pointed for the first time that since the painting or sculpture were static, they could not truthfully represent narratives that happened over time. In the 19th century, changes happening in the world because of the Industrial Revolution required to reflect on the idea of Art and its functions. The “arts’ discipline was developed to establish the characteristics of specific arts. The value of visual Art began to be considered beyond its representational value, as many say – outside of its representational function. Modern Art, with all its all-new abstract ideas on the canvases) appeared on the global stage, So art-for -the- art- sake ideology has been established, which assumes that any artwork ‘should be independent and free from social, political, religious or historical purpose’. ( ‘Medium Specificity & Flatness’, online http://www.theartstiery.com [accessed on March 29, 2021];

And this is an interesting point to me because I think 1) this ‘independence’ has never actually happened. Numerous artworks have been created under the direct influence of particulate social, cultural views. Artworks are always created within a certain social, cultural and historical framework; There is no such thing as ‘to be conscious free’ in any creative pursuit if you are a human being. 2) I agree that Art has its value besides any idea behind it, but at the same time, I can not say that this is the only type of Art that should be, or there is no added value if the Art broadcasts a certain idea. Moreover, I wonder whether Art can be absolutely free from ideas. I am afraid no, so maybe this concept is utopian and even speculative. Suppose we agree that behind any art, we have an idea, a thought, a feeling. Art’s value is often measured by the author’s/ creator’s ability to express an idea in its broadest sense on the canvas. But this approach contradicts Greenberg’s views on Art because he considered, for example, political Art as irrelevant and not a ‘good art’ at all, ‘poor Art for poor people. Greenberg insisted the Art should be ‘pure’ and independent from any external influence, ‘disciplined’, so any judgment would be objective. Greenberg wrote (Modernist Painting, 1968): ” to divest itself of everything it might share with a sculpture, and it is in its effort to do this, and not so much-I repeat- to exclude the representational or literary, that painting has made itself abstract.’

I find Greenberg’s views on Art as narrow and prone to elitism, because he isolates Art from social reality in which it emerges and operates, finds its viewers and appreciation. His formalist, non-objective art approach totally excludes, probably, ignores a social nature of humankind and human existence – we are deeply and crucially social creatures, what means that we can not operate in empty environment, free from ideas. He never considered and tried to analyse Art from a psychology and social psychology point of view. And that all together makes his theory narrow, poor and even speculative. He strips Art from its human component- human’s consciousness, which is always about to have an idea, a thought. Continuing his logic, we must appreciate more any art done by Artificial Intelligence rather than by humans. Robots and computers indeed can be free from our reality. When Greenberg is insisting on the abstract, non-representational form of Art as the only ‘pure’ and valuable form, and that was the only way to resist the mass culture and Kitsch, he missed the point when this approach makes that kind of Art very vulnerable to cheating. Does the abstract, non-representational way of the painting give us any warranty that this kind of Art is not cheap cheating? Abstract way of painting can also easily imitate Art, as well Kitsch does it to the full extent. I find this point as missed by Greenberg, and it is one of the weakest and contradictory links in his concept. I firmly believe that Art can not emerge without social reality, which is a natural environment for its existence; thus, when we analyse Art, we must operate within it, the life and truth we have. Any demands to ‘purify’ Art from its natural environment influence is an unrealistic and unproductive divorce from reality. I also find a weak point in Greenberg’s formalist and non-objective approach to Art that, if you follow it, you really must reduce your scope of view on artworks, limiting yourself with abstract, non-representational forms of Art, deleting and rejecting everything else. Is this approach can be called an “objective? Certainly not. 

I share ideas of Greenberg’s critics, such as Harold Rosenberg and Lawrence Alloway. However, I find Rosenberg’s dialectic and existential approach to analysing Art more inclusive, more realistic, and truthful. Rosenberg viewed artwork as ‘an arena to act’ due to an ‘encounter’ between the painter and the material. As Donald Burton Kuspit says (2021): ‘This approach of seeing art from the artist’s perspective removed art from the formal vacuum of Greenberg’s criticism and place it directly in the realm of social.’ It was interesting to find and read a work of famous art historian Ernst H.Gombrich The Story of Art ( published by Iskusstvo-XXI century, Moscow, under the licence of Phaidon Press, 2014). In part devoted to modernism, which he witnessed to its full extent because he was born in 1909 and died in 2001, he brought to the pages of his essay a polemic with Harold Rosenberg but never mentioned Greenberg- what surprised me, since Greenberg was recognised as one of the most influential art thinkers and modernism fans, so he was a big name which Gombrich definitely knew. That gave me an impression of deliberate evasion of Gombrich to mention Greenberg. Further, in the article on the website of Encyclopaedia Brittanica, I found the following: “Eschewing aesthetics and art criticism, which he considered too deeply rooted in personal emotion, Gombrich focused on iconography and innovations in technique, taste and form, as demonstrated in specific works by individual artists. He also made little use of modernism which he derived as overly commercial and too often bent on novelty for its own sake. I find the last sentence brilliant. In his work mentioned above, Gombrich pays significant attention to modern Art without any attempts to delete it from art history or simplify or undervalue it. But he was very far from Greenberg’s views that modern Art is ever the most intellectual Art.

Bibliography: 1)Modernist Painting,Clement Greenberg, 1961, Forum Lectures, [online] on http://www.southeastern.edu [accessed on March 21, 2021]; 2) Clement Greenberg on Pop Art, YouTube, Chromatichouse, (accessed on April 1, 2021); 3) Medium Specificity & Flatness, Editors of The Art Story, [online] on http://www.theartstory.com [accessed on March 29, 2021]; 4) The Story of Art, Triumph of Modernism, Ernst H. Gombrich, Iskusstvo-XXI, Moscow, 2014. 5) Ernst H. Gombrich, British art historian, Editors of Encyclopaedia Brittanica, [online] on http://www.brittanica.com, [accessed on April 2, 2021];

6) What is Formalism, why does it matter, Brian Reverman, YouTube channel, Brian Reverman [online] [accessed on April 1, 2021]; , 7) Who is Clement Greenberg, what is formalism and what about Greenberg thought about Political Art’, Matthew Israel, 2012, [online] on http://www.artsy.net [accessed on March 29, 2021]; 8) Utter flatness, Marina Witteman, 2018, [online] on http://www.marinawittman.com [accessed on March 29th, 2021]; 9) “Other Criteria’: Rosenberg and Alloway, Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Donald Burton Kuspit, [online] on http://www.brittanica.com [accessed on April 2, 2021]; 10) Greenbergian Modernism. The rules Clement Greenberg set for Art, Angela Wescott, 2020, BYU, UVU, Snow College, YouTube, (accessed on April 1, 2021); 11) The Animated Theories of Greenberg Art, Sneaky Mister, 2012, YouTube, (accessed in April 1, 2021);

Added after receiving my Tutor’s feedback. Below is her comment about this exercise and my self reflection on it.

“Exercise 2.3. Again, you need to keep to the point of the question. This is not  about ‘good’ art, or about value. Also, of course the notion of flatness is associated  with Greenberg, but this exercise is not about Greenberg. At the end you do list  some objects which are really good choices – so I would remove your earlier  material, and concentrate on analysing these examples in relation to the concept of  ‘utter flatness’.

In this course, I was very engaged in exploring new concepts, such as Greenberg’s ideas about Art- limitation of the medium, flatness, formalism, Kitsch. Since his views on the value of Art were controversial and thought-provoking to me, I continued my research and read his opponents- E.H. Gombrich, Harold Rosenberg and Lawrence Alloway. That was why I wrote my reflections about him and his opponents’ views, including my view. I made a good list of things, and my Tutor agreed with that. But I think students must be encouraged to go beyond the questions in the exercise if they have this wish and ability. It should not be a reason to ask them to be more focused. I was focused. I made the list of ‘flat’ things. Why I can not add up some of my additional thoughts and why they should be removed, as she suggests, – I don’t understand. I think my additions about Greenberg in this exercise and the previous one about the Kitsch and ‘Chinese Girl’ painting are in line with the assessment criteria, such as developing a good understanding of concepts and independent thinking. So it can not be called a student being ‘unfocused’ on exercise. I rearranged the text in this exercise, moving my list of flat things before my additional thoughts.