Page 55 - Studio International - October 1969

sideration as are any objects in the world, and experiential 'readings', one cannot claim from first unassisted Readymade. With the unassisted
an aesthetic consideration of an object existing this an artistic or conceptual relationship. Readymade, art changed its focus from the form
in the realm of art means that the object's It is obvious then that formalist criticism's of the language to what was being said. Which
existence or functioning in an art context is reliance on morphology leads necessarily with means that it changed the nature of art from
irrelevant to the aesthetic judgement. a bias toward the morphology of traditional a question of morphology to a question of
The relation of aesthetics to art is not unlike art. And in this sense their criticism is not function. This change—one from 'appearance'
that of aesthetics to architecture, in that archi- related to a 'scientific method' or any sort of to 'conception' —was the beginning of 'modern'
tecture has a very specific function and how empiricism (as Michael Fried, with his de- art and the beginning of 'conceptual' art. All
`good' its design is is primarily related to how tailed descriptions of paintings and other art (after Duchamp) is conceptual (in nature)
well it performs its function. Thus, judgements `scholarly' paraphenalia would want us to because art only exists conceptually.
on what it looks like correspond to taste, and believe). Formalist criticism is no more than The 'value' of particular artists after Duchamp
we can see that throughout history different an analysis of the physical attributes of par- can be weighed according to how much they
examples of architecture are praised at diff- ticular objects which happen to exist in a questioned the nature of art; which is another
erent times depending on the aesthetics of morphological context. But this doesn't add way of saying 'what they added to the concep-
particular epochs. Aesthetic thinking has even any knowledge (or facts) to our understanding tion of art' or what wasn't there before they
gone so far as to make examples of architec- of the nature or function of art. And nor does started. Artists question the nature of art by
ture not related to 'art' at all, works of art in it comment on whether or not the objects presenting new propositions as to art's nature.
themselves (e.g. the pyramids of Egypt). analysed are even works of art, in that formal- And to do this one cannot concern oneself with
Aesthetic considerations are indeed always ex- ist critics always by-pass the conceptual ele- the handed-down 'language' of traditional art,
traneous to an object's function or 'reason to ment in works of art. Exactly why they don't as this activity is based on the assumption that
be'. Unless of course, that object's 'reason to comment on the conceptual element in works there is only one way of framing art proposi-
be' is strictly aesthetic. An example of a purely of art is precisely because formalist art is only tions. But the very stuff of art is indeed greatly
aesthetic object is a decorative object, for art by virtue of its resemblance to earlier related 'creating' new propositions.
decoration's primary function is 'to add some- works of art. It's a mindless art. Or, as Lucy The case is often made—particularly in ref-
thing to, so as to make more attractive; adorn; Lippard so succinctly described Jules Olitski's erence to Duchamp—that objects of art (such
ornament',10 and this relates directly to taste. paintings: 'they're visual Muzak'.14 as the readymades, of course, but all art is
And this leads us directly to 'Formalist' art and Formalist critics and artists alike do not ques- implied in this) are judged as objets d'art in later
criticism.11 Formalist art (painting and sculp- tion the nature of art, but as I have said else- years and the artists intentions become irrele-
ture) is the vanguard of decoration, and, where: 'Being an artist now means to question vant. Such an argument is the case of a pre-
strictly speaking, one could reasonably assert the nature of art. If one is questioning the conceived notion ordering together not neces-
that its art condition is so minimal that for all nature of painting, one cannot be questioning sarily related facts. The point is this : aesthetics,
functional purposes it is not art at all, but the nature of art. If an artist accepts painting as we have pointed out, are conceptually
pure exercises in aesthetics. Above all things (or sculpture) he is accepting the tradition irrelevant to art. Thus, any physical thing can
Clement Greenberg is the critic of taste. Be- that goes with it. That's because the word art become objet d'art, that is to say, can be con-
hind every one of his decisions is an aesthetic is general and the word painting is specific. sidered tasteful, aesthetically pleasing, etc. But
judgement, with those judgements reflecting Painting is a kind of art. If you make paintings this has no bearing on the object's application
his taste. And what does his taste reflect ? The you are already accepting (not questioning) to an art context; that is, its functioning in an
period he grew up in as a critic, the period the nature of art. One is then accepting the art context. (E.g. if a collector takes a paint-
`real' for him : the fifties.12 nature of art to be the European tradition of a ing, attaches legs, and uses it as a dining-table
How else can one account for, given his theo- painting-sculpture dichotomy.'15 it's an act unrelated to art or the artist because,
ries—if they have any logic to them at all, — his The strongest objection one can raise against as art, that wasn't the artist's intention.)
disinterest in Frank Stella, Ad Reinhardt, and a morphological justification for traditional art And what holds true for Duchamp's work
others applicable to his historical scheme? Is is that morphological notions of art embody applies as well to most of the art after him. In
it because he is ... basically unsympathetic on an implied a priori concept of art's possibilities. other words, the value of Cubism—for instance
personally experiential grounds.'13 Or, in other And such an a priori concept of the nature of —is its idea in the realm of art, not the physical
words, their work doesn't suit his taste ?'3 art (as separate from analytically framed art or visual qualities seen in a specific painting,
But in the philosophic tabula rasa of art, 'if propositions or 'work' which I will discuss later) or the particularization of certain colours or
someone calls it art,' as Don Judd has said, make it, indeed, a priori: impossible to question shapes. For these colours and shapes are the
`it's art.' Given this, formalist painting and the nature of art. And this questioning of the art's 'language, not its meaning conceptually
sculpture can be granted an 'art condition', nature of art is a very important concept in as art. To look upon a cubist 'masterwork' now
but only by virtue of its presentation in terms understanding the function of art. as art is nonsensical, conceptually speaking, as
of its art idea (e.g. a rectangularly-shaped The function of art, as a question, was first far as art is concerned. (That visual informa-
canvas stretched over wooden supports and raised by Marcel Duchamp. In fact it is tion which was unique in Cubism's language
stained with such and such colours, using such Marcel Duchamp whom we can credit with has now been generally absorbed and has a lot
and such forms, giving such and such a visual giving art its own identity. (One can certainly to do with the way in which one deals with
experience, etc.). If one looks at contemporary see a tendency toward this self-identification painting 'linguistically'. [E.g. what a Cubist
art in this light one realizes the minimal crea- of art beginning with Manet and Cezanne painting meant experimentally and conceptu-
tive effort taken on the part of formalist artists through to Cubism,16 but their works are ally to, say, Gertrude Stein, is beyond our
specifically, and all painters and sculptors timid and ambiguous by comparison with speculation because the same painting then
(working as such today) generally. Duchamp's). 'Modern' art and the work be- `meant' something different than it does now.]'
This brings us to the realization that formalist fore seemed connected by virtue of their The 'value' now of an original Cubist paint-
art and criticism accepts as a definition of art morphology. Another way of putting it would ing is not unlike, in most respects, an original
one which exists solely on morphological be that art's 'language' remained the same, manuscript by Lord Byron, or The Spirit of St
grounds. While a vast quantity of similarly but it was saying new things. The event that Louis as it is seen in the Smithsonian Institute.
looking objects or images (or visually related made conceivable the realization that it was (Indeed, museums fill the very same function
objects or images) may seem to be related (or possible to 'speak another language' and still as the Smithsonian Institute—why else would
connected) because of a similarity of visual/ make sense in art was Marcel Duchamp's the Jeu de Paume wing of the Louvre exhibit