Page 19 - Studio International - February 1968

Paris. This, too, the post-war generation escaped.'- of international repute this past sixteen years, 'less and instil aquiescence in the great claim! 'Of course,'
lf one can contain one's astonishment at the calcu­ than minor'? No reason given I As for the assertion we murmur, 'abstract sculpture seemed to go pretty
lated impudence, the arrogance and the ignorance of that 'Moore is a minor artist'-it is possibly Green berg's well where David Smith took itl' Anyway, this is the
all this, one may note the 'divide and conquer' tech­ most audacio.us sally to date: but it wil I boomerang; hierarchy of sculpture values; the family-tree of the
nique in full view again, dividing the British genera­ the casualty will not be Moore's but Greenberg's only true sculpture for our time: Smith beg at Caro and
tions-flattering one and maligning another. Those of reputation-as a critic capable of responsible judge­ Caro begat King, Tucker, Annesley et al. And this was
us who were friends of Gaba when he was still living ment in all but a very narrow field, that is. In what I how an American influence spawned into Britain­
in Cornwall are better able than Mr Baro, I should have would cal I his critical 'empire building', Mr Greenberg and all the old local gods were cast into outer dark­
thought, to judge his influence. Perhaps one might has of course chosen his moment to attack Moore, in ness! Anyone who thought that abstract sculpture in
remark here that no important American painter, England, very cleverly: he must know that many of the the fifties, by the way, might have had anything to do
except perhaps Tobey, had shed his obvious European younger artists in this country are very critical of, or with Hepworth, Arp, Gaba, Pevsner, Bill, Calder,
influences until approximately fifteen years after Ben indifferent to, the sculpture of Henry Moore-there Robert Adams, Turnbull, or Brian Wall, to name a
Nicholson had achieved his own complete individual was a rather shameful recent letter to The Times. few, is obviously out of court. In point of fact, is
independence of style-in the white and painted Now, there is such a thing as over-exposure; there is Greenberg right to imply that King and Tucker, to
reliefs. Indeed, it has been possible, in New York, to also the passage of time: many of us in England now name two, are so exclusively indebted to American
achieve the status, locally, of a 'master' without in have probably experienced a degree of saturation of example? I think not. I think both are very English.
fact emerging from a patent eclecticism: I'm thinking, sensation where Moore is concerned. The same is It is all very sad. Why does a critic have to harm his
for example, of the Miro influence from which Gorky true of Picasso. But critical irresponsibility can go no case by denying the existence of everything outside
never emerged. further than to exploit this very natural 'saturation' - his personal range? Why does he have to marshal I his
But easily the most ludicrous part of Mr Barn's which Is itself, after all, pretty good proof that the chosen artists-many of whom one admires-into this
attempt to make all British painting, except his 'post­ subject of it is or has indeed been a very major force. exclusive phalanx. And why make exaggerated claims
war generation', look in turn unprofessional, craft­ Any critic aspiring to real authority (perhaps this is for good artists? Smith was an energetic, generous,
consciou-s, taste-ridden, romantic, illustrational, deri­ not the same thing as 'influence'?) should be able to slightly ham-fisted sculptor who made a too pictorial
vative, 'story-telling', etc, is his reference to (and hold two conflicting points of view in focus simul­ contribution-far less original or articulate than Calder;
very lengthy quotation from) Paul Nash I To use taneously: the fact that he personally no longer feels (whom Greenberg ignores): and not the great genius
Nash's statement published in Unit One in 1934, as a the urge to rush to the latest show by Moore should we are asked to believe in.
stick to beat the majority of living British painters with never obscure for him the knowledge of Moore's past A few other points. It isn't as though Greenberg is
is preposterous in the extreme. It is rather as if one achievement and indeed historic greatness. What unconscious of the way his behaviour must look to us:
went to New York and dug up John Marin (the com­ would we think today of a critic who, in order to pro­ in this Interview he says 'we used to mind the English
parison is very unfair to Nash) and pretended to find claim the validity of Picasso, Braque and Gris In 1910, coming over and telling us poor Americans what we
in him a criterion relevant to the painting of Morris had written-off Renoir and Monet (still working then) were like. That started long before Matthew Arnold's
Louis, say-but to its detriment of course. No. Mr Baro as 'minor' artists? To submit to the temptation to visit. You like having attention paid you, but you really
had better do some homework if he hopes to stay on deny the stature of an artist the moment our interest don't like being characterized. Now the tables seem
here educating the British on the subject of them­ is engaged elsewhere is to degrade criticism to the to be turned, at least with regard to art-and maybe
selves. He should learn to open his eyes to the realities status of fashion-picking. Greenberg in this Interview with other things too.' So it looks as though his rude­
of the painting of three generations of modern British is guilty of just this. ness is deliberate.
painters-if, that is, he is interested? I suspect his At the same time that Greenberg has a go at wiping His inconsistency is perhaps rather less deliberate.
real interest lies elsewhere: in a give-way sentence, in out Moore, Butler, Chadwick and Armitage (thus re­ 'English neatness, English patness-they're your
this same article, he writes: 'What is of concern to writing the history of the past twenty years: if Moore weakness, I'm presumptuous enough to say.' Neat­
me here is the nature of the impact of contemporary is 'minor', the whole world has made rather a fool of ness and patness-is it not possible to feel that no two
American art on the young, on the post-war genera­ itself: and Butler did win the most coveted internati­ words could better describe the painting of Green­
tion [of British painters]'. Quite so. The recording of onal prize since the war, while Chadwick merely berg's chief protege, Kenneth Noland? Indeed,
American influence is his concern-rather than the carried off the major sculpture prize at Venice) he Greenberg's Post Painterly Abstraction selection of
unbiassed study of what we are all doing here in also very handsomely sets up his new colony of 1964 looks, from the catalogue, to be the 'neatest' and
Britain. 'proteges' in Britain in the shape of half a dozen of the 'patest' collection ever to be gathered under one
I come now to Mr Clement Greenberg, in the form of youngest generation of sculptors here. As if my recent ideological roof. If ever an academic movement was
the Interview (Studio International: January 1968) charge of American chauvinism was still fresh In his heralded as the latest manifestation of the avant garde,
which Edward Lucie-Smith records for our enlighten­ mind his very first words in this Interview are: 'I think that movement was Post Painterly Abstraction. Per­
ment, if not for his own, for he introduces his subject certain younger Englishmen are doing the best sculp­ haps this is why Mr Greenberg himself, asked by
with the words 'whom most of usthink the most influen­ ture in the world today.' To the extent that he has Lucie-Smith to define avant garde, replied that today
tial critic of modern art now writing', a compliment encouraged certain younger English sculptors, the avant garde 'has taken over the foreground of the
which might have seemed less of an abeisance if he Greenberg has a perfect right to say this now. Never­ art scene-that area of attention once occupied by
had made it ten years ago, when others of us theless, this bald statement has the air of a 'cultural artists like Bouguereau and . . . Alma Tadema,' Per­
still thought Mr Greenberg interesting. (But Lucie­ takeover bid'. He goes on: 'It's Caro, I gather, who haps this Is itl
Smith was not around then.) Today we may be for­ set on fire the new English sculptors: King, Tucker, Finally, Mr Greenberg states in this Interview that:
given if we feel that promotion has got the better of Annesley, Scott, Witkin, Bolus .. .' And who is Caro? 'Post-war American painting got its first serious
criticism, and denunciation the better, even of promo­ Where does he come in the hierarchy? Caro is 'a attention abroad in Paris. When I got to Paris in the
tion,.in Mr Greenberg's most recent pronouncement. major artist-the best sculptor to come up since Fall of 1954 certain Frenchmen were excited about it
Take this Interview: judge�ents and verdicts on this David Smith'. One rather feels that Greenberg must -the late Charles Estienne, Mathieu, Michel Tapie,
artist and that fall thick and fast, while the supporting have been looking round for some time for someone Paul Facchetti. The English awareness came slightly
critical argument shrinks into a few careless conver­ who could play second fiddle to David Smith, to later and was more reticent. But it was keener and
sational phrases or vanishes entirely. Where Green­ whose exaggerated stature Greenberg had for some contained more insight, all the same.' He then grace­
berg used to argue his way, rather ploddingly, time been committed. In his article on Anthony Caro fully acknowledges that 'Patrick Heron, William
towards his conclusions, as any self-respecting critic in Studio International (October 1967) Greenberg says: Scott and Roger Hilton were the first in England to see
should, he is now so over-confident that he merely 'He is the only sculptor whose sustained quality can American art, to my knowledge. Whether they or the
massacres his victims-a whole national group at a bear comparison with David Smith's. With him it has French saw it first, doesn't matter-I don't quite under­
gol He could not have presented us with a more per­ become possible at long last to talk of a generation in stand why Heron has made such a fuss about that.'
fect example of that 'cultural imperialism' which I am sculpture that really· comes after Smith's.' And who, I think Mr Greenberg is incorrect here. First of all, as
denouncing than he has in this Interview, wh.ere he finally is David Smith, accordiflg to the prophet? I pointed out in my article last year, Alan Davie was
suddenly says (I italicize the passage): 'The renais­ 'During the fifties abstract sculpture seemed to go the first European to see the point of a post-war
sance of British sculpture after the war was a false one. pretty much where David Smith took it: none of the American -Pollock. And, as I said, Davie's great
In my opinion Moore is a minor artist: his best work promises made by other sculptors during that time response to Pollock dates from 1948. If it is true that
was done before 1940. Butler, Chadwick, Armitage are was really fulfilled.' Here, again from his article on the American painters 'got their first serious attention
less than minor.' And why are these three sculptors, Caro, Greenberg tries his hardest to paralyse memory abroad in Paris', where is the evidence? What did the
63