Page 25 - Studio International - December 1970

tion; the exploitation of the edge, of the the canvas, panel or frescoed wall that pro- of a painting. In formulating the theory we
shaped or moulded support, of the unprimed vided its substrate. These things—canvas, can safely drop the phrase 'of a painting' only
canvas; and the physical juxtaposition of panel, wall—were necessary for its existence, when the dropped phrase is understood. If the
disparate or borrowed elements, sometimes but it went beyond them, and the concept of phrase is not merely dropped, but drops out
stuck on, sometimes free-standing, to the it bore no reference to them. of mind, the theory becomes incoherent. For
central body of the work, as in collage or Such a view of the past, which is artificially to talk of a surface, without specifying what
assemblages. These devices have, beyond a sustained by the very careless and utterly mis- kind of surface it is, which means in effect
shadow of a doubt, contributed decisively to leading use of the term 'illusionism' to charac- what it is a surface of, picks out no kind of
the repertoire of European art since, say, terize all forms of figurative, indeed all forms object of attention.
1905: and, accordingly, any dispute about of representational, painting, seems supported One way of bringing this out is to reflect upon
the presence of some such theory as I have neither by empirical nor by theoretical con- the nature of our theory. The theory, if it is
produced would, I imagine, confine itself to siderations. Furthermore, there is a body of adequate, provides us with those concepts
the issue of how central these devices, and the evidence against it. There have been various under which a certain form of art—the art of
modifications in art that they have brought moments in the history of European painting our day—has been produced. However, it is
about, are thought to be. since the High Renaissance, when artists clear that no one could set himself to produce
have shown a clear predilection for the values a surface, equally to work up or accentuate a
I want therefore to turn away from any cen- of surface, and they have employed selected surface, unless he had some answer to the
tral discussion of the theory to the qualifica- means to bring out the physical quality of question what it was the surface of. To put it
tions that need to be entered if the theory, or what they were working on or with. Take, for another way round: The instruction, 'Make us
the formulation of it, is to be adequate: or, instance, the emergence of the brush stroke as aware or conscious of the surface', given in the
as I put it just now, to misunderstandings of an identifiable pictorial element in sixteenth- studio, would take on quite different signifi-
the theory that have, I think, gained a bane- century Venetian painting; the free sketching cances, if said, say, to someone throwing a
ful circulation. I shall bring what I have to in of landscapes in the background of seven- stoneware bowl, to someone painting in oil on
say under three general considerations. But, in teenth- and eighteenth-century painting; or primed canvas, to someone carving in marble,
doing so, I shall give the theory itself a small the distinctive use of cropped figures placed or to someone working in fresco. (Think, for
twist towards greater specificity. I shall con- against the edges of the support in late instance, whether, in conformity to the instruc-
sider it exclusively in relation to painting, and nineteenth-century Parisian art. Now, of tion, the surface should be made smooth or
I shall understand it as insisting upon the course, there is a point about all this worth rough.) Each of the recipients of the instruction
surface of a painting. In the context of a making: that to the earlier painters these would, in effect, fill it out from his knowledge
painting, for 'physicality' read 'possession of a devices were no more than a possible employ- of what he was doing, before he obeyed it.
surface'. ment of painting, and for them the constraints And, if he didn't know what he was doing, if,
The first consideration is this: The theory of art lay elsewhere. It was, for instance, for instance, he was a complete beginner who
that I have been suggesting emphasizes or optional for Velasquez or for Gainsborough hadn't as yet grasped the nature of the
insists upon the physicality of the work of art, whether they expressed their predilection for activity on which he had launched himself, he
or the surface of the painting— emphasizes or the medium. What was necessary within their could not obey the instruction at all. It
insists upon these features, but (this is the theory of art was that, if they did, this found wouldn't be, simply, that he wouldn't know
point) the theory does not discover or invent expression within the depiction of natural how to do what he had been asked to do : he
them. I am not, of course, making the self- phenomena. For Matisse or Rothko, the wouldn't know what he had been asked to do.
evident point that even before 1905 paintings priorities are reversed. But none of this sug- For him the instruction would mean about as
had surfaces. I am making the somewhat less gests that the earlier painters thought that much as, 'Make it average-sized'.
evident point that before 1905 the fact that a what they were doing was ancillary to paint- The examples I have given might be mis-
painting had a surface, or the more general ing. Between them and us what has happened leading in one respect. For they might sug-
fact that works of art were physical, were not is that some connotations of art that were gest that the further specification that is
regarded as accidental or contingent facts previously recessive have moved to the fore, required before it becomes clear how the sur-
about art. Or, to put it another way, when and vice versa. face is to be worked refers exclusively to the
traditional painters observed the material sur- material. The artist, it might be thought,
face upon which they worked undergo modi- The second consideration that touches upon needs to know what the surface is of just in the
fications, they thought that, as this occurred, the theory of modern art I have proposed sense of what it is made of. This, however,
thereby the work of art came into being. seems to strike somewhat deeper. But, interest- would be wrong. Not merely is this only part
The force of this point can easily get lost if we ingly, it connects with the first consideration of what is required, but it is misleading even
forget much of what is written about the older in such a way as to give that too a measure of as to that part. What we need here is the
art where this is explicitly contrasted with the depth. It is this: The theory emphasizes the distinction between a material and a medium.
art of our day. For to read certain critics, physicality of art; it insists upon the fact that A medium may embrace a material, but the
certain philosophers of art, even certain con- a painting has a surface. Indeed, by a ready medium is a material worked in a character-
temporary artists, one might well think that trick of exaggeration the insisted-upon fact istic way, and the characteristics of that way
before the beginning of the twentieth century that a painting has a surface—a fact which, as can be understood only in the context of the
the concept of art was totally without any we have seen, earlier generations did not over- art within which the medium arises.1 (`Fidelity
connotation of materiality. Of course—it is look—can convert itself into the thesis that a to material' is not so much an inadequate
conceded—in making their pictures earlier painting is, or is no more than, a surface. aesthetic, as some have thought, it is rather
artists recognized that they were making Which gives us an extreme version of the an inadequate formulation of an aesthetic.)
physical objects. But for them the picture and theory, though not one unknown. However, a Given the distinction, then the very lowest
the physical object were not equated, and the necessary modification is effected—most evi- specification of the surface must be by refer-
manipulation of the medium was seen more dently for the extreme version of the theory, ence to the medium which is laid on, or makes
as a preliminary to the process of making art but correspondingly for any version less up, the surface.
rather than as that process itself. For the extreme than that—once it is recognized that However, it is one thing to recognize that our
picture was conceived of as something im- in talking of a surface, the theory is irre- theory in insisting upon a painting's surface is
material that burgeoned or billowed out from ducibly or ineliminably referring to the surface insisting upon it as the surface of a painting,