Page 25 - Studio International - December 1970
P. 25

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,
   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30