Page 19 - Studio International - September 1970

and serious art'. In an unkind phrase that is Very sensibly, in view of the interminably alone should impress nobody; and that if
necessitated by there being only one scale of inconclusive debate, Mr Greenberg has critics can contribute no better argument to a
goodness, these things must generally be— shifted his attention from talk about form to discussion than the authority of their own
with perhaps a rare individual exception—no talk about relevance. The test to be applied to intuitions—olfactory or whatever—then they
good. Well, who says they are no good? Mr candidate statements, to determine their should be ashamed to enter into critical
Greenberg would perhaps like to leave it viability in criticism, is not to be the un- debate. There is without doubt a certain role
implied that History says they are no good; workable 'Is it about the form of the work?' in all matters of taste for the setting of exam-
but that will not do. History is not a person, but the more liberal and flexible criterion: 'Is ples by acts of commitment, but it surely should
and it has no opinions about aesthetic excel- it relevant ?' not be extended to condone the settlement of
lence. It is after all only Clement Greenberg Unhappily, Mr Greenberg does not yet seem all contentious questions by guru's fiat.
who says that these things are no good, to have grasped the full implication of this It is not true that there is no disputing matters
because they do not lie near the central axis of manoeuvre. It seems to me that it opens up of taste. On the contrary: matters of taste are
the historicist diagram that he has drawn. the whole area of discussion admirably, by pre-eminently disputable. Matters of taste
Of course, this is not a knock-down argument. leading us straight to the fundamental are not matters of science or logic—that is
Mr Greenberg's views can be represented, not question—namely: how does one settle dis- true; and one cannot compel the acceptance
too misleadingly, as predictive or prophetic. putes about relevance ? What is the procedure of this or that conclusion from this or that
He may be interpreted as saying, in effect, to follow when, for example, one critic finds evidence, example or argument. But it does
that it's his bet that future historians will it a fault in a certain painting that the artist not follow that we are in principle doomed
choose to write the history of twentieth- has—perhaps unwittingly—produced a replica never to persuade each other to change our
century art in terms of the sequence he has of the Burmese national flag; while another minds; to look at things differently; to see
nominated: Impressionism—Cubism—Abstract critic is disposed to think that this fact what we previously missed; to find excellence
Expressionism — Post-Painterly Abstraction. (assuming it to be a fact) is aesthetically where we had thought that there was none;
And the only really knock-down argument irrelevant ? to count as relevant considerations that we
against a prediction takes time. There is even To dispense with the clumsy test in such cases : had once dismissed, or overlooked.
a self-protective device built in to this presen- are they statements about form? is one step. And this brings me conveniently to the third
tation of the claim; for it is not clear when It frees us to take new questions on their of the four matters that I wish to dispute : that
the definitive history of the twentieth century merits, and requires us to propose solutions, of the alleged 'singularity' and 'subjectivity'
will be deemed to have been written. Mr and if need be to argue for them. Mr Green- of aesthetic judgements.
Greenberg and his executors may go on berg comes, as it were, to the doorway of the I think that, for brevity, I must compress the
arguing for ever that until history has been discussion, but he won't enter. On being argument here, and interpret the claim as
written his way, it's not definitive. asked how one determines what is relevant he being a way of saying that there is no a priori
The second corner-stone of the Greenberg answers very much as he might have answered method of proving that any particular work
Position derives from his concern with styles about how one determines what is formal: of art must be, cannot but be, good. Nor are
in art rather than with the motives, purposes `You can smell relevance', he says, 'just as there any empirical or other principles that
or functions of art and of artist's. The attempt you can smell flowers'.3 would establish beyond question the good-
to distinguish between styles for art-historical This comes very close to the heart of my dis- ness of any work of art. As Mr Greenberg puts
purposes has generated a quasi-scientific agreement with Mr Greenberg: the authority it, judgements of taste are not demonstrable
notion of objectivity that has come to be of his nose for relevance seems to me no more `probatively'.4
associated, in practice, with a mysterious final, nor even persuasive, than the authority Now this is perfectly all right, up to a point.
business called 'formal' criticism. of his eye for goodness. He may be perceptive To draw attention to the fact that appraising
Unfortunately, nobody has succeeded in giv- in one case, crass in another—as I am, and I and criticizing works of art is not like doing
ing an acceptable account of how we are to think that most critics are. We cannot agree logic, and not like doing science; it is one step
recognize those statements about a work of to settle all contentious questions in the visual towards the full recognition of what kind of
art that refer to its form; and how we are to arts by referring them to Mr Greenberg—or to thing it is. But the next step is much too big;
distinguish them from those which do not. anyone else. Nor are we justified in concluding for the fact that offering arguments, citing
Even if the notion of form has only one proper a cowardly pact to leave them unsettled. We examples and so forth will never constitute a
contrast—that of content—the problem of mark- may in the end be forced to do that, if and proof on the model of Pythagoras's Theorem
ing the boundaries has not been solved. There when all modes of discussion fail; but I see no or of Boyle's Law; does not render all
is, I am convinced, something very deeply better theoretical reason to suppose that they argu-ment and demonstration entirely futile. For
confusing and unsatisfactory about the very must fail than that they must succeed. the fact is that we come in practice to make
idea of form in aesthetic contexts; and I am What we need, I am deeply convinced, is a our so-called 'singular' and 'subjective' judge-
pleased to discover that Mr Greenberg him- continuing discussion of the problems of ments of taste after we have heard a certain
self is uneasy about it. 'Whatever a work of criticism including, perhaps pre-eminently, amount of argument, and seen a certain
art evinces for you is part of its form', he the problem of relevance. I, too, believe that amount of demonstration; and the kind and
now says :2 and that's an account that will I can sometimes smell relevance; but I think quality of that argument and demonstration
surely accommodate anything. that my nose is fallible; that its testimony certainly influences our judgement. There

JOHN ELDERFIELD is a painter and art historian, IAN BREAKWELL'S photographic works and films will be JOE STUDHOLME is managing director of Editions Alecto.
currently in America on a Harkness Fellowship. He is shown at the Centre for Art and Communication in
researching abstract art in Europe between the wars. Buenos Aires in September, and at the Angela Flowers TIMOTHY HILTON's book on Pre-Raphaelitism is pub-
Gallery in the new year. lished this month by Thames and Hudson.
ROBERT KUDIELKA is assistant editor of Dans Kunstwerk.
JOHN HILLIARD'S photographic works will be on show RORY MCEWEN is a sculptor. He is associated with Maxi-
JINDRICH CHALUPECKY is a leading Czech critic.
at the Lisson Gallery, Bell Street, WI, from September mal Ltd, a company devoted to the production of
15 to October 15. multiples for a mass market.
PROFESSOR JOSEPH BEUYS works and teaches in Dussel-
dorf.
ROLAND BRENER has worked at Stockwell Depot and is DAVID LEvERETT had one-man shows in April of new
PETER. HIDE works at Stockwell Depot and teaches at now teaching at the University of Santa Barbara, paintings at the Redfern Gallery and of graphics at the
Norwich College of Art. California. Alecto Gallery.