Harman Greenberg McLuhan and the Next Avant Garde

8/11/2019 Harman Greenberg McLuhan and the Next Avant Garde

1/24

Spe ula ions: A Journal of Spe ula ive Realism V (2014) 2327-803

htp://specula ions-journal.org

251

Greenberg, Duchamp, and the NextAvant-Garde

Graham HarmanAmerican Universi y in Cairo

I C G M -cel Duchamp we have wo o hepivo al gures in he wen ie hcen ury ar s. Ye hey seem o s and in comple e opposi ion,so ha he repu a ion o Duchamp rises as ha o Greenberg

alls, and vice versa. Greenberg is viewed as he champion oormalism, o ar works sealed off rom heir socio-poli icalsurroundings and even rom he priva e in en ions o hear is . Greenberg held ha Duchamp was simply no a goodar is , and ha his devo ees (including he highly regarded

Joseph Beuys) were also no especially good ar is s. 1 Fromhe la e 1940s hrough he early 1960s, Greenbergs cri ical

views marched s ep-by-s ep wi h he progressive advance ohe ar is ic avan -garde, in he eclipse o Paris by New York,

and he riumph o Jackson Pollock and he so-called pos -pain erly abs rac ion o Kenne h Noland and Jules Oli ski.Since ha ime, Greenberg and his pre erred s yles have allenin o dis avour, while in he words o one observer he repu a-

ion and work o Marcel Duchamp [have] surpassed hose

1 Clemen Greenberg, Late W itings (Minneapolis: Universi y o Minneso aPress, 2003), 221.
http://speculations-journal.org/http://speculations-journal.org/


2/24

Speculations V

252

o Picasso in he eyes o ar his orians, ar is s, and Duchampsadmirers alike. 2

Over he pas decade, here has been a growing sense haGreenberg is becoming readable once again, while Duchampslegacy was perhaps on he verge o becoming overexploi ed.My hope is ha by re-examining Greenbergs complain sabou Duchamp, by weighing he s reng hs and weaknesseso hose complain s, we migh gain a resh sense o whaavenues migh s ill be open o ar cri icism and perhaps o

he ar s hemselves.

1. Greenbergs Critique of Duchamp

From he dawn o his career in 1939 hrough May 1968, ClemenGreenberg published a o al o 333 essays, ar icles, and reviews.As ar as I can de ermine, all o his writen ou pu con ains jus wo re erences o Marcel Duchamp. In January 1943 hereis a passing re erence o some pieces by Duchamp in PeggyGuggenheims new gallery, which Greenberg el were unsuc-cess ully displayed. 3 Almos a quar er cen ury la er, in April1967, Greenberg ells us ha minimalism commi s i sel o

he hird dimension because his is where ar in ersec s wi hnon-ar , and he credi s Duchamp and he Dadais s wi h hisdiscovery. 4 Jus wo re erences in wen y-eigh years; ha is all.

Bu beginning wi h Greenbergs May 1968 lec ure in Sydney,published he ollowing year, Duchamp becomes a more cen ralopponen . Though he re erences become only sligh ly morenumerous, hey become more vehemen ly nega ive, as wellas more cen ral o Greenbergs de ence o his own aes he icviews. The ables had urned. Greenberg was now an in el-lec ual exile ra her han a king, while Duchamp had been2 Gavin Parkinson, Te Du hamp Book (London: Ta e Publishing, 2008), 6.3 Clemen Greenberg, Te Collected Essays and C iticism: Pe ceptions and Judg-ments, - , vol. 1, ed. John OBrian (Chicago: Universi y o ChicagoPress, 1986), 141.4 Clemen Greenberg, Te Collected Essays and C iticism: Mode nism with aVengeance, - , vol. 4, ed. John OBrian (Chicago: Universi y o ChicagoPress, 1993), 253.


3/24

Graham Harman Te Next Avant-Garde

253

re roac ively anoin ed as he heroic orerunner o more recenar is ic rends. Le us look briey a each o hese re erences,so as o prepare or a more general discussion.

In he Sydney lec ure o May 68, Duchamp is cri icisedwice or atemp ing o ranscend he un ranscendable di -erence in quali y be ween good ar and bad ar . The rs

ins ance condemns no jus Duchamp, bu a large por iono he ar o 1968:

Things ha purpor o be ar do no unc ion, do no exis , as ar un ilhey are experienced hrough as e. Un il hen hey exis only as empirical

phenomena, as aes he ically arbi rary objec s or ac s. These, precisely,

are wha a lo o con emporary ar ge s aken or, and wha any ar is swan heir works o be aken orin he hope, periodically renewedsince Marcel Duchamp rs ac ed on i fy-odd years ago, ha by dino evading he reach o as e while ye remaining in he con ex o ar ,cer ain kinds o con rivances will achieve unique exis ence and value.So ar his hope has proved illusory. 5

La er in he Sydney lec ure, Greenberg expands on his no ion.6 No one in he ar s, he says, had ever ques ioned he difference

be ween high-quali y and low-quali y ar un il he emergenceo he popular avan -garde, by which he means Dada andDuchamp. The inheren difficul y o high ar is ic as e andproduc ion was replaced by he difficul y o accep ing an os-

ensibly non-ar is ic phenomenon as an ar work. Greenbergoffers a sarcas ic lis o real or imagined pseudo-ar worksproduced by he Duchampian pop avan -garde:

The idea o he difficul is evoked by a row o boxes, by a mere rod, bya pile o liter, by projec s or Cyclopean landscape archi ec ure, by heplan or a rench dug in a s raigh line or hundreds o miles, by a hal -open door, by he cross-sec ion o a moun ain, by s a ing imaginaryrela ions be ween real poin s in real places, by a blank wall, and so or h.7

5 Greenberg, Te Collected Essays and C iticism: Mode nism with a Vengeance, 293.6 Ibid., 301-03.7 Ibid., 302.


4/24

Speculations V

254

Greenberg concludes: In his con ex he Milky Way migh be offered as a work o ar oo. The rouble wi h he MilkyWay, however, is ha , as ar , i is banal.8 In he 1968 Sydneylec ure, hen, Duchamp is presen ed as someone who evadesques ions o aes he ic quali y and replaces hem wi h heclaim ha any arbi rarily designa ed objec can be an ar work.This in erpre a ion o Duchamp is no surprising and noinaccura e.

In Greenbergs 1971 essay Coun er-Avan -Garde, 9 hecri ique o Duchamp becomes harsher and more in rica e.In Wes ern ar , Greenberg says, here had always been a smallnumber o innova ors who also led he way in erms o aes-

he ic quali y. Beginning in he 1860s, here was increasingdis ance be ween advanced ar and official as e. Advancedar began o challenge ha as e o such a degree as o causea cer ain amoun o shockimpor an new ar ac ually be-came scandalous wi h Mane , he impressionis s, Czanne, heFauves, and cubism. In each case he scandal wore off afersome ime, hough he underlying aes he ic challenge o heavan -garde remained. Bu he challenge and he scandal came

o be mis aken or one ano her. Wi h he I alian u uris s,

innova ion and advancedness began o look more and morelike ca egorical means o ar is ic signicance apar romaes he ic quali y.10 Wi h Duchamp, his avan -gardeness wasreplaced by a ull blown avan -garde ism. As Greenberg sees i ,

in a ew shor years afer 1912, [Duchamp] laid down he preceden s orevery hing ha advanced-advanced ar has done in he fy-odd yearssince [He] locked advanced-advanced ar in o wha has amoun ed

o hardly more han elabora ions, varia ions on, and recapi ula ionso his original ideas. 11

8 Greenberg, Te Collected Essays and C iticism: Mode nism with a Vengeance, 303.9 Clemen Greenberg, Coun er-Avan -Garde, A t Inte national (1971),15, 16-19. Reprin ed in Ma cel Duchamp in Pe spective, ed. Joseph Masheck(Englewood Cliffs: Pren ice-Hall, 1975), 122-23.10 Greenberg, La e Wri ings, 6.11 Ibid., 7.


5/24


255

These are s rong words, given he near- o al absence o Duch-amp rom Greenbergs wri ings un il he later was almos six yyears old. And wha was he core o Duchamps vision, nowcredi ed by Greenberg wi h seting he agenda or advanced-advanced ar as o 1971? Tha agenda is ha

he shocking, he scandalizing, he mys i ying and con ounding, becameembraced as ends in hemselves and no longer regreted as ini ial sideeffec s o ar is ic newness ha would wear off wi h amiliari y. Now

hese side effec s were o be buil in. The rs bewildered reac ion oinnova ive ar was o be he sole and appropria e one. 12

More han his, he shock and scandal in ques ion wereno longer aes he ic as i was wi h grea avan -garde ar , bucame solely rom he ex ra-aes he ic realm: Duchamps rsreadymades, his bicycle wheel, his botle rack, and la er onhis urinal, were no a all new in congura ion; hey s ar ledwhen rs seen only because hey were presen ed in a ne-arcon ex , which is a purely cul ural and social, no an aes he icor ar is ic con ex .13 The poin became no o viola e he aes-

he ic s andards o he recen avan -garde in order o crea e

progress in as e, bu o viola e social decorum.There are a ew o her poin s o consider. Duchamp alwaysook pride in an ar ha appealed o he mind ra her hanhe eye, agains wha he dismissively called re inal ar .14 Buor Greenberg, his excess o thinking is precisely he dea h o

ar . In o her words, avan -gardism o Duchamps ype involvesoo much conscious choice. The ar is per orms a series o

easy cogni ive s un s ha ail o ou run heir concep ion; hear is is no longer surprised by wha he ar work discovers:

Conscious voli ion, delibera eness, plays a principal par inavan -gardis ar : ha is, resor ing o ingenui y ins ead oinspira ion, con rivance ins ead o crea ion, ancy ins eado imagina ion; in effec , o he known ra her han he

12 Greenberg, La e Wri ings, 7.13 Ibid., 12.14 Parkinson, Te Du hamp Book , 6.


6/24

Speculations V

256

unknown. 15 The new becomes a consciously available se oex ernal ges ures ra her han he objec o unremiting s ruggle.As a resul , he excep ional en erprise o ar is ic innova ion, by being conver ed in o an affair o s andardised ca egories, oa se o looks, is pu wi hin reach o uninspired calcula ion.16 Ye aes he ics ough o be a mater o surprise ra her han oshock, o difficul grappling wi h some hing sligh ly beyondour grasp ra her han he ransparen mas ery o a cleversubversive concep . As Greenberg la er pu i , ma hema icaldemons ra ions become boring when repea ed, and so oo do

he demons ra ions o Duchamp as o he arbi rariness owha coun s as an ar objec . By con ras , ha s no he way

i is wi h more subs an ial ar , good and bad: ha kind o aryou have o experience over and over again in order o keepon knowing i .17

A rela ed no ion is ha avan -gardism hinks i can over urnhe en ire his ory o ar wi h a single ransgressive ges ure,

whereas or Greenberg ar advances by mas ering he bes aro he pas and adap ing i in some relevan way:

Maybe he mos cons an opic o avan -gardis rhe oric is he claim

made wi h each new phase o avan -garde, or seeming avan -garde, arha he pas is now being nally closed ou and a radical mu a ion inhe na ure o ar is aking place afer which ar will no longer behave

as i has here o ore.18

Atemp s o shock and over urn ar rom he ou side havereplaced challenges o as e rom wi hin he es ablished radi-

ion. Bu or Greenberg, surprise mus always occur inside agiven con ex : new and surprising ways o sa is ying in arhave always been connec ed closely wi h immedia ely pre-vious ways There have been no grea vaul s orward, noinnova ions ou o he blue, no rup ures o con inui y in he

15 Greenberg, La e Wri ings, 7.16 Ibid., 8.17 Ibid., 82.18 Ibid., 9.


7/24


257

high ar o he pas nor have any such been wi nessed in ourday. 19 As he would claim ve years la er in his Benning onSeminars, Duchamp had hardly grasped wha real cubismwas abou 20namely, he atening-ou o he pic ure planeas opposed o he deepening illusion o pic orial dep h since

he I alian Renaissance. For Greenberg his is eviden romhe ra her radi ional perspec ival elemen s in Duchamps

own quasi-cubis pain ing effor s, be ore he gave up pain -ing and urned o he bicycle wheel and o her readymades.Ins ead, Greenberg holds, Duchamp mis akenly believed

ha he orce o cubism lay in i s difficul y and shock value.This leads us o he nal and perhaps mos impor an aspec

o Greenbergs an i-Duchampian views. Though i migh seemsurprising a rs , Greenberg is adaman in rea ing bo hDuchamp and surrealism as orms o academic ar . Thereare wo kinds o academic ar is , Greenberg holds. The rsis able o recognise he new avan -garde rends o he presenday bu ollows hem in a wa ered-down, non hrea ening orm.Greenberg offers he example o Paul-Alber Besnard, whosevulgarised i imagina ive varian o impressionism in he1880s ou sold Sisley and Pissarro, o heir grie , and became

beter known oo, in he shor erm. 21 The second kind, armore common, is one who is puzzled [by he new rends],and who here ore orien s his ar o expec a ions ormed byan earlier phase o ar . 22 Duchamp was a hal -hear ed earlydevo ee o Czanne and he Fauves, bu was simply unable ograsp he new aes he ic s andards genera ed by cubism, andmisin erpre ed cubism as no hing more han a shock anda scandal o previous s andards ra her han as a s yle wi hinheren aes he ic meri . For his reason, Greenberg holds,Duchamp can be aken seriously as an in eres ing cul ural

19 Greenberg, La e Wri ings, 15.20 Ibid., 81.21 Clemen Greenberg, Homemade Esthetics: Obse vations on A t (Ox ord:Ox ord Universi y Press, 1999), 87.22 Greenberg, La e Wri ings, 15.


8/24

Speculations V

258

gure, bu no as an ar is per se.23 Dada, surrealism, pop ar ,and minimalism mark a gradual relaxing o aes he ic s an-dards, wi h every hing boiling down o how severely one canshock he previous expec a ions o wha coun s as ar .

Bu we have no ye heard Greenbergs mos power uldeni ion o academic ar , rom ano her impor an Sydneylec ure given in 1979:

Academiciza ion isn a mater o academies here were academieslong be ore academiciza ion and be ore he nine een h cen ury. Aca-demicism consis s in he endenc o ake he medium of an ar oo mu h for gran ed. I resul s in blurring: words become imprecise, color ge s

muffled, he physical sources o sound become oo much dissembled.24

Up hrough he 1920s and even 1930s, academic ar endedo be bla an ly academic, de ended by official academies

and conven ional as e while disdained by a rela ively smallmodernis eli e. Bu Greenberg holds ha wi h surrealism,

he heir o Dada, we see a orm o academic ar ha is cannilydisguised as cuting-edge modernism.

As early as his pioneering essay Avan -Garde and Ki sch in

1939, Greenberg wro e ha Picasso, Braque, Mondrian, Mir,Kandinsky, Brancusi, even Klee, Ma isse, and Czanne deriveheir chie inspira ion rom he medium hey work in,25 bu

added in a dismissive oo no e ha he chie concern o apain er like Dali is o represen he processes and concep s ohis consciousness, no he processes o his medium. 26 For all

he shock value o Dals aming giraffes and skinny-leggedowering elephan s, his ar is ocused on shocking li erary

con en , and in Greenbergs view we have reached a s agein he his ory o visual ar in which li erary con en is jus anon-ar is ic dis rac ion. In his respec , surrealism and Dadaare simply wo sides o he same academic coin. Surrealism

23 Greenberg, La e Wri ings, 153-54.24 Ibid., 28, my emphasis.25 Greenberg, Te Colle ed Essays and Cri i ism: Per ep ions and Judgmen s, 9.26 Ibid.


9/24


259

akes i s medium oo much or gran ed by replacing drawingroom por rai s wi h wild an asies o hallucinogenic en i ies.Meanwhile, Dada akes i s medium oo much or gran ed bygiving up on he projec o rans orming i rom wi hin, andchallenges i only wi h shocking ges ures rom he ou side.

There are o her de ails o Greenbergs cri ique o Duch-amp, o her sca hing and wity remarks, bu already we haveencoun ered he core principles o his cri ique, o which

here are perhaps six:

1. Duchamp rejec s quali y as an aes he ic s andard.

2. He rea s he shock value o advanced ar no as anun or una e side effec ha wears off over ime, bu ashe cen ral purpose o ar .

3. He shocks es ablished s andards no by in ernal aes he icmeans, bu by ransgressing everyday social decorum:displaying urinals, breas s, or he spread-ou naked

body o a murdered woman in a ne ar con ex hawill be predic ably horried by such ges ures.

4. He privileges hinking in ar , urning ar works in oransparen concep s o an excessive degree.

5. He overes ima es he radical break his work makeswi h he pas .

6. Though he hinks himsel o be he pinnacle o ar isadvancemen , Duchamp is ac ually an academic ar iswho akes he medium o ar oo much or gran ed,despairs o being able o innova e rom wi hin, and is

hus led in o a sor o juvenile sabo age hrough shock-ing affron s o he ne ar s gallery con ex .

This six-poin lis is perhaps more in eres ing i we reversei in o Greenbergs own posi ive aes he ic program:


10/24

Speculations V

260

1. Ar is always a mater o high and low aes he ic quali y.

2. Shock value is merely a emporary symp om o advancedar , never i s cen ral purpose.

3. Impor an ar is charac erised by aes he ic challengera her han ex ra-aes he ic shock.

4. Ar is a mater o as e ra her han o hinking, andas e mus always s ruggle o rene and improve i sel

in con ac wi h he ar objec .

5. Impor an ar builds on he pas ra her han breakingradically wi h i .

6. Ar should no be academic, meaning ha i should noake i s medium or gran ed. This nal principle en ailsha ar reec s a cons an s ruggle o reinven i s orm.

S a ed differen ly, ar avoids academicism when i s con enmanages o ree or embody he possibili ies o i s medium,

ra her han presen ing con en as an isola ed gure whoseground or medium can be aken or gran ed. This is whyGreenberg increasingly celebra ed pain ing ha announced

he a ness o canvas, why cubism was or him he grea esschool o ar in he wen ie h cen ury, and why he experi-enced such rap ure over syn he ic cubis collage as a way onego ia ing he dangers o cubisms possible wo-dimensionaldeadlock. 27 The con en o cubism, or Greenberg, reec edand mas ered he highes possibili ies o i s medium a hapoin in his ory. In o her words, despi e his concern wi h hea ness o he canvas, here is a sense in which Greenberg isprimarily in eres ed in dep h: in making he invisible deepcondi ions o any medium somehow visible in he con eno he ar .

27 Greenberg, Te Colle ed Essays and Cri i ism: Modernism wi h a Vengean e,61-66.


11/24


261

2. Non-Relational Philosophy

This links Greenberg closely wi h wo key gures in hewen ie h cen ury humani ies. One is he Canadian mediaheoris Marshall McLuhan, amous or his s a emen s ha

he medium is he message and ha he con en or messageo any par icular medium has abou as much impor ance as

he s enciling on he casing o an a omic bomb.28 In o herwords, we was e our ime when we argue abou he good or

bad con en o elevision shows, since he real work is done by he invisible changes in he s ruc ure o consciousness brough abou by elevision regardless o wha high- or low-

quali y con en i migh possess. I we ransla e Greenbergin o McLuhanian erms, hen he con en o any pain inghas abou as much impor ance as he s enciling on he casingo an a omic bomb. All poli ical ac ivism in ar , all li eraryanecdo e and inspira ional messaging, ades be ore he purely

ormal considera ion o how he medium i sel is made oshine or h in he con en .

Bu perhaps an even more impor an link is wi h Mar inHeidegger, he heavyweigh champion o wen ie h cen ury

philosophy, in my view s ill unma ched by any gure o equals a ure since. Is no Heideggers en ire philosophical break hrougha premoni ion o wha McLuhan and Greenberg ormula edmuch la er? The phenomenology o Edmund Husserl askedus o suspend judgmen abou any hidden reasons in na ure

or hings o happen as hey do, and o ocus ins ead on hepa ien descrip ion o phenomena in consciousness, in all

heir sub le y. Heideggers grea break hrough came when hers no ed ha usually wedo not encoun er en i ies as presenin consciousness. This is already an ar icial special case haoccurs mos ofen in he b eakdown o en i ies. As long as yourhear and lungs are heal hy and working effec ively, as longas he highway is no buckled by ear hquakes, as long as hehammer and screwdriver are working in your hands ra her28 The longer quo a ion comes rom he amous 1969 Playboy in erview inMarshall McLuhan, Essential McLuhan, ed. Eric McLuhan and Frank Zingrone(London: Rou ledge, 1997), 222-60.


12/24

Speculations V

262

han shatering in o iny pieces, hey end no o be no iced.While phenomena in he mind are p esent or p esent-at-hand,en i ies hemselves are ready- o-hand or Heidegger, remain-ing invisible as hey work owards various purposes.

Even his s andard way o reading Heidegger urns ouo be oo supercial. He is no jus giving us a difference

be ween conscious percep ion and heory on he one handand unconscious prac ical ac ion on he o her. No ice haeven praxis reduces hings o gures, since my use o a chairor hammer reduces i , oversimplies i by in erac ing wi honly a small number o i s vas range o quali ies. The lesson

rom Heidegger is no ha conscious awareness is he si e o

gure and unconscious praxis is he si e o ground. Ins ead,he hidden ground is he hing i sel , which is reduced, cari-ca ured, or dis or ed by any rela ion we migh have wi h i ,whe her heore ical or prac ical. And moreover, his is no

jus a special ac abou human beings, bu is ypical even oinanima e rela ions. Bu or he momen here is no need ode end an unor hodox reading o Heidegger, since even hemos or hodox reading already makes he poin we need: whais visibly presen in he world appears only agains a hidden

background rom which i draws nourishmen . In his sense,Heideggers cri ique o presence in he his ory o philoso-phy can be viewed as ano her cri ique o academic ar : ar

ha consis s in he endency o ake i s medium oo muchor gran ed, in Greenbergs power ul deni ion. In similarashion, academic philosophy or Heidegger would be he

kind ha rea s being as some hing ha can be exhaus ed insome orm o presen e.

Ye here is a unny hing abou his celebra ion o he deep background medium in Heidegger, McLuhan, and Greenberg.In all hree cases, he dep h urns ou o be uterly s erile,incapable o genera ing any hing new. Le us s ar wi h hecleares case, ha o McLuhan. For McLuhan, he dominanmedium in any si ua ion is so deeply buried ha here is noway o address i in direc cogni ive erms. Bu no only canwe no look a he medium direc lysince any atemp oexplain he effec s o elevision or he in erne will always


13/24


263

all shor o he awesome dep hs o hese media he me-dium i sel canno even change wi hou some impe us rom

he ou side. As ar as I am aware, McLuhan only allows orwo ways ha media can change. There is reversal hrough

overhea ing, or re rieval hrough he work o ar is s. Reversaloccurs when, or example, he speed and convenience o carsreverses in o he slowness and inconvenience o raffic jams.No ice ha his is no because cars hemselves have changed,

bu only because heir apparen ly supercial ea ures (suchas heir shiny me allic bulk) became unmanageable due o

he vas quan i a ive increase in he number o cars. Whacauses one medium o ip in o ano her is no he deep aspec

o a medium, bu i s more secondary and rivolous ea ures.As or re rieval, his happens or McLuhan when somecurren clich or obsole e medium is given new li e andmade credible again. When vinyl LP records go rom obso-le e echnology ou s ripped by compac discs o he newlyrevered medium o connoisseurs who despise he cold ands erile sound o CDs, we have a case o re rieval. Bu primarily,McLuhan hinks his is he work o a tists. I is ar is s who

rans orm banal visible gures by si ua ing hem in some

sor o enlivening background medium ha brea hes newli e in o hem. The crucial poin or us here is as ollows. ForMcLuhan, background media are more impor an han anyo heir con en . Ye precisely because hese media areso deep,so inaccessible o conscious con ac , hey are incapable o

rans orma ion. Such rans orma ion can occur only a hemos supercial layer o mediawhe her i be heir peripheral

ea ures in he case o overhea ing and reversal, or he levelo dead sur ace con en in he case o he ar is who re rievessome pas medium as he con en o a new one.

In Heideggers philosophy he same poin also holds, wha -ever he appearances o he con rary. There are admitedlysome passages in Heidegger, especially in he la er wri ings,when he rea s humans as i we could only passively awai

he sending o new epochs o being. Bu in ac , he impliciproblem aced by Heidegger is ha since his objec s wi h-draw so deeply rom one ano her, hey are unable o make


14/24

Speculations V

264

con ac preciselybe ause hey are deep. I hey make con ac ,i is only hrough heir mos supercial ou er layer. I I aminjured by a hammer or virus, i is no because hey assaul

he very core o my personali y, bu only because hey exploiminor ea ures o my being: such as a sensi ive humb or a

ew acciden al cu s in he skin. Heideggers dep h is so deepha every hing mus happen on he sur ace, hough he does

no realise his as clearly as McLuhan does.Even Greenberg admi s ha he con en o pain ing is

no unimpor an . A imes he calls i he si e o inspira ion:Picassos pain ing is no jus abou a rela ion be ween he im-age and he a pic ure sur ace o he canvas, bu also abou

a gui ar or horse or ace o a woman. Ye his remains merelya placeholder in Greenbergs wri ing; he concedes he poinwi hou developing ur her wha he role o sheer content migh be in ar . His primary concern remains he way ha

he con en o he medium reec s he very s ruc ure o hemedium: amously, in his case, he a ness o he pic ureplane. And hough Greenberg reely admited ha his wasa ransien his orical cons rain no binding or all eras, hewro e so litle abou non-con emporary ar ha we can only

specula e as o he principles he would have used o dis in-guish good rom bad Renaissance perspec ival ar , or goodrom bad wen y-rs cen ury ins alla ion ar .

3. Art and Relations

I is well known ha Greenberg was an opiniona ed man,capable o swif and harsh judgmen s; or his reason i can be emp ing o dismiss him as cranky and arrogan , his viewsno wor h aking seriously. Bu his would be a mis ake. Green- bergs dismissal o ar is s we migh happen o like is based onhis adop ion o cer ain underlying aes he ic principles, and iis beter o reec on and possibly challenge hose principles

han o condemn Greenberg or being heir messenger.There was no more vehemen de ender o modernism han

Greenberg, who viewed he modern no as a break wi h hepas , bu as an atemp o main ain hequalit o he pas by


15/24


265

preven ing i s degenera ion in o a series o mechanically re-pea ed academic ges ures. His deni ion o he academic, wehave seen, is ar ha akes i s medium oo much or gran ed,and we have linked his claim wi h cer ain insigh s in hemedia heory o McLuhan and he philosophy o Heidegger. 29 I academic ar is he kind ha akes i s medium oo much

or gran ed, we can unders and why Greenberg objec ed oDal and o her surrealis s as academic. There seems o be noinnova ion as o medium in he case o surrealis pain ing.Indeed, Greenberg hinks he surrealis s delibera ely re ained

he realis and perspec ival conven ions o academic pain -ing in order o keep everyones ocus on he s ar lingcontent

o heir works. Though i may seem difficul o call Dal anacademic ar is wi h a s raigh ace, he charge is under-s andable i we accep Greenbergs deni ion o he academic.

Bu wi h Duchamp, i seems almos impossible o use hisdesigna ion. We have seen ha Greenberg ac ually makes sixsepara e cri iques o Duchamp, wi h academicism being onlyone o hem. The o hers were Duchamps apparen rejec ion oquali y as a s andard, his overes ima ion o he value o shockin ar , his endency o shock no hrough aes he ic means

bu hrough breaches o social expec a ion, his overrelianceon ransparen concep s ra her han he uncer ain y o aes-he ic s ruggle and surprise, and nally his excessive claims

o breaking radically wi h he pas . Bu le us ocus on heacademicism charge. Dal can easily (i con roversially) be

rea ed as an academic ar is simply on he basis o Greenbergsdeni ion o he erm: academic ar as insufficien ly awareo i s medium. In Duchamps case a more oblique argumenis needed, given ha Duchamp is widely considered as heshining example o someone who challenges our expec a-

ions o wha an ar is ic medium should be.Greenbergs poin seems o be ha Duchamp was so deeply

academic in ou look ( o judge rom his insufficien ly brillianearly effor s a auvism and cubism) ha he became rus ra ed by his limi a ions and misin erpre ed cubism as primarily a

29 Greenberg, La e Wri ings, 28.


16/24

Speculations V

266

brazen shock o socie al expec a ions. He hen ried o ou doeven he cubis s in his respec by exhibi ing he mos banalobjec s as i hey were ar works: a bicycle wheel, a botle rack,a urinal. In o her words, he sole choice or Duchamp is one be ween academic ar and provoca ive ges ures, and Duchampwrongly hough he was ollowing Picasso and all o her mod-ernis s in pursuing a dazzling career o provoca ive ges ures.This explains Greenbergs o her complain s abou Duchampas well. For once ar is conceived merely as a shocking ges-

ure, hen quali y as a s andard o measuremen no longermaters. New and provoca ive concep s o wha migh counas an ar work replace pa ien aes he ic s ruggle wi hin a se

o plausible ground rules. And nally, by puting ever moreironic quo a ion marks around he ar is ic en erprise hananyone be ore him, Duchamp migh easily hink o himselas making he mos radical break wi h he his ory o ar .

Surrealism and Dada will orever be linked in he his ory oar , and he wo movemen s do share some overlapping mem-

bership, he use o humorous or incongruous i les or heirworks, and he deploymen o irreveren public personali ies.Bu rom a Greenbergian s andpoin , hey ac ually work in

con rary direc ions, like wo scien is s per orming experi-men s wi h opposi e con rols. Dal adop s he already banalconven ions o hree-dimensional illusionis ic oil pain ing, all

he beter o le he s rangeness o he con en shine hrough.Duchamp works in reverse, choosing he mos uterly banalcon en , all he beter o shock our expec a ions abou whamigh coun as an ar is ic medium. I he wo ar is s had noper ormed hese respec ive con rols, he resul would have

been massive con usion. Imagine ha Dal had pain ed hisclassics Te Ghost o Ve mee o Delf Which Can Also Be Used as a

able or Gala and Te Angelus o Millet P eceding the Imminent A ival o the Conic Anamo phoses, no in wha Greenberg callsacademic illusionis ic s yle, bu broken up in o planes in hemanner o high analy ic cubism.

Such a chaos o innova ion would surprise he viewer romoo many direc ions a once. I is hardly acciden al ha Pi-

casso and Braque chose such simple subjec mater or heir


17/24


267

cubis mas erpiecesViolin and Candlestick,F uitdish and Glass,Po t ait o Daniel-Henr Kahnweile since hese banal hemesenable our undivided aten ion o innova ions in echnique.Likewise, Duchamps readymades would have angled hings

oo badly i he had chosen o display no simple and recog-nisable everyday objec s, bu more complica ed, eso eric, orambiguous hings. In any case, we can conclude rom his

ha nei her Dal nor Duchamp can plausibly be rea ed as anacademic ar is . Dal does no ake his medium or gran ed,

bu delibe ately suspends innova ion o medium in order oopen up innova ion o subjec mater. Meanwhile Duchamp,a leas in his readymade pieces, nei her akes his medium

or gran ed nor suspends innova ion o i , bu innova es hismedia o such a degree ha Greenberg can view hem onlyas shocks o ne ar decorum, as in his ollowers use o

a row o boxes a mere rod a pile o liter projec s or Cyclopeanlandscape archi ec ure he plan or a rench dug in a s raigh line

or hundreds o miles a hal -open door he cross-sec ion o amoun ain s a ing imaginary rela ions be ween real poin s in realplaces a blank wall, and so or h. 30

Such s ra egies can reach he poin o academic banali yas much as any o her, and perhaps he ar s in 2014 havelong since reached ha poin . Bu here is no reason o as-sume ha no dis inc ions o quali y are possible wi hin hemedium-s re ching genres o recen ar , ha such ar reallyou s grada ions in quali y in any sweeping sense, or ha iexis s solely o provide shocks o social decorum. We shouldalso consider Greenbergs uneven rack record as a predic-

or o grea ness. For while he deserves much credi or hisearly de ence o Jackson Pollock, i is by no means clear hahis ory will join him in pre erring Gotlieb, Morris, Noland,and Oli ski o surrealism, Duchamp, Warhol, and Beuys. In

ac , he opposi e now seems more likely.A Greenberg oe migh say ha he simply uses he erm

30 Greenberg, Te Collected Essays and C iticism: Mode nism with a Vengeance, 302.


18/24

Speculations V

268

academic or any hing ha he happens no o like. Bu hiswould no be qui e air; Greenbergs cri ical vocabulary ismore versa ile han ha . For ins ance, ano her amous argeo Greenbergs harshness is Wassily Kandinsky. A mon h afer

he Russian ar is s December 1944 dea h in libera ed Paris,Greenberg offered a dismissal o Kandinskys career ha wascold and brazen, bu also ra her ascina ing. I would be di -cul o describe a la e-blooming innova or like Kandinskyas an academic ar is , and Greenberg does no ry o do so.Ins ead, he classies Kandinsky as a provincial ar is . Hisobi uary review opens as ollows:

There are wo sor s o provincialism in ar . The exponen o one is hear is , academic or o herwise, who works in an ou moded s yle or in avein disregarded by he me ropoli an cen erParis, Rome, or A hens.The o her sor o provincialism is ha o he ar is generally rom anou lying coun rywho in all earnes and admira ion devo es himsel

o he s yle being curren ly developed in he me ropoli an cen er, yeails in one way or ano her really o unders and wha i is abou

The Russian, Wassily Kandinsky, [was a provincial o his later sor ]. 31

For Greenberg, he provincial Kandinsky was no nave simple-on, bu a quick-wited observer o advanced ar :

Like many a newcomer o a si ua ion, seeing i rom he ou side andhus more comple ely, Kandinsky was very quick o perceive one ohe mos basic implica ions o he revolu ion cubism had effec ed in

Wes ern pain ing. Pic orial ar was a las able o ree i sel comple elyrom he objec he eide ic imageand ake or i s sole posi ive materhe sensuous ac s o i s own medium, reducing i sel o a ques ion

o non-gura ive shapes and colors. Pain ing would become like music,an ar con ained in i s own orm and hus capable o inni ely morevarie y han be ore.32

31 Clemen Greenberg, Te Collected Essays and C iticism: A ogant Pu pose, -, vol. 2, ed. John OBrian (Chicago: Universi y o Chicago Press, 1986), 3-4.

32 Ibid., 4.


19/24


269

Bu in his way, Kandinsky repea s Duchamps supposed er-ror o hinking he can make a clean break wi h he his ory oar . Greenberg makes o her objec ions ha seem even moredecisive or his verdic on Kandinsky, who in his view or arela ively shor ime was a grea pain er, namely in his earlierperiod. 33 Greenbergs bigges complain is ha Kandinskywas oo ocused on heabs ra ion o cubism while missinga more impor an aspec o ha s yle. As he pu s i in hesame obi uary review:

[Kandinsky] rejec ed wha o my mind is a prior and perhaps evenmore essen ial achievemen o avan -garde ar han i s deliverance o

pain ing rom represen a ion: i s recap ure o he li eral realiza iono he physical limi a ions and condi ions o he medium and o heposi ive advan ages o be gained rom he exploi a ion o hese verylimi a ions.34

Al hough i migh seem as i Kandinsky is ully aware o hea ness o he pic ure sur ace, he came o conceive o hepic ure as an aggrega e o discre e shapes; he color, size,and spacing o hese he rela ed so insensi ively o he space

surrounding hem ha his [space] remained inac iveand meaningless; he sense o a con inuous sur ace was los ,and he space became pocked wi h holes.35 Aside rom hispurely echnical shor coming, Greenberg sees one clear signo relapse by Kandinsky in o academic ar : or, having be-gun by accep ing he absolu e a ness o he pic ure sur ace,Kandinsky would go on o allude o illusionis ic dep h bya use o color, line, and perspec ive ha were plas ically ir-relevan ... Academic reminiscences crep in o [Kandinskyspain ings] a almos every poin o her han ha o wha heyrepresen ed.36

In ano her accusa ion o insensi ivi y o medium, Greenberg

33 Greenberg, Te Colle ed Essays and Cri i ism: Arrogan Purpose, 6.34 Ibid., 5.35 Ibid.36 Ibid.


20/24

Speculations V

270

complains ha he consis ency o [Kandinskys] pain sur aceand he geome rical exac ness o his line seem more appro-pria e o s one or me al han o he porous abric o canvas.37 Finally, his supposed ailure o mas er wha he avan -gardewas really all abou led Kandinsky o become an insecureand eclec ic s ylis . As Greenberg pu s i , he s ylis ic and

hema ic ingredien s o Kandinskys la er work are as diverseas he colors o Josephs coa : peasan , ancien , and Orien alar , much Klee, some Picasso, surrealis pro oplasma, maps, blueprin s, musical no a ion, e c., e c.38 Greenberg concludeswi h a ew concessions and a single crowning damna ion:

[Kandinsky] was and will remain a large and revolu ionary phenom-enonhe mus be aken in o accoun always; ye he s ays apar rom hemains ream and in he las analysis remains a provincial. The exampleo his work is dangerous o younger pain ers. 39

Bu Greenbergs descrip ion o he dangers o Kandinsky seemso hinge oo much on a single deba able poin . He cau ions ha

Kandinskys exac line would be more appropria e or s one orme al han canvas, ye he immedia ely concedes ha he same

is rue o Mondrian, whom Greenberg regards as a ruly greaar is despi e ha s ony-me allic exac line. He also ries owarn us ha academic reminiscences creep in o Kandinsky,which should mean ha Kandinsky has a lingering endency

o ake his medium or gran ed. Bu even i his urned ouo be sweepingly rue or he whole o Kandinskys work, i

would no ollow ha imust be rue or any ar ha adop s heabs rac ions o cubism while downplaying i s rela ion o hea ness o he medium. Revolu ions are ofen uelled whenheirs adop only one por ion o heir orerunners legacieswhile re using he o hers. As Greenberg himsel repea edlyadmi s, here is no jus one way o make grea ar , and whasucceeds in one era will ail in o hersprecisely because he

37 Greenberg, Te Colle ed Essays and Cri i ism: Arrogan Purpose, 5.38 Ibid.39 Ibid., 6.


21/24


271

same echniques are resh a one momen and banal in henex . He even makes he surprising admission ha Duchampwas righ o be wild early on as a way o escaping he cubisvise, which sugges s Greenbergs rm awareness ha even

he grea es s yles can become suffoca ing prisons. Jus like he Renaissance-era grow h o perspec ival illu-

sionis pain ing, he reverse movemen owards pain ing haexploi s he limitations o he a canvas can reach a poino decaden banali y. Were Duchamp, surrealism, and Kan-dinsky ruly relapses rom cubism in he way ha Greenbergclaims? Or were hey no ins ead more like probes seekinga new plane , qui e apar rom he ques ion o whe her hey

succeeded in nding i ? None heless, i is dangerous o callGreenberg old- ashioned, as many o his opponen s do. Hiskeen in elligence deserves more han ha , as does his li erary brilliance. For his cri ical work and his spiri ual guidance o

he shif in avan -garde ar rom Paris o New York, Green- berg is no doub one o he hal -dozen or so mos impor anin ellec ual gures he Uni ed S a es has produced. Moreover,everone becomes old- ashioned someday, and hose whodance on Greenbergs omb will even ually be danced upon

in urn, viewed as ou da ed in heir own righ .Wha will i look like when his happens? Le us assumeor he sake o argumen ha surrealism produces no ur-her avan -garde revolu ion, since i s basic principles have

been horoughly explored. The same holds or abs rac ion,a known quan i y or jus as long, even i i s li espan waslonger. Duchamps wager o con inually ques ioning whacoun s as ar may have a ew years o li e lef in i , and hencewe are s ill prepared o be impressed by a row o boxes amere rod a pile o liter projec s or Cyclopean landscapearchi ec ure he plan or a rench dug in a s raigh line orhundreds o miles a hal -open door he cross-sec iono a moun ain s a ing imaginary rela ions be ween realpoin s in real places a blank wall, and so or h. 40 Bu his

oo will even ually become old and ired, i i is no already so,

40 Greenberg, Te Collected Essays and C iticism: Mode nism with a Vengeance, 302.


22/24

Speculations V

272

and some hing differen will need o awaken o surprise us.Wha will his new hing be? We have already consideredhe academicism o Duchamp and surrealism, and he

provincialism o Kandinsky, and have s ipula ed a u urein which all are spen orces along wi h Greenbergs Schoolo Fla ness. Wha else is lef? I could be many hings, bu wehave only encoun ered one o her possibili y in he courseo our discussions: he rs kind o provincialism, differen

rom Kandinskys second kind. To re resh our memories,Kandinskys sor o provincialism was said o be ha o hear is generally rom an ou lying coun rywho in all earnesand admira ion devo es himsel o he s yle being curren ly

developed in he me ropoli an cen er, ye ails in one way orano her really o unders and wha i is abou .41 The o her kindo provincialism, which we have no ye discussed, is ha o

he ar is , academic or o herwise, who works in an ou modeds yle or in a vein disregarded by he me ropoli an cen er. 42

A rs i migh sound as i his sor o ar is canno be acandida e or cuting-edge s a us, since he word ou modedsugges s o herwise. Bu Greenberg already gives us an exampleo one such ou moded ar is working in a vein disregarded

by he me ropoli an cen re, and indeed one o he grea esar is s: Paul Czanne, whom he considers in a beau i ul 1951essay en i led Czanne and he Uni y o Modern Pain ing.43 The opening claim o ha essay is ha he apparen eclec-

icism o avan -garde ar in 1951 is merely an appearance.Grea gures do no exhaus ively accomplish wha hey aim

o achieve, and always leave behind a angle o loose hreadsor heir successors o ie oge her. Greenberg views he la e

nine een h cen ury, and Czanne in par icular, as he origino hese hreads. Even as grea a movemen as cubism wasable o bene speedily rom he un ied hreads o Czanne:

41 Greenberg, Te Collected Essays and C iticism: Mode nism with a Vengeance, 3-4.42 Ibid.43 Clemen Greenberg, Te Collected Essays and C iticism: Affi mations andRefusals, - , vol. 3, ed. John OBrian (Chicago: Universi y o ChicagoPress, 1993), 82-91.


23/24


273

Picassos and Braques Cubism, and Lgers, comple ed wha Czannehad begun, by heir successes dives ing his means o wha ever hadremained problema ical abou hem and nding hem heir mosappropria e ends. These means hey ook rom Czanne prac icallyready-made, and were able o adap hem o heir purposes afer onlya rela ively ew rial exercises.44

Bu he ruly in eres ing opic o Greenbergs essay on C-zanne is he opposi e opic: no Czanne as he ar-seeinggrand a her o la er rends, bu as he s ruggling admirero he classical pain ers be ore him. I is he s ory o hear is who does no simply ex rapola e rom he hreads o

his immedia e orerunners, bu who atemp s o bring backsome hing impor an ha recen revolu ions had prema urelylef behind. So i was wi h Czanne and he Impressionis s.As Greenberg un orgetably pu s i :

[Czanne] was making he rs and las pondered effor o savehe in rinsic principle o he Wes ern radi ion o pain ing: i s con-

cern wi h an ample and li eral rendi ion o he illusion o he hirddimension. He had no ed he Impressionis s inadver en sil ing up

o pic orial dep h. And i is because he ried so hard o re-excava eha dep h wi hou abandoning Impressionis color, and because his

atemp , while vain, was so pro oundly conceived, ha i became heurning poin i did Like Mane and wi h almos as litle appe i eor he role o revolu ionary, he changed he course o ar ou o he

very effor o re urn i by new pa hs o i s old ways.45

The danger aced by all modernisers is he danger o robo icex rapola ion. They assume ha he previous revolu ionper ormed innova ion X, and here ore he nex revolu ionmus per orm double-X or riple-X: since he Enligh enmenadvanced by denouncing supers i ion and de ending reason,

he nex phase o his ory requires a campaign o uter persecu-ion agains all irra ional people, and so or h. Ex rapola ion

44 Greenberg, Te Colle ed Essays and Cri i ism: Affirma ions and Refusals, 90.45 Ibid., 83-84.


24/24

Speculations V

274

has i s his orical momen s, and hose lucky enough o live insuch momen s can comple e heir work rapidly a a youngage hanks o s ruggling prior men ors, as did Picasso andBraque in heir analy ic cubis period. O hers mus s ruggleslowly like Czanne (or Kan ) o nd he new principle o anage, pains akingly re rieving he old while no abandoningwha is new, and perhaps dangling dozens o loose hreads

ha o hers in he ollowing genera ion can ie oge her as heyplease. I we ollow Greenberg in rea ing ar since 1960 as

he reign o Neo-Dada, hen wha is mos valuable in he pasha his period sacriced and lef behind? Wha ou moded

provincial migh emerge as he Czanne o he coming era?

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	notwernerherzog
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Harman Greenberg McLuhan and the Next Avant Garde

Documents