ON GREENBERG AND CRITICS
Now this is a very serious error, for they differ in a quite fundamental
respect. It need scarcely be pointed out that all Cubist paintings were
projected as renditions of objects; in a given period the figures might
be broken into fragments, in another flattened across the plane, at times
all but obliterated through the excessive emphasis on structural symbols.
It is often forgotten that they retain the old chiaroscuro symbols for
the rendition of objects-high lights, shadows, and dark-markings to
inscribe the contours. Even in the flattest Cubist paintings, the image
(to borrow the Whistlerian phrase) is "behind the frame." The "win–
dow-conception" remains, even if it is a window with the shutters closed.
Not by chance has it often been noted that pictures by Picasso and
Braque show up to greatest advantage in Louis XV frames.
Contemporary abstract painting spearheads a revolt against such
a concept. With recognizable objects removed from a painting, surpris–
ing changes in scale and space relations become evident; and most sig–
nificant of all, the painting, instead of being a window bordered by a
frame, becomes an object in itself. The frame acts no longer as a window
sash but becomes an integral part, sometimes even thrusts the surface
forward . Abstraction resurrects the direct impulse-seemingly lost for
centuries-that aims for the "beautiful object"; perhaps it is closer to
the vases of antiquity than to the accepted idea of what a painting
should be.
There has for some time been a rivalry in Paris, of which Greenberg
shows no
sign
of being aware. Abstraction has long been excoriated by
the Cubists, whereas the worst that an Abstractionist can say of one of
his fellows is that he is "stuck in Cubism." In such judgments there
is of course an obvious danger in becoming
to~
didactic; there are no
precise boundaries for Abstraction, or anything else in art. I merely
indicate the characteristics of different trends. While exploring the new
fields few artists restrict themselves to a single avenue of approach; many
who have embarked on complete abstraction later incorporate Cubist
elements and many other things as well; and their works become en–
riched by their so doing. The districts that have been opened up are very
vast, and far from being in the "exhaustion-crisis" stage they are abso–
lutely in their infancy.
The most challenging portion of the Greenberg article was for me
that in which he presents another of his lists (again offered without sub–
stantiation)-this time the "best" of the younger generation of French
painters. Where did he ever get such a list? Perhaps from the Whitney
Museum, perhaps from itinerant dealers; in either case he should have
known better. I agree with him that all the artists on his list work
683
