THE NEW
247
tempt to use .those professions to establish a way of life or a concept
of life. In other words, professions are tending toward philosophy
in almost every case where they're 'broad enough
to
make such a pre–
tense.
KERMODE:
Now, you've made a sharp distinction in your book between
European avant-gardism and American radical attitudes to art.
ROSENBERG:
Yes.
As
a matter of fact a similar one was made years ago
by D. H. Lawrence between the avant-gardism of the European and
the kind of new life of the American. I don't agree with everything
that he said but he has touched on that subject and I think very
beautifully and deeply.
KERMODE:
Yes. But on the whole you would
claim
that your position
has more relevance to American civilization than to European, would
you?
ROSENBERG:
No, because some of our experiences may be of universal
character. In fact in my opinion that's the reason why action painting
has become an international form in art- particularly in countries that
are undergoing rapid and extreme changes like Japan-the individual
has to put himself into the world with almost nothing but what he
has gathered himself. That does not mean he has become a primitive
but it does mean that his education is in his own hands.
KERMODE:
Is there any way in which you can foresee a kind of
art
which
looks back over action painting as if it had never happened?
ROSENBERG:
That's going on right now. We have various kinds of what
I call commodity art that
aim
to restore the illusionistic principle which
Professor Gombrich feels is the essence of art.
*
*1 had no knowledge of Mr. Rosenberg's remark at the time 1 was interviewed
by Professor Kermode, and I therefore had no opportunity or possibility of reply–
ing to his interpretation of my views. I have therefore asked the editors to give me
this opportunity, without which it would appear that I accept his misreading of
my work.
I have written in
Art and Illusion, page
7:-
"When we deal with masters of the past who were both great
artists
and great "illusionists," the study of art and the study of illusion cannot
always be kept apart. I am all the more anxious to emphasize as explicitly
as I possibly can that this book is not intended as a plea, disguised or
otherwise, for the exercise of illusionist tricks in painting today. I should
like to prevent this particular breakdown of communication between
myself and my readers and critics because I am, in fact, rather critical
of certain theories of nonfigurative art and have alluded to some of
these issues where they seemed relevant. But to chase this hare would
be
to miss the point of the book. That the dilcoveries and effects of repre–
sentation which were the pride of earlier artista have become trivial
~
