530
PARTISAN REVIEW
T um in:
I knew I would get that. Tha t is, a ll technique bein g eq ual.
R osen berg:
T hey' re bo th very good pa inters.
T um in:
They' re bo th very good pa inters, but let's say, if you can
imagine fo r a moment all other thin gs being equa l, but one pa inted
the bes t he could paint about the meanin g o f colo r and the o ther
\
painted with an equa ll y good qua lity about the meanin g of abso lute
.
angst,
would you now say th a t th e la tter was a better pa inter because
.
the idea was more impo rtant ?
R osenberg:
But I wouldn ' t care wheth er he was a beller pa inter,
because you 've es tabli shed th at as pa inters they are equa l. Wh a t I
would say is tha t I would be much mo re interes ted in th e paintings
of the one th an I would in th e paintings o f the o th er.
Tum in:
I don ' t want your interes ts. Would you say tha t one is mo re
impo rtant? Is one more impo rtant fo r a rt than the o ther?
R osen berg:
I would say so, yes. I would be inclined to agree with
Newman , by the way, who sa id thi s, tha t th e subj ect ma ller of the
arti st is the mos t impo rtant thing to consider about hi s work . And if
the subj ect ma tter could be conceived as having a rela tion to the
experience of th e absolute, I would rega rd tha t as mo re impo rtant
than , shall we say, in sights into the rela ti ons of blue and pink .
T umin:
Can we th en have a g reat pa inting abo ut a tri via l subj ect?
R osen berg:
Well , that's where you run into diffi culti es of definiti on .
If
it's a great painting, it can 't be about a trivi a l subj ect. Therefore, if a
subj ect seems to be tri vial, tha t is, fo r exampl e, a bowl o f ap p les,
wha t is important about a bow l o f appl es?
T umin:
The g rea t Cezann e . . .
Rosenberg:
Exactl y. T ha t's no t just a bowl o f appl es. T here's some–
thing else goin g on there. I think Meyer
Sch ~piro
made th e di stinc–
ti on between subj ect ma ller and obj ect ma tt er. T he o bj ect ma ller
there is appl es, but th e subj ect ma ller is somethin g else.
Tum in:
In
the case, say, of Cezanne's ap p les, wha t's the subj ect ma ller
as again st the obj ect ma tter?
R osenberg:
Well, as I say, the o bj ect ma ller would just be appl es. But
the subj ect ma tter as far as Meyer, fo r exampl e, is concerned is
infinite. Did you read hi s a rticl e on the appl es of Cezann e?
I
H e
carri es these appl es off into th e tradition of appl es in an , whi ch is a
grea t traditi on . Yo u know, the appl es of th e Greek goddesses, and the
Hesperides, and a ll kinds of associa ti ons with appl es, and of cou rse
Meyer is in thi s piece somethin g o f a Freudi an and ta lkin g a bout
virility and va rio us o ther conno ta ti ons of appl es. So the subj ect
I
Schapiro. Meyer. "The App les of Celan ne··.
A
rl
!Vpws
A
11/1//(1/.
vo l. 'I-I ( 1968). p p.
:H-:i'l.
