MELVIN M. TUMIN
531
matter there becomes very ex tensive. Those apples arc no t just
hang ing around for somebody to have a piece of fruit.
Tumin:
So it is not poss ibl e to say befo rehand tha t an y given subj ect
matter is tri via l o r impo n ant , ri ght?
R osenberg:
I wouldn't put it th a t way beca use maybe it is poss ibl e to
say befo rehand tha t cen a in ...
Tumin:
Appl es are
p er se
trivi a l, right?
R osenberg:
Well , they are trivi a l perhaps as fruits , but no t
per se.
Yo u 're twi sting language here.
T umin:
No, I'm saying fruit s
per se
are trivi a l.
R osenberg:
How can you say fruits are tri via l?
T umin:
Fruits. as aga in st etern a l sa lva ti on .
R osenberg:
Fruit is a pan of th e eterna l sa lva ti on. After a ll, we' re all
here o n accoun't o f an apple. Yo u kn ow perfectly well tha t if Adam
had no t ea ten th a t appl e we wou ld a ll be immona l, we wou ld be
leaping around in pa radi se, so an appl e cannot be rega rded as,
per se,
tri vial.
T umin:
Let's go back to your o rigina l distincti on in wh ich you sa id
it 's quite cl ea r that Ba rnell Newman 's ideas are mo re impon ant for
pa inting to dea l with th an Albers' problems, since Albers was
concern ed prima ril y with co lor problems and Newman was con–
cerned mo re, let's say, with metaph ys ica l and philosophical prob–
lems. Now wha t you 're say in g is tha t, on some scale of impon ance
tha t you can sta te befo rehand , problems o f colo r are less impo n ant
than problems of phil osoph y.
R osenberg:
Of human existence, yes. I could say tha t in genera l, yes.
When Meyer wrote hi s anicl e abo ut th e apples of Cezanne, which is
no t so long ago, it was maybe five years, he was a ttacked vi o lently by
peopl e who felt he was demeanin g the a rt of Cezanne with a ll thi s
content o r context-ma tter th a t he allributed to his readin g of appl es.
In o th er words, th ere is a very def inite vein of tho ught th a t holds th a t
art sho uld not be interpreted in terms of content. This has been the
biggest fi ght in the las t twent y yea rs in a rt criti cism. It 's th e same
thing, o f course, tha t LOo k p lace in lit era ture befo re. The same
criti cisms have been leve led a t Leo Steinberg who makes Freudian,
nco- Freudi an interpreta ti o ns o f pa intings. And some peop le o bj ect
very strenuo usl y
to
thi s a llributi on of meanings to pa intings.
Tu min:
Do you ?
R osenberg:
No, I don 't agrce with eith er Steinberg or Schapiro abo ut
th eir particu lar ana lyses. but I don ' t see anything o bj ecti o na bl e in
th eir findin g rich depth s in paintings.
T limin:
What do you mean . you don't agree with them?
