536
PARTISAN REVIEW
the sys tem he developed didn ' t a ppl y to th e pa intings he saw. o r h e
go t so bo red with th e sys tem h e didn ' t ca re whether it a ppli ed o r no t.
He didn ' t want to u se it. So h e sa id he had to start a ll over aga in with
each pa inting he looked a t, with each show he looked a t.
T wnin:
But th a t's pretended innocence and n a ivete. H e' s go t a who le
hi sto ry o f sophi sti ca ti on . H e o bvio usly does n ' t start a ll over.
Hosen berg:
H e starts a ll o ver with the to ta lit y o f hi s temperament and
hi s sen sibilities. He canno t in adva nce say, I'm go ing to look a t thi s
pa inting from thi s po int of view in o rder to a rri ve a t thi s va lue. Now.
tha t's wh a t you ' re as king me to do , and I agree compl etely with
Ba udela ire. I h ave no capac ity to do th a t. I ca nno t ma ke a set o f rul es
o r criteri a whi ch will be useful to me wh en I go to a show. I can ' t go
th ere with a set o f ideas in mind. I don 't h ave those ideas. Wh en I
look a t th e pa intin gs a g rea t ma n y ideas may appea r o r manifes t
th emselves as of some importan ce in regard to thi s p arti cul a r work .
But I h ave no set o f ideas th a t wo uld be a ppli ca bl e to
any
kind o f
wo rk . T h a t is to say, the ideas a re present onl y inso fa r as the
experi en ce o f the wo rk wants to ma ke th em present. Otherwi se, I
don ' t kn ow wha t th e work is a bo ut. Tha t's wh y vcry oft en I look a t
work s and h a ve no opini on s a bo ut them . I havc to wa it until I
develop a n opini on o r con centra te o n 'developin g a n opini o n whi ch
comes from a kind o f p sycho log ica l immersion in th at wo rk , and
then va ri o u s ideas begin to appea r th a t seem relevant and whi ch a lso
es ta bli sh wha t I think a bout th e wo rk . In o th er wo rds, th e judgment
tha t I arrive a t is the result o f a n acti vity carri ed on in rela ti on to thi s
parti cul ar wo rk . Now, I think a n y o ther approach to criti cism is
dogmati c. I don ' t ca re how good th e ideas a re or could be. Th a t' s o nc
of th e reason s wh y I don 't h ave too much u se for Freudi an s o r
Marxi sts o r a ny o th er systema ti c criti cism. I don ' t think it 's releva nt.
It
mayo r mi ght no t be relevant. I mean , if Meyer loo ks a t the ap p les
o f Cezanne and gets a ll these ideas a bo ut the hi story of appl es and
huma n culture, the hi sto ry of apples in p a intin gs, the hi sto ry o f
apples in rega rd to sex, a ll thi s to me, as I sa id before, is wh o ll y
legitima te from Meyer's respon se to the appl es of Cezann e. But it
doesn ' t at a ll fo ll ow tha t a n y o f thi s would occur to me whil e I'm
looking a t a Cezann e, and I don ' t think tha t wo uld be a di sas ter, tha t
I didn ' t think of th em in th ose ideas.
T um in:
Is it a lso legitima te, as some po liti cal-minded cab driver on ce
sa id , tha t a ll p a inting, except tha t done by Rockwell Kent and
Siqui eros, is a h andma iden and servil e tool of capita lism ?
R osen berg:
Well , let's say, legitima te o r no t, it 's ra ther typi cal. It 's
