MELVIN M. TUMIN
545
T umin:
No, you do n 't mean tha t. You mean th a t you do have fi rm
ideas about wh a t somethin g has to be in order to be call ed a decent
wor k o f a rt. But wh en anyone p resses you into a corn er on that, you
try
to
jump aroun d th e corn er and no t respond to th at. Why? I can
understand you don ' t want
to
be known fo r say in g, " Here are onl y
five criteri a a ll wo rks o f a rt have
to
be to be ca ll ed works o f a rt. "
Rosenberg:
Yo u have an o bsess ion with criteria.
Tumin:
Yo u have an obsess ion w ith evadin g criteri a. We have com–
mon
I
y op posed obsess ion s.
R osenberg:
I don 't beli eve in th em. I have a lready exp la in ed
to
you
th a t wha tever concep ts you use when you ' re d iscuss ing a work o f a rt
arise ou t of you r experi ence with th at wor k of art, and no t bf'ca use
YO ll
h ave cert a in crit er ia.
If
you have ce rta in criteri a you have to
app ly them in a ll cases. And furth ermo re, I like some peopl e who
ma ke an su bs titu tes.
Tumin:
F ine, but you ta lk about. experi encing a work of a rt. It 's no t a
completely
tabu la rasa
tha t you experi ence th f' work of an with ? You
experience it with a se t of expecta ti on s, don 't you ?
R osenberg:
No, I don 't know wha t they a re until I look a t the work .
T hen I may discover tha t I have expecta ti on s. But they may be
d ifferent in thi s case th an in ano ther. Take tha t thing over there. You
see th a t pho tograph over th ere? T hat's a work of art, crea ted by Saul
Steinberg. It's a fake pho tograph . Now he's much beller a t crea ting
fake art than Andy Warho l. But hi s fake a rt is very legitima te.
Tumin:
Wh ereas Wa rho l' s fake art is unintentionall y fa ke?
R osen berg:
It
is intenti ona ll y fake. He even says so himself. I'm no t
even in sulting him. H e says, don 't even bother to look a t thi s stuff.
H e sa id to a woman who writes abou t an , " Let's ge t th e hell out o f
here and have a drink , you do n ' t want to look a t thi s stuff. " H e
knows wh at he's doing. H e's foo ling around with hi s public, and it's
perfectl y legitima te to fool around with the publi c insofar as it's tha t
stupid. I want
to
go back
to
wha t you sa id, you can 't be th at n aive.
One o f the things, one of th e g rea t ideas of Baudela ire was hi s idea o f
the na ive criti c.
If
you want to read the conceptua l development o f
thi s idea, read it in Baudela ire. He sa id the criti c sho ul d be naive.
Wh at did he mean by naive? He didn 't mean tha t he had no
bra ins, or th a t he was illitera te, or anything like tha t. By naive he
meant th a t he had a will to something, and tha t he woul d pursue
tha t des ire rega rdl ess of wha t the situa ti on was. A na ive person is
somebod y who wants something, has a point of view. Now, whether
or no t th a t po int of view can be expressed as an ideology is ano ther
