Unreal Nature

April 22, 2014

The Structure of the Given World

Filed under: Uncategorized — unrealnature @ 5:46 am

… The best modern painting, though it is mostly abstract painting, remains naturalistic in its core, despite all appearances to the contrary.

This is from ‘The Role of Nature in Modern Painting’ (1949) found in Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, Vol. 2, edited by John O’Brian (1986):

… The decisive difference between cubism and the other movements appears to be in its relation to nature. The paradox of French painting between Courbet and Cézanne is that, while in effect departing further and further from illusionism, it was driven in its most important manifestations by the conscious desire to give an account of nature that would be more accurate or faithful in context than any before. The context was the medium, whose claims — the limitations imposed by the flat surface, the canvas’s shape, and the nature of the pigments — had to be accommodated to those of nature. The previous century of painting had erred in not granting the claims of the medium sufficiently and Cézanne, in particular, proposed to remedy this while at the same time giving an even more essentially accurate transcription of nature’s appearance. As it turned out, the movement that began with Cézanne eventually culminated in abstract art, which permitted the claims of the medium to override those of nature almost entirely Yet before that happened, nature did succeed in stamping itself so indelibly on modern painting that its stamp has remained even in art as abstract as Mondrian’s. What was stamped was not the appearance of nature, however, but its logic.

… While the impressionists had been interested in the purely visual sensations with which nature presented them at the given moment, the cubists were mainly occupied with the generalized forms and relations of the surfaces of volumes, describing and analyzing them in a simplified way that omitted the color and the “accidental” attributes of the objects that served them as models. Taking their cue from Cézanne, they sought for the decisive structure of things that lay permanently under the accidents of momentary appearance, and to do this they were willing to violate the norms of appearance by showing an object from more than one pont of view on the same picture plane. But in the end they did not find a completer way of describing the structure of objects on a flat surface — blueprints and engineer’s drawings could do that more adequately and had already withdrawn the task from the province of art. Instead, the cubists found the structure of the picture.

… flatness became the final, all-powerful premise of the art of painting, and the experience of nature could be transposed into it only by analogy, not by imitative reproduction. Thus the painter abandoned his interest in the concrete appearance, for example, of a glass and tried instead to approximate by analogy the way in which nature had married the straight contours that defined the glass vertically to the curved ones that defined it laterally. Nature no longer offered appearances to imitate, but principles to parallel.

Picasso_girl-with-mandolin-fanny-tellier-1910
Pablo Picasso, Girl with a mandolin (Fanny Tellier), 1910 [image from WikiPaintings]

… The positivist aesthetic of the twentieth century, which refuses the individual art the right to refer explicitly to anything beyond its own realm of sensations, was driving the cubist painter toward the flat, non-illusionist picture in any case, but it is doubtful whether he would have been able to make such superlative art of it as he did without the guidance of nature. Forced to invent an aesthetic logic ex nihilo (which never happens in art anyway), without reference to the logic by which bodies are organized in actual space, the cubists would never have arrived at that sense of the totality, integrity, economy, and indivisibility of he pictorial work of art — an object in its turn too — which governs genuine cubist style. By drawing an analogy with the way in which an object’s form and identity possess every grain of the substance of which it is composed, the cubists were able to give their main problem, that of the unity of the flat picture plane, a strict and durable solution.

As the poem, play, or novel depends for its final principle of form on the prevailing conception of the essential structure that integrates an event or cluster of events in actuality, so the form of a picture depends always on a similar conception of the structure that integrates visual experience “in nature.” The spontaneous integrity and completeness of the event or thing seen guides the artist in forming the invented event or object that is the work of art. This seems to me to be always true, but it is particularly important to point it out in the case of cubism since cubism has evolved into abstract art, and abstract art seems — but only seems — to conceal its relation to nature.

Picasso, Braque, Gris, Léger, Klee are never able to dispense with the object in nature as a starting point; no matter how far they may go at times toward the abstract. Without the support of nature, Picasso and Braque would not have had the means of organizing their beautiful collages, utterly remote from the models as they seem, into the intense unities which they are. The integrity, the self-subsistent harmonious fact of mandolin, bottle, or wineglass called up an echo that was largely unrecognizable no doubt, but which became as valid, because of its form, within the order of art as the original perception of the mandolin or bottle was within the order of practical experience.

Braque_Woman_with_a_Mandoliin_1910
George Braque, Woman with a Mandolin, 1910 [image from WikiPaintings]

Other, later masters have been able to do without the object as a starting point. But I feel that outright abstract painting, including Mondrian’s pictures certainly do. It is not because they are abstract that the works of the later Kandinsky and his followers fail to achieve coherence and substantiality, remaining for the most part mere pieces of arbitrary decoration; it is because they lack a sense of style, a feeling for the unity of the picture as an object; that is, they lack almost all reference to the structure of nature. The best modern painting, though it is mostly abstract painting, remains naturalistic in its core, despite all appearances to the contrary. It refers to the structure of the given world both outside and inside human beings. The artist who, like the nabis, the later Kandinsky, and so many of the disciples of the Bauhaus, tries to refer to anything else walks in a void.

-Julie

http://www.unrealnature.com/

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: