Abstract
The essay summarizes the arguments of Greenberg and Rosenberg's ideologies on art. Different art critics have supported various art movements, shaping the understandings of the artists' work. Harold Rosenberg and Clement Greenberg have put forward their own interpretations of the art movements and their view were contrasting and opposed. Greenberg essay reflects on the social and historical context and the notion of modernism. On the other hand, according to Harold Rosenberg, it is almost impossible to define the movement in art. For the first time, the idea of acceptable art in the society is discussed upon. Greenberg focused on the formal elements of art works, discussing the shape, form, and color. Rosenberg emphasized on the abstract expressionism in art and the action by the artist. For him, the canvas was used by the artist to record an event. Defining any movement in art is dubious as it fails to fit the deepest artists in the movement.
Introduction
According to Greenberg, one often finds different things produced by the same society at the same time or simultaneously. There are no connections, and the disparity is taken as a norm. Avant-garde culture is a result of a superior consciousness of history and a new kind of criticism of society. The artists and poets were quick to absorb the new perspectives of this kind. The avant-garde's flight from a middle-class society to Bohemia class led to a migration from the markets of capitalism. The avant-garde poet or artist endeavored to maintain a high level of his art while detaching from society and retiring from the public. With academicism and commercialism performing in the oddest places, avant-garde itself is sensing the danger already, being reliant on the wealthy and the cultivated. Another new cultural phenomenon with the name of Kitsch appeared along with the entrance of the avant-garde. Slick and pulp fiction, tap dancing, magazine covers gained popularity with the introduction of universal literacy. The new urban masses created new demands that encouraged the development of insensibility as well as faked sensations, as seen in Kitsch. Greenberg’s philosophy is reasonably attractive to critics and art historians because of his scientific method for evaluating art. He is objective rather than subjective. He is very clear when giving the disparity between avant-garde art and kitsch endorsed by class distinction. Avant-garde culture propagates under democratic socialism while Kitsch gets employed by the powerful for their purposes. Previous generations of artists, critics and curators bought into a constricted definition of what art could be, believing that history had brought them to an inevitable endgame and that any aesthetic alternative was spurious at best (Greenberg, 1940). However, nothing, we should remind ourselves, is necessarily etched in stone. Greenberg’s theories were narrow and wrong, catastrophically so. The need to undo the damage and to learn to see for ourselves continues. Greenberg is right when he makes historical and political assumptions to provide a distinction between "superior art" and "low art." Rosenberg's essay "The American Action Painters," interprets the new American art on broad lines. While Greenberg's analysis of painting focused on the formal qualities of the art, Rosenberg' emphasized on the creative act. For him, formal aspects of an artwork were less important and his concept of 'action painting', threatened his primacy because of the growing felid of color painting. The twentieth-century saw new galleries, popular magazines, and mass exhibitions stimulating Modern Art. As Rosenberg states, the new conception of art is more essential, rather than what art is about to become. A consciousness of that new painting consciousness is required to develop the School in modern times (Rosenberg,1961). It is pointless to argue how the artists worked when they approached the easel. The painter thinks by changing a surface with paint and through his mind. Whether it is an abstract’ or ‘Expressionist’ artwork, what is important is the special motive. Greenberg was not comfortable with Abstract Expressionism which was inaccurate according to him. However, Rosenberg states that the new painting was not created for the sake of the aesthetic but create tension in the final image. It breaks down every division between art and life. The critic is like a stranger for some painters for whom their painting is an act. The work on the canvas became its own depiction. Action Painting has to do with self-transcendence and is not 'personal.' The artist spends his emotional and intellectual energy on the canvas and becomes an actor. It would be the same if the painters were trying to paint Art or to paint Society. The Action Painting is the abstraction of the moral aspect of art. The modern art today is not only nouveau, but it makes the news. It is original as well as an advancement in world art. Modern Art work need not be art or modern and receives infuriated and enthusiastic reactions. It is not a style, but something that can be designated as psychologically by someone has had the social power.
Although Greenberg's grounds were often challenged, his writing has had a vast impact on art history regarding the practical analysis and historical perspective. He believed that superior culture was one of the most artificial creations by humans. Still, Rosenberg persuasive descriptions of Abstract Expressionism gave rise to new understandings of artworks. He encouraged new thinking of the act of painting and believed that Art World needs not just a market but a genuine audience.
References
Greenberg, C. (1940). Avant-garde and kitsch. Horizon, 1(4), 255.
Rosenberg, H. (1961). The american action painters. London: London Magazine.
