Discuss Greenberg’s Theory of Modernism with Reference to at Least one of the Painters He Writes About

...

Greenberg also believed the reason avant-garde was not successful because they were too innocent, making it hard to promote them effectively with the application of propaganda. Another reason that the crowd didn’t like modern art was because the governments were trying to avoid it, and promoting kitsch art. When Hitler was the leader of the Nazi party in Germany, he didn’t encourage it because the crowd loved kitsch art. Because of this, he used propaganda to promote kitsch art to the public and got rid off most of the avant-garde art.

However, I don’t agree with Greenberg when he said that kitsch is low-art, or when he said that kitsch art should never be appreciated. Greenberg obviously hated kitsch art, but I believe that there is a reason kitsch art was so popular, with or without the help of the governments.

[pic 5]

Chinese Girl – Vladimir Tretchikoff

This is a kitsch painting, ‘Chinese Girl’, by Vladimir Tretchikoff, and this is the world’s most reproduced painting. The original painting was sold for nearly $1.5 million in 2013, and it is one of the most iconic images in the mid-20th century. So why would people spend so much money on this painting if it wasn’t good? This is a very well painted artwork and this kitsch painting should also be seen as high-art. Kitsch art being bad is surely Greenberg’s personal view, and this shouldn’t influence other people’s view. In my opinion, Greenberg’s theory is a bit too one-sided. In his art essays, he was completely against kitsch art because he hated it. He was biased towards avant-garde art and I believe that his theories were too narrow.

[pic 6]

Guernica, 1937, Museo Reina Sofia - Picasso

The differences of avant-garde art and kitsch art are shown fairly clearly by Greenberg, but unlike Greenberg, I don’t think that one piece of artwork can be completely kitsch or completely avant-garde, because the concepts may overlap sometimes in artworks. In this Picasso painting, the arrangement of the objects in the painting is very abstract. There is not much special depth either, and these two factors make the paintings very avant-garde. However, I can still recognize objects in the painting that I see in everyday life. Even if they are all scattered in different parts of the painting, they are noticed, and this may be seen as an element of kitsch art.

Greenberg argued that modern art had not abandoned the recognizable objects in the paintings, but the representation of them, so this Picasso painting should still be seen as modern art. Modern art has gone less and less sculptural as time goes by, and this has led to abstract art and cubism, which contains hardly anything that is recognizable.

I agree with Greenberg when he said that Modern art could never have existed without the Old Master’s work. But I also believe that Modern art could not have existed without kitsch art. Even if kitsch was terrible, modern art is only this good because of the comparisons made between the two types of art – they had to co-exist. As a painter, I appreciate all kinds of paintings because many of them require different skills and techniques. The diversity in paintings is what makes art good – there are so many to look at. But I do feel that painting, as a whole, is slowly dying out, regardless of whether avant-garde is better than kitsch or not. New types of arts, such as installations and performance arts, are becoming increasingly popular, and painting is slowly becoming abandoned. Painters have to start producing something very exclusive and special to resurrect painting.

Clement Greenberg had three key features for Modern art – It cannot be kitsch, or susceptible to popular consumer culture; it has to be true to its material nature; it should be devoid of social context, cultural context or narrative context. Greenberg knew that Modernist paintings could never be absolute flat or zero illusions. Every mark made on it has created depth and illusion to the painting. There isn’t a break between the old arts and modern art. Without the past, Modern art would never have happened. Greenberg believes that just like before, a decisive break from Modern art is needed to open a new chapter of art. Regardless of any type, I think people who do paintings have to keep taking new risks and keep experimenting to produce something unique and different, and this should never be stopped.

Bibliography

- Modernist Painting – Clement Greenberg

- http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2013/jan/28/kitsch-art-love-loathe-jonathan-jones

- http://www.theartstory.org/critic-greenberg-clement.htm

- Art and Culture: Critical Essays – Clement Greenberg

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art

- http://hyperallergic.com/81514/some-thoughts-on-clement-greenberg-and-his-legacy/

- http://www.myasianplanet.com/culture/vladimir-tretchikoffs-original-chinese-girl-painting-up-for-sale/

- http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/57.92

- http://www.museoreinasofia.es/en/collection/artwork/guernica

- http://www.pablopicasso.org/woman-with-a-fan.jsp

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossacks

- http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/land/