Asger Jorn: "The avant-garde doesn't give up"

For those of you who didn't get the image by email, here is a copy of Asger Jorn's 1962 painting.

What is the difference between modern art and the rest of art? And where do we draw the line betwee the two? TJ Clark attempts to draw the line where modern art begins. The way in which he marks this change it interesting. He says that the difference between Abstract Expressionism and the rest of the art world, is that it "engages the vulgar", and does not attempt to engage the popular.

TJ Clarks' idea is that there is a line where modern art became Modern art and that it can be recongnized by the switch between engaging what is "vulgar" and what is popular. However, I think every new art period is marked by a similar change. Each movement marked a change from the last and I'm not sure if the beginning of modern art can be understood as a switch from what is popular.

Modern Art

When did modern art begin? And who in fact started the movement? Many people think that it began in the late during the late nineteenth century when Napoleon the third held the Salon de Refuses. This was also the time when Edouard Manet showed Dejeuner sur Lherbe. However I think it is when Courbet showed The Studio of the Painter. However, different people have different ideas about when modern art or modernism actually began. The scholar Elkins believes that it began with Italian Renaissance. I do think that it is interesting that he picked this time period and thinks that modern art started here. True, Italian Renaissance was a breath of fresh air after dark ages of Gothic art. Elkins actually make a good argument that modern art could have never began with out the Renaissance. However, like many other scholars I do believe that modern art in the late eighteenth century. I do not think that is the case. Even though most art history classes start with late eighteenth century art.
On the other hand T.J. Clark thinks that abstract expression is dead. I have to agree with him. It was a movement that is no longer be done. I do think that he makes a good argument even thought his article was a little difficult to read.
I look forward to hearing what everyone has to say about modern art and how it has affected our culture now.

Abstract Expressionism and Modernism

Armed with some knowledge about ideology, I was looking forward to tackling this week’s readings. But after spending two days on TJ Clark’s article, I couldn’t remember how or where it started nor did I care anymore. I wasn’t sure if what I had read was an example of ideology (of course it was Clark’s ideology) or if I was suppose to pinpoint different ideologies from Marx, Althusser, Beauvoir, and others. In his defense of Abstract Expressionism, Clark did cover class issues when he discussed those who purchases Abstract Expressionist paintings-the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie (or would a more appropriate term be pseudo bourgeoisie? Just as Clark examined the term “vulgar” perhaps a discussion on the use of “petty” is also in order). He also briefly covered the gender issue “Vulgarity is gendered” (p. 40) and “Other” (p. 38). But in the end, what did it all mean? Abstract Expressionism is vulgar. Abstract Expressionism is best when it’s vulgar. (On a side note, this weekend I watched Topsy-Turvy, the story of Gilbert and Sullivan's production of the Mikado. At one point, one of the actors in the Mikado was complaining about how short his costume was and he considered it "vulgar." It's hard to say if that was the actual term the actor used in objecting to the costume or if was a term the script writer came up. Regardless, I am now re-examing by interpretation of the term "vulgar.") Buried in the beginning of his article he asks some questions “To what extent was the meeting of class and art practice in the later 1940s more than just contingent? To what extent does Abstract Expressionism really belong, at the deepest level…to the bourgeoisie who paid for it and took it on their travels?” In the end I think Clark answered these questions…(did the petty bourgeoisie need Abstract Expressionism or did the Abstract Expressionists need the petty bourgeoisie?) but I need a little more time to digest this reading. I’m hoping that our class meeting will help me sort this out.

Elkins is a little easier to understand and his article helped me get a better grasp on Clark. (This makes me wonder…would it have been better to start with Elkins or was the sequence of Clark, then Elkins the better choice?) I love his different theories on the beginnings of modernism. He used terms and ideas discussed in Clark’s article to explain his theories (so I did need to read Clark first!). He seems to be agreeing with Clark’s point that art needs a past and an end in order to go forward. As with the Clark article, I’m looking forward to discussing this in more detail in class.

Attraction to Abstraction

When Elkins inserts his thoughts that Modernism started in the Renaissance, I took a step back. I agree that thoughts, methods, theories were commenced in the Renaissance and yes being a precedent, but on the other hand doesn't everything stem off each other in some way, shape, or form? Could one not call every time period Modern? I guess I just wasn't really convinced by his argument. And he also commented that by the time of David’s Marat, "art was not ready to understand its place in the disenchantment of the world." So did it ever? And will we ever fully understand art? This goes back to Semiotics and Gentileschi, does she really mean to make the sword look like a cross or are we just over-interpreting? T.J Clark on the other hand has some bold statements about Abstract Expressionism with the play on the word 'vulgar'. Breaking the word into three little definitions: one-freedom, two-Expressive, and three-Leads to status of Genius. I think in this time period this word fits nicely because that’s what Pollock has come to represent, and why I suppose people love him. But I especially like the definition given by my little dictionary; lacking sophistication or good taste. I got that Clark really did not want to have the funeral for Abstract Expressionism. That Pollock and Still's never finished what they started therefore it is still alive and that we can still physically related to the time period is holding onto the past a little to much. Yes, one can continue with the theories, techniques, styles of this type of art, but to say they never finished what they started seems odd, because how do we know when anything is finished? I was a bit confused by both these authors’ arguments and have walked away not really convinced with anything, except that I like the use of the word vulgar. Maybe, in class it will all become clear...it usually does. --Ciao

Ideology in Art Historical Practice

I agree the Elkins article was much more simplied than the T.J. Clark article In Defense of Abstract Expressionism. I found it very interesting that Clark bridges the gap between contextualized thinking between Modernism and Postmodernism in Abstract Expressionsim. In the present era of Postmodernism, it seems that we should be ideologically explaining the social contexts of the work by definition of vulgariy in the sense of the "object's existence in a particular social world" as TJ Clark states.

So, I guess I am still wondering what TJ Clark specifically means by vulgar. Is he talking about people in ordinary society during the 1940s? Is he discussing the crudeness of the Abstract Expressionist painters? I think Clark is talking about vulgar in terms of bourgeois taste ideologically against the vulgar of Abstract Expressionism in favor of the aesthetic and "popular" art of the 19th and 20th centuries. However, it appears that during the time periods of the Abstract Expressionist's acclaim, the ideology of social classes was not in a vulgar state and Abstract Expressionism allowed bougeoise society to claim its individuality in a time when there was search for elite status. I am looking forward to hearing what people have to say about this as I have been going in circles. Just writing this response makes my head hurt:).

As for Elkins, I enjoyed reading his approach to the five theories discussing the origins of Modernism. The first approach of Modernism Begins in the Renaissance. Elkins points to two writings; one that looks at the Renaissance as the beginning of visual culture with interest from popular socieity (Postmodernistic) and the other being that Renaissance art progression resulted in the 20th century avant-garde (Modernism). And the formal aesthetics vs. social contexts seem to be in constant debate in all of the theories. In the concluding, Elkins goes into great depth in terms of Clement Greenberg's notoriety in some parts of the world and lacks notoriety in other parts. In essense, Elkins claims that Greenberg was a proponent of art being defined as the formal aesthetic elements of a canvas (Greenberg though paintings was the only true art of Western culture) to self-referentiality to the artist. It is clear that Greenberg is a critic that is against social history's relationship to art. However, Greenberg's theory remains most prevalent because of his defining Modernism as avant-garde. However, as Elkins points out, it is presently hard to define contemporary artists work by its formal qualities. The New New Painters have similar formal qualities to the AE. However, if we only look at formal qualities, then we can say nothing that separates their work from the AE and this is a curse of Greenbergian theory. Elkin's definitely seems to argue in favor of looking at art from the ideology of the ruling social class in order to better separate and define meaning for a group of artists.

Looking forward to seeing everyone later!

Abstract Expressionism as Ideology

This week Elkins sets the stage for us introducing issues that problematize the study of modernism as an art historical classification. When does modernism begin? Whose theory or to which school of thought do you ascribe? He shows that the theories can be seen as incompatible with one likely to subsume all others. T. J. Clark then presents a meta-framework as a fresh way of understanding Abstract Expressionism using” vulgarity” as an organizing concept around which to create a discourse.
The problem with the term vulgarity, as he points out, is that like a semiotic sign, it is a container filled with the aspirations of a class (the petty bourgeoisie speaking for the bourgeoisie). He attacks formalist analyses of Ab Ex (boring) and semiotic ones as well (a fairy tale frozen in the triumph of its prearranged moments of vision). He proceeds to describe Ab Ex as “art practice as class ideology”. To Clark, America is a world fiction and the bourgeois (the class with hereditary power to effect economic decisions that affect them) and the petty bourgeois (those who don’t have this power but who identify with the interests of those who do) are constructions within that fiction. They are a part of ideology.
I find intriguing his idea that the purpose of Ab Ex painting was to expose banality and vulgarity, NOT to transcend it in order to find some universal uplifting truth. But we are so far removed from the moment of their creation and the social and political context in which they were created that we see the transcendent in them instead. Their original purpose is lost on us and this is one of the things Clark wants to make us aware of.
It is interesting to me that the USIA used Abstract Expressionism and its artists as propaganda tools following WWII. Part of the Cold War ideology was to show the superiority of the American way of life capable of producing such individual artistic geniuses (white males were emphasized) capable of creating a new art form.
The Communist Chinese government also tried to use its contemporary Chinese avantgarde artists in this way. Ideology, Greenberg’s concept of the moving avantgarde, and Elkin’s discussion of the effect of Greenberg on those who might not be aware of who he is, is illustrated in an example of a work by Xu Bing. The artist painted English words on a male pig and Chinese characters on a female pig then invited people to watch them copulating in a pen filled with books. His point was nature does not care about culture. The actual result though was something different. People complained that Xu Bing was trying to show the superiority of the West and the inferiority of China by painting English words on the dominant male pig. He also concluded that culture had removed us from nature to the point that people were so embarrassed by the actions of the pigs that they couldn’t watch. This work was not sanctioned by the government who would move to shut down the performances as soon as they could. But the avantgarde, of which Xu Bing was a part, stayed one step ahead of the government, changing venues, and creating works that were shocking and critical of government ideology. When Chinese avantgarde artists became successful in the West, the Chinese government tried to use this to show the superiority of their system.

I found “Modernisms” by James Elkins to be very useful in understanding certain theorists and critics such as Michael Fried, T.J. Clarke, and Greenberg. I was especially surprised and interested to read about why and how Greenberg has been misunderstood. But, I can’t say that I felt sorry for Greenberg in any way. I don’t agree that sticking to strict standards in art is something that we should ever be doing. However, I do agree that everyone is entitled to his or her own ideology surrounding art, whatever that may be.
Also quite useful was the way that Elkins broke down the different ways that modernism can be looked at. I tend to agree with all of them to some degree or another. But, I think I especially agree that it began at the beginning of the 18th century. However, I don’t believe that anyone can argue that it is because of any one cause. Synchronicity of events seems to make the most sense. One thing does not necessarily cause another. There is always some kind of discourse going on whether it is unconscious or not.
TJ Clarke on the other hand, I had a difficult time with. However, I loved that he related Abstract Expressionism and its entire era to vulgarity. I certainly agree with that to a certain degree. I think that there are two statements that sum up what Clarke was trying to say (other than vulgar, vulgar, vulgar) and they are:
“Abstract Expressionist painting is best when it is most vulgar, because it is then that it grasps most fully the conditions of representations – the technical and social conditions – of its historical moment.” AND “But sometimes it falls to a class to offer to suffer the absurdities of individualism in pure form – unbreathably pure, almost, a last gasp of oxygen as the plane goes down. That was the case, I think, with American painting after 1945.” Both of these statements are about Abstract Expressionism as an expression of a particular society’s state of being during that period of time, and I think that he was getting at the importance of looking at that rather than at the formal. As he says in the beginning of the essay, he thinks that the kind of questions that are worth asking are those about the context and implications of the art work rather than questions about their “sensory reality” or where the eye is led as a result of line, color, or plane.

Modernism

In Elkins's article he makes the point that the history of modernism is constructed differently than other periods, such as the Renaissance, and presents five theories of the possible origins of modernism. Elkins writes, "The historiographic issues for Renaissance painting are settled in a way that those for modernism are not." (39) I think it is interesting that he is comparing Renaissance painting to modernism. He does not say modern art, but modernism. Renaissance painting, to me, refers to the formal characteristics of painting it exhibits, allowing it to be placed or categorized into a certain historical time or movement because it encompasses the typical physical traits of the time or movement. However, "modernism" is not a grouping of art, like Renaissance or Modern Art. Modernism refers to a movement and set of ideas, including but not limited to art. Modernism can be seen in many art movements because at the time they were produced, they were in fact modern. Modernism implies a general term that can be associated with more than just Modern or Renaissance art, and I think that is one of the points that Elkins tries to make. However, it is difficult to categorize an ideology like modernism when it could technically be linked to any time in historywhen people, artists included, "broke with established traditions and sought new modes of expression." (Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition)

I had a difficult time reading T.J. Clark, and it took several readings of some "defenses" to understand. What I ended up taking away from the essay was that in order to understand a certain type of art, one must also understand the social contexts under which they were produced. It does not do any good to simply understand the formal characteristics, as it only deals with the obvious physical characteristics of the piece. One needs to take into account the artists and circumstances of when they were creating it, as it helps to understand the ideology of the times and the artist's response to it.

I was also interested in T.J. Clark's constant use of the word "vulgar" to describe Abstract Expressionism. I read the following quote by Mr. Brett in Ruskin's "On Vulgarity" a few times as I did not understand it at first. In response to Ruskin's question, "What is vulgarity?", Mr. Brett says, "It is merely one of the forms of death." I think vulgarity is like death because it is shocking and gripping, and an invasion or takeover of innocence and life, or perhaps in terms of Abstract Expressionism, a blank canvas. You're eyes are drawn to it because you know that there is just something different, "not right," vulgar about it, and you cannot help but be drawn in and curious because of it.