1. What does Steinberg
make of Greenberg’s claim of a qualitative distinction between old and modern
art in terms of the latter’s self-reflexivity?
First
of all, he exposes the implication in Greenberg’s thinking that pre-Modernist
figurative art lacks self-reflexivity (that is, that it does not refer to
itself as art in a self-conscious way) p. 71.
He
uses visual evidence from the paintings themselves to support the
self-reflexivity of the masters. In particular he calls attention to
consciousness of framing-bands (71) in Giotto which remind us of the
illusion created.
As
art develops into the exploration of realistic illusion, it still uses
frames such as doorways, windows and mirrors to develop the idea of
illusion alongside that of depth. This is presumably why we are asked to
search the Velasquez (clever teaching this) which illustrates precisely
that point, though Steinberg uses other examples. They are ‘forever
inventing interferences with spatial recession. … they maintain an
explicit, controlled, ever-visible dualism. Fifteenth-century perspective was not a
surface-denying illusion of space, but the symbolic form of space as an intelligible
coordinate surface pattern.’ (74)
2. How does Steinberg
back up his claim, and what different aspects of Old Master art does he review?
As
above. Starts with Giotto and then takes on 15th C.-16th
C. from Raphael’s use of anachronism to the elaborate framing of mirror-effect
in Michelangelo in the 16th.
To prove ‘all art is about art’ (76). Presumably we have the
unmentioned Rembrandt because this uses interesting recessions that are
made consciously fictive by both dramatic frameworks of spatial
irregularities and anachronism – the book held by the Virgin is clearly a
Dutch tome.
3. Where do these
reflections on the relation of Old Master art to modernism lead Steinberg?
To
reduce Greenberg’s claim to one supportive only of the ‘purity’ of the
way Modernist art deals with surface. But this even belies modern art. Analysing
Rothko will show patterns of variable visual depth and sometimes employ
framing effects to achieve that.
The
last thrust is cruel and perhaps a bit elitist in tone and prejudicial
9about the provincial against the ‘mainstream’: ‘a provincialism to make
the self-critical turn of mind the sufficient distinction of modernism’.
Discussion
from Course
1. Basically, Steinberg
relativises Greenberg’s absolute distinction into one of degree, and shows that
Greenberg’s claim of an objective difference is more like a subjective
preference.
He argues that all
major painting since Giotto – not just modernist painting – has called
attention to its own art status, presenting its illusions of three-dimensional
space, as he puts it, ‘between quotation marks’. The exceptions have been
explicit trompe l’oeil illusions, and the academic art of the
nineteenth century. Interestingly, Steinberg views this latter not as the
continuation of the Old Master tradition, but a symptom of its debasement and
ultimate collapse, precisely because of its commitment to unreflective
illusionism.
Figure 3.7 Samuel van
Hoogstraten, Trompe l'Oeil, 1655. Akademie der Bildende Kunste,
Vienna. Photo: Erich Lessing Culture and Fine Arts Archives/ART RESOURCE,
N.Y./ARTstor.
2. Steinberg proceeds to
list several features of Old Master art by which such art drew attention to its
status as art. This was achieved by a range of devices, including ‘radical
colour economies’, ‘proportional attenuation’, over-emphasis on detail, and the
quotation and referencing of other art, as well as ‘internal changes of scale’
and ‘shifting reality levels’. However, in addition to such formal/technical
features, he also says the ‘recall to art’ may be brought about by subject
matter: including elements such as internal spectators, and the use of
doorways, windows and mirrors to ‘soliloquise’ about the ‘nature of illusion
itself’.
3. He sees the two
epochs sharing more than is permitted by conventional categories, such as
‘representational’ and ‘abstract’, or ‘content’ and ‘form’. On the contrary, he
sees art’s need to indicate its status and limits as ‘perpetual’, and that this
can ‘take many forms’ in different periods:
At one historical
moment painters get interested in finding out just how much their art can
annex, into how much non-art it can venture and still remain art. At other
times they explore the opposite end to discover how much they can renounce and
still stay in business.
On Steinberg's critique of Greenberg A844 Ex. 3.2.8 A brilliant bit of online pedagogy
Exercise
Conduct an online search for:
Velazquez, Christ in the House of Martha and Mary. In National Gallery
Artist Diego Velázquez
Artist dates 1599 - 1660
Full title Kitchen Scene with Christ in the House of Martha and Mary
Date made probably 1618
Medium and support Oil on canvas
Dimensions 60 x 103.5 cm
Inscription summary Dated
Acquisition credit Bequeathed by Sir William H. Gregory, 1892
Rembrandt, The Holy Family. In Hermitage, St. Petersburg
Author:
Rembrandt van Rijn. 1606-1669
Title: Holy Family
Place: Holland
Date1645
Material: canvas
Technique :oil
Dimensions:117x91 cm
Inventory Number:ГЭ-741
Now read the extract from Leo Steinberg, ‘Other criteria’ (1968/72).
1. What does Steinberg make of Greenberg’s claim of a qualitative distinction between old and modern art in terms of the latter’s self-reflexivity?
2. How does Steinberg back up his claim, and what different aspects of Old Master art does he review?
3. Where do these reflections on the relation of Old Master art to modernism lead Steinberg?
Discussion from Course
1. Basically, Steinberg relativises Greenberg’s absolute distinction into one of degree, and shows that Greenberg’s claim of an objective difference is more like a subjective preference.
He argues that all major painting since Giotto – not just modernist painting – has called attention to its own art status, presenting its illusions of three-dimensional space, as he puts it, ‘between quotation marks’. The exceptions have been explicit trompe l’oeil illusions, and the academic art of the nineteenth century. Interestingly, Steinberg views this latter not as the continuation of the Old Master tradition, but a symptom of its debasement and ultimate collapse, precisely because of its commitment to unreflective illusionism.
Figure 3.7 Samuel van Hoogstraten, Trompe l'Oeil, 1655. Akademie der Bildende Kunste, Vienna. Photo: Erich Lessing Culture and Fine Arts Archives/ART RESOURCE, N.Y./ARTstor.
2. Steinberg proceeds to list several features of Old Master art by which such art drew attention to its status as art. This was achieved by a range of devices, including ‘radical colour economies’, ‘proportional attenuation’, over-emphasis on detail, and the quotation and referencing of other art, as well as ‘internal changes of scale’ and ‘shifting reality levels’. However, in addition to such formal/technical features, he also says the ‘recall to art’ may be brought about by subject matter: including elements such as internal spectators, and the use of doorways, windows and mirrors to ‘soliloquise’ about the ‘nature of illusion itself’.
3. He sees the two epochs sharing more than is permitted by conventional categories, such as ‘representational’ and ‘abstract’, or ‘content’ and ‘form’. On the contrary, he sees art’s need to indicate its status and limits as ‘perpetual’, and that this can ‘take many forms’ in different periods:
At one historical moment painters get interested in finding out just how much their art can annex, into how much non-art it can venture and still remain art. At other times they explore the opposite end to discover how much they can renounce and still stay in business.
As usual a brilliant Discussion.