Yesterday I went to
The Phillips Collection in Dupont Circle where
Joseph Marioni is having an
elegant solo show of monochromatic paintings through the end of the weekend. The Phillips, which opened in 1921, was founded by Duncan Phillips, a champion of Modern art and, particularly, American
artists, many of whom he knew personally.
Adoph Gottlieb must have been one of his friends because this unusual Gottlieb entered the Phillips collection in 1963--the year it was made. I looked up Gottleib, who with his wife Esther Gottlieb founded the
Gottlieb Foundation to support struggling artists, and found this
interview with Andrew Hudson for a 1966 Washington Post article called “Gottlieb finds Today’s Shock-Proof Audience Dangerous."
Gottlieb: I think the situation today is similar to
the period when Surrealism became important in France and Europe and
the only painters who were able to continue working in the tradition of
Cubism were those who were the originators and initiators of the
movement. It wasn’t possible to have a really significant second
generation of Cubist painters. What happened was that the younger
painters who were able to contribute something went into another
direction, which happened to be Surrealism. And I think a similar thing
has happened today: That the so-called New York School, or
Abstract-Expressionists, consisted of a group of painters who were about
my generation and they are the legitimate practitioners of their
concepts. But when so many young painters became involved in trying to
carry out some of the ideas of Abstract Expressionism, it became rather
academic.
Hudson: A sort of manner…?
Gottlieb: Yes. It was like Andre Lhote doing
Cubist paintings of football games, and it became second-rate, and it
was necessary for painters to develop other ideas. Now, I think the
point is that Surrealism also had certain popular elements that could
appeal to a large public like the postcard color, the use of realistic,
naturalistic techniques, as in Dali- so that this was a kind of dilution
of the values that had existed; there was a lowering of the standard
that Cubism had. It just so happened that it wasn’t possible to do
anything, to use Cubism as a springboard, let us say. I don’t think any
movement ever is a springboard for another movement.
Hudson: It has to start again.
Gottlieb: Yes. The tradition of modern art is a
tradition of revolution: there’s one revolution after another – for
better or for worse. And I think that’s what we have today: there’s
been a revolution, the older Abstract Expressionists can legitimately
continue working in their way, but young people have to find some other
way.
Hudson: Do you think sometime or other there’ll be another revolution somewhere.
Gottlieb: There is one now and there will be others.
I think that one of the problems is that today what we are witnessing
is the development of art in a democracy, and this never existed before.
The idea of a democratic art which can reach many people ultimately
must be a notion of some kind of mass culture. And this is the dismal
aspect.
I don’t know if it’s possible for artists to feel that they can even
go underground any more. We felt that we were living in an underground;
we felt that we were a bit outside of society and, in a sense,
outcasts. If such a mood could develop among artists, this would be a
good sign – but I haven’t seen any signs of it. They all want success
more than achievement.
I think one of the sorriest examples is that of two young artists –
who I guess are taken rather seriously – recently collaborated on a
scheme to use a computer go find out what people really liked best. The
computer told them, for example, what color combinations people liked
best, what shapes they liked best – and on the basis of this information
they jointly made an object. I think the idea was to make it so that
it could be duplicated. Obviously this is a different spirit than what
has happened in the past with artists who are serious an independent.
What’s unfortunate is that nobody seems to be in a position to make a
criticism of what’s going on, about standards being lowered, and having
false ideals…We have a lot of young critics, and the young critics feel
that the way to succeed in their own area is to espouse and support
whatever it is that’s catching on, and if they can be the first ones to
proclaim it, they can then become another Clement Greenberg, perhaps.
They try to ride on the tail of whatever seems to them to be the art
which is viable at the moment.
You have a situation in the art world that’s become like show
business; and, after all, if you’re in the museum field, or if you’re an
art writer, there has to be a great deal of grist for your mill.
You’ve got to be putting on shows all the time, which will draw the
public in; and you also have to have new material to write about.
Suppose that you were convinced that in the last 30 years or so there
were only a handful of artists who were making an important
contribution, and these were the ones who were worth discussing. You
wouldn’t have much to write about, let us say, if you were writing for a
magazine.
I think that at least two thirds of the vast new art public that we
have today has never made a serious attempt to study art; they only know
about art because they’ve started going to some exhibitions in the last
three years, and they’ve read some reviews in newspapers or art
magazines. And that’s their total knowledge…
But, of course, I don’t have a really objective view of what the art
situation is. I think that some of the dealers might be in a better
position to evaluate; they see the artists coming in with work all the
time.
The other thing is that I don’t really care too much, because there
isn’t anything that at my stage of the game I can do about it – I have
to concentrate on continuing to work out my own problems. In other
words, my path has been determined over the years: I believe the only
thing I have to do is stay with my own direction.
Related
Two Coats post:
Abstract Expressionism at MoMA
"Artists less celebrated, whose work used to seem flatfooted and obvious
to me, now scan as forward-thinking. What I once considered lesser
paintings because of the color, composition, brushwork, or surface
quality have come to look fresh and challenging in their visual
awkwardness. Adolph Gottleib’s symbolic contrivances, William Baziotes’s
acidic color, Hans Hoffman’s clunky palette knifery, and Clyfford
Still’s jagged edges are more in tune with the uncomfortable aesthetic
decisions painters are making today...."
-------
Subscribe to Two Coats of Paint by email.