Clement Greenberg was known for “making” some artists, such as, Jackson Pollock due to his critiques that were universally acknowledged. A term that came from this, that many artists tried to avoid, was Greenbergian Formalism. He believed that the primary value of works relied on form. In his view, art should not be perceived by subject matter or the artists’ narrative, only form. Every other aspect of the work should be ignored. Flatness is another important aspect of Greenbergian Formalism. The text states that, “Flatness means that a painting should have no illusions and external references but attain the autonomy of self-reference” (Barrett, 126).
One artist that resisted Greenbergian Formalism is Andy Goldsworthy. Andy Goldsworthy is an environmental sculptor that relies on materials solely from nature. His pieces are site-specific and ephemeral. His work lasts only as nature allows, so most of his pieces can only be seen in photographs. Goldsworthy resists this label because even though his work focuses on form, many other design principles are focused on as well. In “Rivers and Tides” Goldsworthy uses the iron in stones to turn the color of the water red. During that segment, Goldsworthy explains a lot about the power of color and the energy it gives off. Another example would be Goldsworthy’s work creating black holes in nature. He explains how life ebbs and flows throughout it and we are drawn into this intangible absence. In context to the black hole in the tree, Goldsworthy portrays how there can be growth through this darkness. This subject matter would mean nothing in Greenbergian Formalism.
Greenberg would not think took highly of Goldsworthy’s work anyway. Goldsworthy believed that perception differed from reality. In “Rivers and Tides”, Goldsworthy explains how the lamb are perceived as these docile, fluffy animals, but truly they are powerful creatures. He works to see the two different perspectives. This idea contradicts Greenberg’s flatness. Also Goldsworthy’s pieces are very spiritual. He is inspired by the ocean and the sea. When he would create pieces by the shoreline or in the water, he did not solely make them to be destroyed. He saw them as a gift to the sea, and the sea could make more of it than he ever hoped for.
I believe a better fit for Goldsworthy’s work would be Bellian early-modern “significant form” criterion because Goldsworthy’s work allows the viewer to have an aesthetic response. Clive Bell believed that, “If one has an aesthetic response to a work, it is because it has ‘significant form’ or lack thereof” (Barrett, 125). On the other hand, Bell saw Realism and narratives as secondary importance. Even though Greenbergian Formalism seems similar, I believe it is a good fit.
Works Cited
Artis Reflex. “Rivers and Tides Partie 1 – Vidéo Dailymotion.” Dailymotion. N.p., 01 Oct. 2013. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.
Artis Reflex. “Rivers and Tides Partie 2 – Vidéo Dailymotion.” Dailymotion. N.p., 01 Oct. 2013. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.
Barrett, Terry. “Formalism.” Why Is That Art?: Aesthetics and Criticism of Contemporary Art. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. 125-152. Print.
I agree with you completely for all of this. Greenberg’s aesthetic emphasizes form as the only guiding factor for creation when Goldsworthy clearly has a message of sorts embedded in his works.
I liked that you explained briefly who Greenberg is in the beginning of your post. I also believe that Greenberg would reject Goldsworthy and naturalistic way of creating art. Greenberg and Goldsworthy and true opposites in the artworld. Although I did not chose the same comparison as you did in the end, it really makes sense and I like your take on it! Great job!
I would agree that Goldsworthy may resist Greenberg’s some radical theory about art (applying that he isn’t an artist himself) but look at the facts. Goldsworthy still considers Greenberg’s theory in some form. For example: while Greenberg “thinks” that a form of object itself is a work of art, Goldsworthy takes that “work of art” and put them together. Its not like he spray paint the objects and “oh look, here you go. Its art…”. Still that Goldsworthy did not change the object itself like Greenberg may claims but just “puts them together”.