In the Atlantic Monhly of April

8/14/2019 In the Atlantic Monhly of April

1/12

IN THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY

by Paul Henrickson, Ph.D. 2005 tm. 2007

In THE ATLANTIC MONHLY of April, 1958 there appeared an article entitled

The Tyranny of Abstract Art. I found it, then, and I still find it, a most profoundly

serious comment, regrettably, I found no evidence of hope in this statement of

anyone, including the author, Ernst Gombrich, locating, or identifying any solution

to a situation which, as described, seemed awesomely tragic.

Gombrich indicates that there are conservative critics, but does not identify himself

as being among them, who believe that the problem with modern art is that it has

become too easy, a mere splashing of colors. He then gains some intellectual

support from the field of psychology which recognizes that nothing is harder tobear than complete freedom from any restraint and a recognition that convention

is sometimes reassuring if you are uncertain of the depth of the unknown or the

distance required to reach safe harbor. The safe harbor, in this analogy, is the

product of the creative artist which is, to use Gombrich s expression, recognizably

himself and yet significantly different. Gombrich does correctly, I believe, identify

the self deception both some artists and some intellectually unalert commentators on

art suggest when they tell us that the artist is merely the vehicle for the voice of the

muse which is somewhere else, although, yet, the statement is accurate. The

problem, I think, lies, in the conception of the self which any culture brings to bear

upon all its members, but most traumatically upon those few who, at some point,

begin to doubt the correctness of the vision of the mass mind.

I experienced a very moving episode at one time when raising peacocks on my

property in Pojoaque, New Mexico, one of my hens had laid five or seven eggs which

she had, of course, hidden away under some bush. When I noticed that they had

hatched and were running around I quickly caught all those I could and secured

them in a holding pen protected from as any predators as possible, and there were

many predators in that area, both domestic and wild. During my final search I came

across an egg with a chick still mostly contained within it.

It seemed to me that the chick was very nearly about to give up trying to free itself

from its containing shell. It had broken through a portion of the shell and hadexposed its head and a small portion of its body but seemed to have tired out. I

talked to it and told it I would try to break more of the shell to let it out, but it

seemed to have died there in my hand, just as a small mouse had done when

thinking it had been caught by some light weight plastic sheet, died when I playfully

looked at it and softly said boo, the light went out in its eyes.


2/12

We seem born with two somewhat conflicting impulses, one of these allows us to

survive if we conform to survival rules within the group into which weve been born,

or hatched, the other impulse sets forth another set of rules, more special in their

demands and more inventive in their techniques as well as incredibly more insistent

that survival means a confrontation with those exterior expectations emanating

from the group. It is to break out of the shell, the type-casting, and to transform ourbeing, intuitively responding to these other guidelines, into something the form of

which there is no pattern to assure us that we have arrived, no group to assure us

that we belong, that we have arrived.

Gombrich, as an art historian, then assumes partial responsibility for the situation

by reminding the reader that he, and other art historians, have trained the public,

and the artists themselves, to expect significant new aesthetic developments to arise

out of studio experiments. The truth, of course, is that sometimes valid aesthetic

developments do emerge from studio experiments, or accidents, and the miracle

involved, seems to be that some eye has caught a glimpse of meaning in the synapse

between accident and intention, and it is an incident of the alert mind which bringsneeded order out of the seminal chaos. What a dreary world, indeed, it would be

without that process of the occult and lowly earth worm tilling the soil and making

it ready, as any good catalyst would do, for a better harvest.

One of the key expressions in Gombrichs analysis is creating something

recognizably himself. In any event I found the expression demonstrably important

when, as a graduate student, studying under Dr Hilton Thomas at The University of

Minnesota, we, the class, were asked to choose between two images projected onto

the screen as to which of the two showed a genuine work and which a copy. I

happened to have been the only member in the class who had had studio experience

and so, for me, the question posed no problem. There is always a neural signature in

the work of a genuinely creative artist which is rarely successfully copied and it is

that recognition which makes the difference between legitimate art historians,

critics, connoisseurs, and dealers. Without this recognition of the subtleties of

application and style all other conclusions are tainted with fraud.

Another, very important observation that Gombrich makes is that in referencing the

observations of Walter Pach, a generation earlier, that is 1927, he underscores the

possibility that those who are able to detect false art in one epoch may not be free

from deception encompassed within another. In point of fact, that is probably one of

the reasons why we have experts in every increasingly shorter time periods of

creative effort, such as, for example, expert X having as his area of expertise, the

last three years of an artist who had been creatively productive over nine decades. It

should be stated, at this point, that it is not primarily the artists responsibility to

document, as an analytical historian is expected to do, the paths of his own

inspiration. Also, at this point, it should be noted that a great deal of art historical

work is simply related to being able to recognize the characteristics of what is

known as a school, the school of Caravaggio, for example, referring to, in general,

that whole mass of production which bears a resemblance, however loosely, to a


3/12

Caravaggesque appearance. In many cases it has not been sufficiently emphasized

that these followers do not appropriately belong in a list of creative artists, nor is

it sufficiently emphasized that those dealers, who prey upon the unaware buyer

employing his own ignorance as a seductive device, are inflicting irreparable

damage to the general level of cultural awareness. The loathsome attitude of the

dealer who justifies his deceit by reference to a buyers responsibility isunacceptable. It is the responsibility of the teller to be responsible for the truth of

what he tells, not the listener. It is, however, the listening buyers responsibility to

learn as much as possible about what it is he thinks he wants. In the world of art this

takes some doing.

Caravaggio: St. John with Ram

In the Gombrich article, which has proved to be very fertile indeed, the author also

refers briefly to the possibility of cheap aesthetics. It is regrettable that the

demeanor expected of cultivated art historical commentators seemed not toencourage the forthright presentation of examples that might fit the reference. In

my work, here, I have attempted to avoid that dangerous socio-intellectual and

moral pitfall by either being very reticent (if certain conditions required

consideration), or blunt, if the artists offering was found unacceptable. Neither of

these cases however, excuses the critic from continuing the process of re-evaluation.

I see nothing shameful in the event, that if, after X number of years, a critic

changes his mind.

Gombrich also makes use of the term snobbism, a term, or one very much like it,

which is nearly unavoidable when dealing with topics such as this. I believe,

however, that the original meaning of the term in the French was sans nobilitewhich, if this older meaning is retained, casts a somewhat altered shade to its use. I

do not think that, in deference to its usually pejorative application, a rejection of the

idea of the elite should, itself, be rejected. Some things are simply better than other

things. It is, after all, a matter of fact, made fact, by informed judgment. Also in this

connection the emphasis Gombrich places on the differences between good behavior

in a social setting and what is thought to be good behavior in an artistic endeavor


4/12

are to different things. In the first case it is desirable if one wishes to avoid conflict,

in the second, if one wishes to be a truly innovative creator, it is often deadly.

It is the job of the art commentator to try to sort out all these matters for himself

and for as many others as can follow the arguments and refer to their own visual

experiences. That is what I have tried to do in this present work and I do nothesitate to state that the works of Edvard Munch. Claude Monet, Hyman Bloom,

Sam Scott and Peter Rogers have proved to be very helpful.

Munch: Murderer in the Lane

Monet: Pond


5/12

Bloom,H.: Sea

Scott.S. Blossoms


6/12

Rogers,Peter: The Quest

These artists have shown us that the focus of the graphic arts on the illustration of

exterior events is not, as also Madame de Stael had pointed out two hundred years

ago, is not the point, but, rather, that the focus for both the artist and the critic, are

the visual events which take place within the work of art itself and its on-going and

mutable correlation with our, the observers, consciousness. That is why it was so sad

to see the chick still inside its shell give up its struggle to emerge and reject my offer

to help, as did the mouse in the face of its belief in its own origins and its conviction

that I was a threat to him. We are conceived according to the rules of the system.

The requirement to be successful is the struggle to transform ourselves out of it.

In the work of these artists, and others, one is encouraged to see other realities and,

in the case of Rogers, a mode of expression lending itself to the illustration of a faith.

Later on in his article Gombrich discusses the value of the Western tradition of the

spirit of experiment which, it would seem, describes much of art in the past century

and a half and its application to the activities within the art studio and urges us to

identify some standard of success or failure. He suggests that it is obvious that such

standards cannot be as clear-cut as they are in science. He doesnt tell us why they

cannot or why the standards applied to science cannot be less clear-cut. He tells us

as well that the success of an art experiment cannot be equated with public acclaim.

He urges that theories of art if they are to have value at all must enunciatestandards. Perhaps it is only the limitation, again, of our vocabulary, but it does

seem that to arrive at a standard there must be agreement and that the process of

agreement necessarily involves compromise, and the more compromise there is the

longer the fall from the ideational ideal.

Perhaps a different image may help us to comprehend the process I envision. The

artist when confronting the work is in correspondence with that work since the time


7/12

he first made the first mark upon the surface of the canvas, from there on in, if the

artist remains faithful to his mission, the process is always one which, in an

increasingly complex way, strives to maintain the organic logic originating with that

mark. There is no other realty other than the intense correspondence going on

between the artist and his, in part, self-emerging product. Somewhere else in this

book I write about the work of Eric Sloane who, himself, describes his initialapproach to the canvas in a way quite similar to this, but then, compromises that

vision by adulterating it, as he himself stated, with the sentimental applications of

the romantic dreamer. He failed as a creative artist, Monet and Munch did not.

Sloan,E.: Wash Day

At one point, Gombrich makes the assumption that the terms abstract an non-

objective are interchangeable. It is extremely unfortunate that a man with the

standing of Gombrich should have lent his name to a very serious

misunderstanding. There have been times, however, that Herbert Read had seemed

to have done the same thing. On one level it is an understandable weakness in the

face of a consensual agreement among the population of commentators that theterm abstract is appropriate to describe the product of a process that rejects

representation. I maintain quite the opposite. What is abstract and what is

abstracted are qualities pre-existing in a source. Be that source the nature of the

world around us and be that nature either the trees, animals, or whatever or the

constructed environment of the nursery. Whatever is on the canvas is an abstraction

be it a painting by Albert Bierstadt or one by Hans Hoffmann. The term non-

objective also carries with it a similar problem. Non-objective paintings are, after

all objects, and as such, themselves cannot be non-objective and in both these

instances it is the assumption that the terms correctly make reference to things

beyond the objects being discussed that gets us into difficulties. We must refocus our

attention on the objects being discussed and to determine from evidences thereinwhat the nature of those objects may be. We must retrace the steps of the artist

himself and in so doing we might possibly discover why artists like Albert Pinkham

Ryder, Paul Czanne and Vincent Van Gogh struggled so passionately to form out of

their sensate experiences images that spoke more truthfully about their creative

visions than any of the classical approaches could have done. They would have failed

as creative artists had they accepted the limitations imposed by consensus.


8/12

Bierstadt,A.: Mountain Landscape

Hoffman,H. Bananas

As a step in that direction I have created a series of non-objective puzzles

designed to approximate the process of the creative artist when making an image.

Some explanation of these can be found on the web site www.tcp.com.mt

Gombrich attempts to further describe his position by stating that he has found

some works to be like color music, and states by way of example canvasses byKandinsky that are really pleasing, just as there are fugues of shapes by Mondrian

and Nicholson which command respect and interest. My goodness, what a pitiable

statement! We should applaud his efforts, of course, but the inadequate conception,

its infantilism, is so apparent that it is quite nearly embarrassing to point out that he

hasnt reached the level of understanding where he can admit that a work of

graphic art or music is quite beyond pleasure, although it may be pleasant, and

far beyond respect which suggests approval of a standard, and furthest of all
http://www.tcp.com.mt/http://www.tcp.com.mt/


9/12

from interest which places the work on a level quite beneath that of the observer

where, in point of fact, a work of art worthy of the name is an awesome construct

not at all merely interesting. One leaves Gombrich, as respectable as he is, with

the feeling that he has yet to have experienced, sensually experienced, a work of art.

Kandinsky,W: Gold, Red,& Blue

My point of view toward works of art Ive not initially understood and which may

even have offended me is that it is my duty as both critic and lay observer to try

with some degree of ardent desperation to fathom what I presume the image maker

had created with some purposeful intent to bring into form some communicable

image he had, at some level already understood. While it does not always happen

that way, when it does, it is a joy. There are, however, to end on a note of

reconciliation, canvases, which do, as the earlier Gombrich comments tells us, seemso facile, and in their facility so pretentious, as to be tolerated only with impatience,

such as, I find, the work of Paul Shapiro and of Kirk Hughey which represent the

comic attempt of the blind man to walk with knowledge and certainty in the world

of the sighted. In fact, extending that analogy, the work of Michael Naranjo, a San

Juan Pueblo Indian, who now possesses no eyes , whose eyes had been the victim of

the Korean conflict, is far more worthy and knowledgeable than either of those two

charlatans. The patience required, I imagine, is related to how the worm turns, if, in

these cases, it turns at all.


10/12

Shapiro,P. recent works

Hughey,K. three paintings


11/12

Naranjo, Michael: Eagle Dancer

The worthiness of Michael Naranjos work lies in the abundant evidence that he

has put into the production of his work all the spiritual energy and carnal

knowledge he possesses in order to complete a statement he wishes to make about

himself and the world in which he exists. It is my contention that Naranjo wouldhave done so even if his work had been non-objective as that of Shapiro and

Hughey.

Both Shapiro and Hughey have successfully vacuumed their works of significant

meaning, significant meaning in terms of creative effort, and, as it were, offered up

an ice cream cone with three scoops and no flavor. I should add, at this point, that

in the work of say, Jean-Paul Riopelle, and Sam Scott, which are mainly, also, non-

objective there is substance.


12/12

Jean-Paul Riopelle: Green Abstraction

Sam Scott: Flaming Yucca

Documents

In the Atlantic Monhly of April