A N G E L A K I journalofthetheoreticalhumanities volume 7number1april2002 hecollectedartcriticismofMichaelFried Tappearedin1998withthetitleArtand Objecthood. Thecenterpieceofthebookisthe essaybythesamename,FriedÕsmostfamous statementregardingtheartofthe1960s.Inthis essay,Friedhadarticulatedacritiqueofthe movetowardÒminimalismÓor,inFriedÕsown preferredterm,ÒliteralismÓinart.Whereas paintinginvolvedtheillusionofspaceandthe relationofparts,literalismaimedataunitary, three-dimensionalobject.Theseliteralobjects wouldnotbesculptures,however;theywould henrystaten haveawholenessandsinglenessofÒshapeÓ inspiredbyrecentpainting,abovealltheworkof FrankStella,thathadreducedpaintingtoits mostminimal,two-dimensionalelementsand CLEMENTGREENBERG, foregroundedtheshapeofthesupport.Thisnew RADICALPAINTING, kindofpainting,DonaldJuddremarkedatthe time,ÒoverpowerstheearlierpaintingÓbecauseit ANDTHELOGICOF isÒnearlyanentity,onethingÓ;butitalso exhaustedthespecificartofpainting,withits MODERNISM restrictiontotwodimensions,andnecessitated literalismÕsopeningtothreedimensions. viableinthecontemporarycrisis,apaintinghad Totheargumentsoftheminimalists/literalists toÒdefeatorsuspenditsown[literal]object- FriedrespondedthatliteralismwastheÒnegation hoodÓbytheassertionofpictorialshape(ibid.). ofartÓbecauseitwas,inthetermsofacomplex IntheintroductiontothecollectedworkFried argumentthatIcannotreproducehere,nothing updates,butfundamentallyreaffirms,thejudg- morethanÒanewgenreoftheaterÓ(153).In mentsaboutcontemporaryartatwhichhehad FriedÕsview,itwasimperativeforpaintingto arrivedwhenhewrotetheearlierwork,andnotes fendofftheliteralistchallengebyobservingthe thathestoppedwritingartcriticisminthe1970s distinctionbetweenliteral andpictorial shape, becausehewasoutofsympathywiththedirec- thusdisprovingthechargethattheartofpaint- tionarthadtakenandsawnopointincontinu- ingwasnowexhausted.TheshapeofwhichJudd ingtoreiteratehisopposition. spokewasÒshapeasafundamentalpropertyof Just as Art and Objecthood appeared, [literal]objectsÓ;butthissenseofshapewas however,Artforum(Sept.1998)carriedareview distinctfromthetypeofshapewithwhichthe byFriedofmonochromepaintingsbytheNew painterisconcerned,Òshapeasamediumof YorkpainterJosephMarioni.Inthisremarkable paintingÓ(151)ÐÒpictorialÓshape.Inorderfor documentFrieddeclared,againstallexpectation, thespecificityoftheartofpaintingtoremain thatMarioniÕsmonochromeswereÒpaintingsin ISSN0969-725Xprint/ISSN1469-2899online/02/010073-16©2002Taylor&FrancisLtdandtheEditorsofAngelaki DOI:10.1080/0969725022014206 5 7 3 radicalpainting thefullestandmostexaltedsenseoftheword,Ó thatmighthavesurprisedGreenberg(asitdoes andwentontothisconclusion: Fried).RadicalPaintinghastakenwidelydiver- gentformsinthecourseofthetwodecadesIhave ÉIconsiderMarionitobeoneoftheforemost beenfollowingit,andIwillnottrytosurveythis paintersatworkanywhereatthepresent,and variety;butMarioniis,alongwithhisformer thegreatandthought-provokingsurprisehis workhasgivenmeisnotonlythatittran- collaborator, the Cologne painter GŸnther scendsthepreviouslimitationsofthemono- Umberg,themosttheoreticallymindedofthe chromebutalsothatitisthefirstbodyofwork group,andhispaintingsmanifestinanexemplary IhaveseenthatsuggeststhattheMinimalist waytherelationofRadicalPaintingtothereduc- interventionmighthavehadproductiveconse- tionistÒlogicofmodernism.Ó1 quencesforpaintingofthehighestambition. Now,whereasGreenberginsomefamous Simplyput,theMinimalisthypostatizationof statementsdeclaredflatness theirreducible objecthoodÉseemstohaveledinMarioniÕs elementintheartofpaintingthatmodernism arttoanew,moredeeplyfoundedintegration haduncovered,Marionifocuseshismeditation ofcolor,amateriality,andsupport,whichisto onthequestionofarticulatedpaintorpainted saytoanaffirmationofthecontinuedvitality color Ðnotpaintasitexistsinthetubebutasit ofpaintingthathassomethingofthecharacter ofanewbeginning.(149) existswhenappliedtoaparticularsupportbya particularmeansofapplication.2 Heusesacrylic, WhoisMarioni,andwhathashewroughtthatit appliedwitharollertolinenonawooden couldcauseatheoristasbrilliantandpolemical stretcher,alwaysinatop-downdirection,twoto asFriedtochangehismindinsuchafunda- sixcoatsofvaryinghues,butsuchastoproduce mentalwayaboutthepossibilitiesofmono- apredominantlyunitarycolor-image,eachcoat chromeÐatypeofworkthat,untilhesaw monochromeandformingamoreorlessall-over MarioniÕswork,Friedassociatedwithmereliter- skin,withthetextureofthelinenvisibletovary- alismandconsideredÒavehicleforahackneyed ingdegreesthroughthepaintorattheedges.His theoretical/ideologicalstanceÓ(ibid.)?Evenmore aestheticaimistocreateatotaleffectoutofthe important:couldFriedberight inhisassessment relationbetweenthespecifichuesheattains,the ofMarioniÕsachievement,and,ifso,whatwould textureofthepaint,therelationofthepaintto thismeanforthestandardnarrativesabout thelinen,andthesizeandshapeofthepicture modernisminpainting,and,morebroadly,for support;thissenseofthetotalphysicalpresence oursenseofthefateofpainting(whoseÒdeathÓ ofthepaintingiswhatFriedreferstowhenhe hasbeenroutinelydeclaredfordecadesnow)and mentionstheeffectonMarioniÕsworkofthe ofartasawholeintheeraofpostmodernity? Òminimalistintervention.ÓHowever,Marioniis Iwillgiveaquickintroductoryaccountof veryinsistentthathispaintingsshouldnotcross Marioniandhiswork,thenturntothemetacriti- thelineintoliteralnessandbecomeliteralistor calissuesraisedbyhisworkanditsassociated minimalistÒpaintedobjectsÓ;theyremain,and theoreticalapparatus.Marionihasbeenlivingand aretobejudgedaestheticallyas,paintings,and paintinginNewYorksincetheearly1970s,but theirpredominanteffectisofbreathtakingcolor. hiscareerformanyyearswasmainlyinEurope, ThecrucialfigureinMarioniÕssenseofthe especiallyGermany.Hisworkhasspecialsignifi- physicalpresenceofthepaintingaspainting,as canceinmyeyesbecauseitisnotanisolated structureofpaintplussupport,is,however,not phenomenon,butpartofalooselystructured anyminimalistbutthepainterRobertRyman, movementthathasshownunderdifferentnames withoutwhoseworkitisimpossibletounder- buthasmostconsistentlycalleditselfÒRadical standMarioniÕsproject.Schematically,then, Painting,Óandwhichhasbeenquietlycarryingon RadicalPaintingofthesortdonebyMarioniis theprojectofÒreductiontotheessenceÓoftheart modernismasanalyzedbyGreenbergÕslogic, ofpaintingthatClementGreenberg,andFriedin transformedbytheachievementofRyman,and hiswake,didsomuchtotheorizesomedecades turnedtowardtheexplorationoftheentirespec- agoÐalthoughthisprojecthasgoneinadirection trumofpaintedcolor. 7 4 staten deduve’sinterpretationofgreenberg isticthatistheessenceandthisonecharacteris- ticcannotbesharedwithanyotherart.Byparity GreenbergÕsnarrativeaboutmodernismhas ofargument,onewouldhavetoconcludethat recentlybeenmassivelyre-examinedandrecon- soundisinessentialtopoetrybecauseitisshared 3 textualizedbyThierryDeDuve. DeDuvehas withmusic,andthehistoryofmodernistpoetry, heightenedthephilosophicalstakesinthisdiscus- withitsrecurrenttendencytowardpuremusical- sionbyextensiveanalysisoftheconflicting ity,wouldbeanunaccountablemistake. KantianelementsinGreenbergÕsproblematicÐ Inanycase,thiswastheconclusionatwhich thefactthatforGreenbergthebeautyofapaint- Greenbergarrived,aconclusionthat,onDe ingalwayshadtobeevaluatedbyaKantianjudg- DuveÕsaccount,ledhimintoanintolerable mentoftaste,whileontheotherhandtheÒlogicÓ contradiction.Forifmereflatnessistheessence ofmodernismthatGreenbergequallyderived oftheartofpainting,then,asGreenberg from(hisreadingof)Kantimpliedthatjudgments remarked in 1962 in ÒAfter Abstract oftastewerenolongernecessary.Greenberg Expressionism,Óastretched,unpaintedcanvas wroteinhis1960essayÒModernistPaintingÓthat couldbeexperiencedasapaintingor,inthe ÒtheessenceofModernism,Óasobservablein slightlyweasallytermthatheactuallyused,a Kant,ÒthefirstrealModernist,ÓlayÒintheuseof Òpicture,ÓÒthoughnotnecessarilyasasuccessful characteristicmethodsofadisciplinetocriticize one.Ó5 AccordingtoDeDuve(andIwas thedisciplineitself,notinordertosubvertitbut surprisedtofindthisout),nooneeverpresented inordertoentrenchitmorefirmlyinitsareaof amereunpaintedcanvasasapainting;mono- 4 competenceÓ(85). Hencemodernisminart chromeorquasi-monochromewasthustheclos- meantthateachartwasconcernedwithÒallthat estthingtothelimit-conditionoftheartof wasuniqueinthenatureofitsmedium,ÓandÒthe paintingatwhichmodernisminfactarrived,Òthe taskofself-criticismbecametoeliminatefromthe zerodegreeofpaintingÓ(217).Butwhen specificeffectsofeachartanyandeveryeffect Greenbergsawmonochromepaintings,rather thatmightconceivablybeborrowedfromorby thanthinkingthattheyhadarrivedatthe themediumofanyotherart.Thuswouldeachart essence,hedismissedthemasÒfamiliarand berenderedÔpureÕÉÓ(86).Thequestforpurity, slick.ÓMonochrome,hejudged,hadbecome inthecaseofpainting,yieldedthereductionto ÒalmostovernightanothertamingconventionÓ mereflatness: thatÒautomaticallydeclareditselftobeartÓ(De Itwasthestressingoftheineluctableflatness Duve251). ofthesurfacethatremainedÉmorefunda- Ifaworkautomaticallydeclaresitselftobe mentalthananythingelsetotheprocessesby art,thennoactofaestheticjudgmentisrequired whichpictorialartcriticizedanddefineditself fromtheviewer;yetGreenbergwasirrevocably underModernism.Forflatnessalonewas committedtothenecessityofaestheticjudgment. uniqueandexclusivetopictorialart.The DeDuvecomments: enclosingshapeofthepicturewasalimiting condition,ornorm,thatwassharedwiththe Onceanunpaintedcanvascanbecalleda artofthetheater;colorwasanormanda pictureorapainting,thenitisautomatically meanssharednotonlywiththetheater,but calledart.Withthedismissalofthevery alsowithsculpture.É[F]latnesswasthe lastexpendableconvention