Clement Greenberg or Harold Rosenberg? Who was right?


Action/Abstraction: Pollock, De Kooning, and American Art, 1940-1976 (Jewish Museum). This is a magnificent artbook enriched by breakthrough studies on the most important movement in post-war American art, namely Abstract Expressionism (and its offshoots like color-field painting). Based on the intellectual rivalry between the two most famous critics of the period, Clement Greenberg (the advocate of abstraction, who insisted on the importance of the work of art versus the creative process, abstract art being the only valid modern form of art) and Harold Rosenberg (who coined the expression "action painting" in a 1952 article in Artnews and to whom what counted was the act of creating, more than the end product) it enables the reader to discover some of the most canonical works of the movement, by De Kooning, Pollock, Newman and many others, lavishly illustrated.

The book accompanies an exhibition held at the Jewish Museum in NYC and is a trove of information and documents on the roots, the influences, the governing ideas, the artists' personalities and their reactions to the various opinions stated by Greenberg and Rosenberg on their art but also on the state of contemporary culture.

The reproductions of facsimile of letters are especially interesting, such as the ones Clyfford Still sent to Harold Rosenberg, first urging him to get into art criticism and then condemning him for doing so ("I am deeply disappointed" he ends up writing).

A landmark exhibition enlightened by this rich catalogue (a highlight is Irving Sandler's article on the convergences and divergences between Greenberg and Rosenberg)which I strongly recommend.