Barry Schwabsky ABSOLUTE ZERO ‘With a speed that still seems amazing’, wrote Clement Greenberg some sixty years ago, ‘one of the most epochal transformations in the history of art was accomplished’: the arrival of abstract art. This was, in the eyes of Greenberg and many others, not simply one new possibility added to the rest, but the one that would inevitably come to dominate: an art uniquely answerable to ‘the underlying tendencies of the age’. Today, the transformation seems less epochal. Artists, critics and theorists are more likely to point to Marcel Duchamp’s discovery of the readymade than to the advent of abstraction as the really amazing transformative leap in art in the early twentieth century. Good abstract painting and sculpture is still being produced, it might be conceded, but only in the same way that, for Greenberg, ‘good landscapes, still lifes and torsos will still be turned out’ under the reign of abstraction. Step into the contemporary wing of any museum and you will see far more representational art, in the form of photographs, videos and installations—or even more or less traditional representational painting— than you will abstraction. Has the great adventure of abstraction faded with the century that gave birth to it? If so, then we should at least be able to get a historical grip on the phenomenon. We are still far from having such a history at our disposal, but one might hope to find a contribution to it in a book with a title like Pictures of Nothing: Abstract Art Since Pollock. The volume itself is a glossy, heavy-weight production, with copious illustrations of the many works discussed. Its text has been transcribed from the 2003 A. W. Mellon Lectures given at the National Gallery of Art in Washington by the former chief curator of the Museum of Modern Art, Kirk Varnedoe. There is thus considerable new left review 44 mar apr 2007 143 review Kirk Varnedoe, Pictures of Nothing: Abstract Art Since Pollock Princeton University Press: Princeton and London 2006, $45, hardback 297 pp, 0 691 12678 X review 144 nlr 44 experience behind these lectures, and considerable institutional weight; the annual Mellon Lectures have produced some landmark, and often very popular, contributions to the literature of art, from Kenneth Clark’s The Nude and E. H. Gombrich’s Art and Illusion in the 1950s to Arthur C. Danto’s After the End of Art and John Golding’s Paths to the Absolute in more recent years. Varnedoe himself was an energetic and highly influential figure in the American art world. A charismatic lecturer (and rugby player), he was born in 1946 to a wealthy family in Savannah, Georgia; his grandfather had been the city’s mayor, his father a stockbroker. Varnedoe was educated at Williams College, which has produced an unusual number of today’s prominent museum curators and directors (in his foreword, the National Gallery’s director, Earl A. Powell iii, recalls their encounters ‘in the undergraduate classrooms and on the muddy playing fields’ of the college); at Stanford, under Albert Elsen; and in Paris, studying Rodin. An early contribution was ‘The Ruins of the Tuileries, 1871–1883’, a social-historical account of Impressionism centred around the charred remains of the royal palace after the Commune. Varnedoe began curating while teaching in New York in the 1970s. His early exhibitions suggest an eye for undervalued artists and schools, such as the lesser-known Impressionist Gustave Caillebotte, or finde-siècle painting from Scandinavia. His collaboration with William Rubin at moma produced the contentious ‘Primitivism’ exhibition in 1984. As Rubin’s chosen successor, Varnedoe was named chief curator of painting and sculpture at the Museum in 1988. He opened the new decade with the massive ‘High and Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture’ (organized in collaboration with Adam Gopnik, who contributes a preface to Pictures of Nothing) and continued with major retrospectives of such post-war American artists as Pollock, Johns and Twombly. In 2001, already ill with cancer, Varnedoe stepped down from moma to take up a post at Princeton, where he devoted himself primarily to preparing the Mellon Lectures. Varnedoe must from the beginning have intended these as a summation of sorts. There is for this reason a terrible poignancy to what would otherwise have been the standard disclaimer issued at the start of the last lecture in the series, when he says, ‘I am so painfully aware of how much has gone unsaid, and how much I would still like to say’; all the more so as he then goes on to quote Rutger Hauer’s words in Blade Runner—‘All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.’ For all that, there is nothing of the valedictory about Varnedoe’s account of abstraction. He urges us to forget the ‘wearisome habit’ of always seeing ourselves ‘at the end of something rather than possibly near the beginning’, the way ‘so many scholars and critics—and artists too—are accustomed to thinking that the party was over before they got there, and that everything has to be described in terms of the ruination of a former set of ideals’. In schwabsky: Abstract Art 145 review fact, Varnedoe does not much like the extremism of abstraction’s beginnings either, and seems most comfortable in media res. At the beginning of his first lecture, he explains that he will be speaking about the abstract art of ‘the last fifty years or so’ and that the payoff to this discussion would be an answer to the question, ‘Why abstract art?’ But there is something odd about the promise to offer an explanation for the existence of abstract art that has little or nothing to say about its originators—about what artists as geographically far-flung and ideologically diverse as Piet Mondrian, Kasimir Malevich and Arthur Dove might have had in mind when they began painting abstractly in the second decade of the last century. Varnedoe has little sympathy for the origins of abstraction; these amount in his view to ‘a culture of cryptoreligious, timeless certainties, associated closely with the new monolithic collectivism in society’—a breathtaking simplification that allows him to dismiss both the theosophical and the revolutionary aspirations of the preWorld War ii abstractionists at once. Strangely for a book whose subtitle cites Jackson Pollock, Varnedoe does not dwell for long on the great American Abstract Expressionist—nor has he much to add on Pollock’s New York School colleagues, such as Rothko, Newman and de Kooning. Pollock seems to matter most for the way his art might be said to draw a line between abstraction’s past and its future—the way it made what Varnedoe characterizes as ‘the math-based, systemic art’ of European Constructivists like Richard Paul Lohse look ‘very retrograde’ and thereby cleared the ground for the Minimalism of the sixties. (The admiration of arch-Minimalist Donald Judd for Lohse then becomes very hard to explain, however.) Varnedoe is also drawn to Pollock as an excuse to air his annoyance with what he calls the art-historical left who believe, he claims, ‘that Abstract Expressionism like Pollock’s succeeded because of a cia plot’. Varnedoe is thinking mainly of the critics Max Kozloff and Eva Cockcroft, who in 1973 and 1974 wrote about Abstract Expressionism as, in Cockcroft’s words, a ‘weapon of the Cold War’; and of the Canadian art historian Serge Guilbaut, who in 1983 published a book with an attention-grabbing title, How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art: Abstract Expressionism, Freedom and the Cold War. Never mind that these writers never said anything as simple-minded as Varnedoe implies; for him, the real point is that Abstract Expressionism could never have been effectively used as propaganda because its meaning is just too indeterminate. Looking at Pollock, ‘some are going to feel that this work is about savage energy, others about lyricism; some will think it dances, others that it explodes; etcetera, etcetera’. That abstraction is amenable to facile interpretation is beyond a doubt, even without Varnedoe’s exemplification of it; but for him, its whole effort is to evade ‘a monolithic social solidarity that would limit the potential meanings produced by the art.’ review 146 nlr 44 According to Varnedoe, the best American abstract art achieved its freedom by shedding the weight of ideas that burdens European art: Pollock, he says, offers ‘a translation or extrapolation of Surrealism . . . that leaves behind the earlier style’s ideological baggage and its metaphysical claims’, and Frank Stella does the same favour for Constructivism. It does not seem to occur to Varnedoe that he is himself using this art as support for an ideology, namely the one that, in American political terminology, is called liberalism; that precisely in purporting to refute its usefulness as propaganda, he is making a sort of propaganda out of it. Yet that art should be something of the order of propaganda or advertising is evident in the particulars of Varnedoe’s taste. If he prefers a painting by Frank Stella to one by Josef Albers, this not only has something to do with his perception that the Stella painting is, one might say, manlier than the Albers—‘powerful and aggressive’ and ‘as big as a man’, in contrast to the ‘demure’, ‘staid’ work of Albers—but also that it is more attention-grabbing, that it is ‘jazzy and bold’: qualities one would seek in a billboard. But if the paintings are advertisements for individualism, will and contrariety, then such traits may be apt. Even Dan Flavin’s typically austere, delicate fluorescent light sculpture can eventually be redeemed by turning ‘loud and extravagant . . . indeed, imperious’. In the wake of Abstract Expressionism, neo-Dada and Pop played up art’s potential kinship with advertising for all it was worth. Varnedoe is fascinated by the way Pop artists and many others had such an easy time making fun of abstraction: Lichtenstein reproducing the pattern on the cover of a child’s composition book and thereby making a visual pun on the look of a Pollock painting, for instance; or making a comic-book-graphic rendering of a big splashy brushstroke, of the sort one might see in a work by de Kooning; or painting the sole of a sneaker in a way that recalls the geometrical patterning in a Vasarely painting. Varnedoe seems to believe that such gags successfully puncture the pretensions of abstract artists—whether to the ‘ineffable’ and ‘soulful’, in the case of the American Abstract Expressionists, or to a ‘radically democratic’ visual Esperanto with European geometrical abstraction. Maybe, but more to the point is Lichtenstein’s thinking about the relation between representation and abstraction: that abstraction is always representable because representation is always based on an abstract code. In a sense, for Lichtenstein, the early abstractionists were right to believe they had discovered the distilled essence of art—and for that very reason had to be wrong in believing that abstraction could mark a radically new beginning or offer any hope for transcendence. It was only ever going to be able to repeat the gist of what art and design had always already been. Varnedoe’s inclination to shrug his shoulders over questions of the definition of abstraction can be a problem. He cites Philip Leider’s argument schwabsky: Abstract Art 147 review that we should discriminate between ‘abstract’ art and what he called the ‘literal’ art of the Minimalists. He sees why the opposition between these two approaches was a crucial issue for the art of the sixties—why something ‘noble, serene and ethereal, a lushly beautiful statement of humane values’ such as an abstract painting by Morris Louis had to seem irreconcilable with ‘a work that is intentionally dumb and banal, whose only virtue is its quiddity, its insistent “thereness”’, such as a sculpture by Robert Morris, Carl Andre or Donald Judd. But he does not seem to grasp that, in proclaiming that ‘the right choice . . . was to go for Morris, Andre and Judd’, he is speaking of an art that has, so to speak, passed through abstraction and come out the other side, not back into an art of representation but to an art of things in themselves. Yet, neither ‘pictures’ nor ‘of nothing’, they are no longer quite what was understood as abstraction, and closer than most of the Minimalists ever intended to the heritage of Duchamp. The things that interested the Minimalists were simple, almost identityless things—Carl Andre’s railroad ties and copper plates. But even such simple objects have uses, histories, associations, so it is not surprising that the first Minimalist works were soon followed by ones that turned such associations into metaphors—among the examples Varnedoe cites are Joel Shapiro’s tiny cast-iron houses—or that put the potential uses of things into operation, as Scott Burton’s furniture sculpture does. Varnedoe insists that there are other disciples of Minimalism who hold fast to ‘imageless abstraction’, such as Robert Smithson and Richard Serra, but Smithson’s ‘non-sites’ are rich with paradoxes about representation—they do not abjure it. In the case of Serra, it makes more sense to speak of abstraction: as Varnedoe says, he ‘reintroduces the idea of composition’ that Andre and the others had renounced. It is as if Serra were bending Minimalism back towards its abstract sources rather than falling easefully forward towards its surprisingly (and perhaps disappointingly) poetic future. Looking back to his venerable predecessor as a Mellon lecturer, Varnedoe speaks of wanting to ‘have an argument for abstraction as good as Gombrich’s argument for illusionism’. Gombrich’s history of illusionism explained how pictorial representation developed, but it never claimed to explain what gave the art that employed it aesthetic value; one might agree that representation had progressed between the time of, say, Giotto and that of Michelangelo, but this would not necessarily be to say that art had progressed. A strong component in the rise of abstract art was the desire to catch hold of this specifically artistic quintessence—the desire for an art that would be nothing but art, whatever that turns out to be. As Ad Reinhardt put it, ‘The one object of fifty years of abstract art is to present art-as-art and as nothing else . . . making it purer and emptier, more absolute and exclusive.’ Perhaps the unexpected lesson of abstraction is the discovery that this pure, unadulterated art cannot review 148 nlr 44 be distilled, that art only ever appears as an admixture—with pedagogy, or personal emotion, or propaganda, or whatever. Gombrich saw pictorial representation as involving a process of ‘making and matching’—simple representational schemata could be continually compared with their real-life referents and modified to attain greater and greater verisimilitude. Abstraction, one might say, retains the schemata but eliminates the process of matching them to any referent. For the historian the problem arises that, without the matching, one no longer knows what impetus to development remains. There might be a process by which abstraction is gradually attained, but once that has happened, is there anything left but repetition? If not, one might be able to write a chronicle of the successive recurrences of abstraction, but not a history. For Reinhardt, this was precisely the point: ‘The one direction left for fine or abstract art today is in the painting of the same one form over and over again’, creating the proper art for what he proclaimed as ‘the true museum’s soullessness, timelessness, airlessness and lifelessness.’ Reinhardt, strangely enough, is never mentioned in Pictures of Nothing, perhaps because Varnedoe was unwilling to confront such an implacable vision of the static essence of abstraction. But rather than attempting to forge a view of abstraction as a project capable of development, he elides the problem by presenting it as a moment within the development of representation, the ‘constant cycling between representation and abstraction, between drawing forms out of the world and adding new forms to it’. He traces, for instance, the employment of mirrors in sculpture, from a mirrored cube made by Robert Morris in 1965 to Jeff Koons’s famous stainless steel Rabbit, 1986—from ‘a neutral, formal element’ to ‘a symbol for the hard sheen and glamour of American consumer culture’. In such ways, he explains, ‘abstract art, while seeming insistently to reject and destroy representation, in fact steadily adds to its possibilities.’ Pictures of Nothing is bound to disappoint anyone hoping for a strong response to the question, ‘Why abstract art?’ or ‘What is abstract art good for?’—let alone an account of the project of representation in European art as good as that of Gombrich. Instead, as undoubtedly befits a writer whose credo is that ‘works of art in their quirkiness tend to resist generalities’, the book ends up as little more than a sequence of observations on works by a number of artists whose oeuvre Varnedoe considers of value, along with a few lesser figures whose limitations serve to set into relief the virtues of the chosen few. Gopnik’s preface to Pictures of Nothing points to the similarities between Varnedoe’s trajectory and those of Simon Schama, in history and art history, and Stephen Greenblatt’s, in literature: from socialhistorical contextualization, to neo-Darwinian notions of change through individual variation, to the dissolution of cultural processes into myriad schwabsky: Abstract Art 149 review particularities and micro-choices. But isn’t the resistance of particulars to generalization one of the most platitudinous generalizations of all? One might be sympathetic to the idea that, rather than representing a single, developing project, abstract art is ‘generated precisely from giving the greatest vent to those things that make us individually different and separate from each other’, yet still wonder: why does Varnedoe’s triumphant conclusion come so easily, and feel like such a let-down? Perhaps for the same reason that the ‘modern, liberal, secular society’ of which abstract art is, in his view, the emblem, seems swept by malaise even when it claims to have prevailed at the ‘end of history’. From the Russian Futurists’ ‘Victory Over the Sun’ onward, abstract art has been impelled by desires of a greater than individual scope—destructive and creative on a collective scale. If cultures still need these desires undreamt of by liberalism, then abstract art as a total project—or at least a more vivid memory of it than emerges in Varnedoe’s pages—may have a future yet.