Clement Greenberg vs. Harold Rosenberg

Clement Greenberg vs. Harold Rosenberg

After World War II, the United States became the center of global interest in the world of western art. Specifically, America was the first to pioneer in abstract expressionism; an art movement that was rather unusual, because it went against many rules that were laid out by the previous great masters of art. Abstract expressionism was best known for “spontaneous” creation, meaning that the artist did not previously plan the layout of the painting, but instead, poured their soul onto the canvas. Clement Greenberg and Harold Rosenberg were two critics who contributed greatly to the success of abstract expressionism. Greenberg argues that there is logic behind abstract expressionism and that it is not really spontaneous. On the other hand, Rosenberg believes that abstract expressionism was spontaneous; that the painter was expressing a moment on canvas rather than an actual object. One can argue that there is obvious logic behind abstract expressionism, and therefore it is not spontaneously created.

Harold Rosenberg was an existentialist, meaning that he believed that humans are entirely free (free from God) and are responsible for their own fate. His existentialist stance correlates well with his argument on abstract expressionism, because when the abstract expressionist paints, they free themselves by the ideals of traditional art and simply take ‘action’; live in the moment of creation on canvas. Rosenberg writes, “The big moment came when it was decided to paint… just to PAINT. The gesture on the canvas was a gesture of liberation, from Value- political, aesthetic, moral.” This clearly shows the influence of existentialism on Rosenberg’s critic and view of art. Rosenberg believes that when the artist paints, they are liberating themselves from all constraints and rules set out previously; it is not the picture that is important but the act. According to Rosenberg, this act is spontaneous because as he said that when the...