Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Clement Greenberg ve Modernist Biçimciliğin Diyalektiği: Kökenler, Hakimiyet ve Eleştirel Miras

Year 2025, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 288 - 303, 01.08.2025
https://doi.org/10.58850/bodrum.1670023

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Clement Greenberg’in modernist biçimcilik kuramını kökenleri, gelişimi, etkisi ve eleştirileriyle birlikte çok yönlü bir perspektiften analiz etmek amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmanın kapsamı, biçimcilik kuramının tarihsel öncüllerinden başlayarak Greenberg’in temel argümanlarının gelişimini, soyut dışavurumculuk gibi akımlar üzerindeki yönlendirici rolü ile hakimiyet süreci ve sonrasında aldığı temel eleştirileri içermektedir. Çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemleri kullanılmış; Greenberg’in metinleri, ilgili literatürdeki temel argümanlar ve dönemin kavramsal yapıları ile karşılaştırmalı analiz yaklaşımıyla yorumlanmış ve çözümlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, Greenberg’in medyum özgüllüğü, düzlemsellik ve tarihsel ilerleme gibi kavramlarla şekillendirdiği biçimci kuramın, modern sanatın algılanışında ve kanonunun oluşumunda belirleyici bir etki yarattığı saptanmıştır. Ancak bu kuramın içerik, bağlam ve alternatif sanatsal ifadeleri dışlaması nedeniyle indirgemecilik, tarihselcilik ve seçkincilik gibi önemli eleştirilere hedef olduğu da tespit edilmiştir. Kuramın bu sınırlılıkları, onun mirasının hem kurucu hem de sorunlu yönlerini içeren diyalektik doğasını belirlemiştir. Çalışma, Greenberg’in sanat tarihindeki yerinin ve karmaşık mirasının, ancak faaliyet gösterdiği dönemin entelektüel ve kültürel koşulları dikkate alınarak anlaşılabileceğini vurgulamaktadır. Bu analiz, onun düşüncesini bütüncül ve bağlamsal bir çerçevede sunarak ilgili literatüre katkı sağlamayı hedeflemektedir.

Ethical Statement

Etik kurul onayı gerektiren bir çalışma değildir.

References

  • Bell, C. (2005). Art. Chatto & Windus.
  • Berry, K. (1995). A personal view on Greenberg and Kandinsky. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 29(4), 95-103. https://doi.org/10.2307/3333294
  • Clark, T. J. (1982). Clement Greenberg’s theory of art. Critical Inquiry, 9(1), 139-156. https://doi.org/10.1086/448192
  • Droste, M. (2002). Bauhaus, 1919-1933. Taschen.
  • Foster, H. (1996). The return of the real: The avant-garde at the end of the century. MIT Press.
  • Foster, S. C. (1975). Clement Greenberg: Formalism in the ‘40s and ‘50s. Art Journal, 35(1), 20-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/775837
  • Frascina, F. (Ed.). (1985). Pollock and after: The critical debate. Routledge.
  • Gautier, T. (2005). Mademoiselle de Maupin. Penguin Books.
  • Greenberg, C. (1940). Towards a newer Laocoon. Partisan Review, 7(4), 296-310.
  • Greenberg, C. (1965). Art and culture: Critical essays. Beacon Press.
  • Greenberg, C. (1971). Necessity of “Formalism.” New Literary History, 3(1), 171-175. https://doi.org/10.2307/468386
  • Greenberg, C. (1982). Modernist painting. In F. Frascina & C. Harrison (Eds.), Modern art and modernism: A critical anthology (s. 5-10). Harper & Row.
  • Groys, B. (2010). Clement Greenberg’s “art and culture”, 1961. The Burlington Magazine, 152(1284), 179-182. Itten, J. (2014). Design and form: The basic course at the Bauhaus. Wiley.
  • Jachec, N. (1998). Modernism, enlightenment values, and Clement Greenberg. Oxford Art Journal, 21(2), 121-132.
  • Jaffé, H. L. C. (1968). Sonsöz. T. Van Doesburg, Principles of neo-plastic art içinde (s. 69-75). New York Graphic Society.
  • Kandinsky, W. (2021). Nokta ve çizgiden yüzeye (D. N. Çakar, Çev.). Gece Kitaplığı.
  • Kant, I. (2016). Yargı yetisinin eleştirisi (A. Yardımlı, Çev.). İdea Yayınevi.
  • Kantor, S. G. (2002). Alfred H. Barr, Jr. and the intellectual origins of the Museum of Modern Art. MIT Press.
  • Mack, R. D. (1994). Modernist art criticism: Hegemony and decline. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 52(3), 341-348. https://doi.org/10.2307/431432
  • Moholy-Nagy, L. (1969). Painting, photography, film. Lund Humphries.
  • Platt, S. N. (1985). Formalism and American art criticism in the 1920s. Art Criticism, 2(2), 69-84.
  • Platt, S. N. (1989). Clement Greenberg in the 1930s: A new perspective on his criticism. Art Criticism, 5(3), 47-64.
  • Platt, S. N. (1998). Alfred Barr, formalism, and the modern museum. Archives of American Art Journal, 38(1/2), 11-23. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/499974
  • Riegl, A. (1985). Late Roman art industry (R. Winkes, Ed. ve Çev.). G. Bretschneider.
  • Schechter, M. (2001). Theorizing modernism in art: Puzzles of formalist aesthetics and the heritage of romanticism. Assaph: Studies in Art History, 6, 261-283.
  • Weber, N. F. (1994). Josef Albers: A retrospective. Guggenheim Museum Publications.
  • Winckelmann, J. J. (2011). History of the art of antiquity. Getty Publications. https://www.getty.edu/publications/titles/pdfs/Winckelmann-HistoryArt-v1-v2.pdf
  • Wölfflinn, H. (1973). Sanat tarihinin temel kavramları (H. Örs, Çev.). İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları.

Clement Greenberg and the Dialectic of Modernist Formalism: Origins, Dominance and Critical Legacy

Year 2025, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 288 - 303, 01.08.2025
https://doi.org/10.58850/bodrum.1670023

Abstract

This study aims to analyze Clement Greenberg’s theory of modernist formalism from a multi-faceted perspective, encompassing its origins, development, impact, and critiques. The study scopes formalism’s historical precursors, the evolution of Greenberg’s core arguments, his influential role regarding abstract expressionism, and subsequent criticisms. Employing qualitative methods, Greenberg’s texts and related literature were interpretively analyzed via comparative analysis within the era’s conceptual frameworks. In conclusion, it was determined that Greenberg’s formalist theory, shaped by concepts such as medium specificity, flatness, and historical progression, exerted a decisive influence on the perception of modern art and the formation of its canon. However, it was also found that this theory faced significant criticism for reductionism, historicism, and elitism due to its exclusion of content, context, and alternative artistic expressions. These limitations of the theory defined the dialectical nature of his legacy, encompassing both foundational and problematic aspects. The study emphasizes that Greenberg’s place in art history and his complex legacy can only be understood by considering the intellectual and cultural conditions of the period in which he operated. This analysis aims to contribute to the relevant literature by presenting his thought within a holistic and contextual framework.

References

  • Bell, C. (2005). Art. Chatto & Windus.
  • Berry, K. (1995). A personal view on Greenberg and Kandinsky. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 29(4), 95-103. https://doi.org/10.2307/3333294
  • Clark, T. J. (1982). Clement Greenberg’s theory of art. Critical Inquiry, 9(1), 139-156. https://doi.org/10.1086/448192
  • Droste, M. (2002). Bauhaus, 1919-1933. Taschen.
  • Foster, H. (1996). The return of the real: The avant-garde at the end of the century. MIT Press.
  • Foster, S. C. (1975). Clement Greenberg: Formalism in the ‘40s and ‘50s. Art Journal, 35(1), 20-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/775837
  • Frascina, F. (Ed.). (1985). Pollock and after: The critical debate. Routledge.
  • Gautier, T. (2005). Mademoiselle de Maupin. Penguin Books.
  • Greenberg, C. (1940). Towards a newer Laocoon. Partisan Review, 7(4), 296-310.
  • Greenberg, C. (1965). Art and culture: Critical essays. Beacon Press.
  • Greenberg, C. (1971). Necessity of “Formalism.” New Literary History, 3(1), 171-175. https://doi.org/10.2307/468386
  • Greenberg, C. (1982). Modernist painting. In F. Frascina & C. Harrison (Eds.), Modern art and modernism: A critical anthology (s. 5-10). Harper & Row.
  • Groys, B. (2010). Clement Greenberg’s “art and culture”, 1961. The Burlington Magazine, 152(1284), 179-182. Itten, J. (2014). Design and form: The basic course at the Bauhaus. Wiley.
  • Jachec, N. (1998). Modernism, enlightenment values, and Clement Greenberg. Oxford Art Journal, 21(2), 121-132.
  • Jaffé, H. L. C. (1968). Sonsöz. T. Van Doesburg, Principles of neo-plastic art içinde (s. 69-75). New York Graphic Society.
  • Kandinsky, W. (2021). Nokta ve çizgiden yüzeye (D. N. Çakar, Çev.). Gece Kitaplığı.
  • Kant, I. (2016). Yargı yetisinin eleştirisi (A. Yardımlı, Çev.). İdea Yayınevi.
  • Kantor, S. G. (2002). Alfred H. Barr, Jr. and the intellectual origins of the Museum of Modern Art. MIT Press.
  • Mack, R. D. (1994). Modernist art criticism: Hegemony and decline. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 52(3), 341-348. https://doi.org/10.2307/431432
  • Moholy-Nagy, L. (1969). Painting, photography, film. Lund Humphries.
  • Platt, S. N. (1985). Formalism and American art criticism in the 1920s. Art Criticism, 2(2), 69-84.
  • Platt, S. N. (1989). Clement Greenberg in the 1930s: A new perspective on his criticism. Art Criticism, 5(3), 47-64.
  • Platt, S. N. (1998). Alfred Barr, formalism, and the modern museum. Archives of American Art Journal, 38(1/2), 11-23. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/499974
  • Riegl, A. (1985). Late Roman art industry (R. Winkes, Ed. ve Çev.). G. Bretschneider.
  • Schechter, M. (2001). Theorizing modernism in art: Puzzles of formalist aesthetics and the heritage of romanticism. Assaph: Studies in Art History, 6, 261-283.
  • Weber, N. F. (1994). Josef Albers: A retrospective. Guggenheim Museum Publications.
  • Winckelmann, J. J. (2011). History of the art of antiquity. Getty Publications. https://www.getty.edu/publications/titles/pdfs/Winckelmann-HistoryArt-v1-v2.pdf
  • Wölfflinn, H. (1973). Sanat tarihinin temel kavramları (H. Örs, Çev.). İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları.
There are 28 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Art History, Art Theory
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Erdem Oğuz 0000-0003-3834-889X

Publication Date August 1, 2025
Submission Date April 4, 2025
Acceptance Date July 6, 2025
Published in Issue Year 2025 Volume: 4 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Oğuz, E. (2025). Clement Greenberg ve Modernist Biçimciliğin Diyalektiği: Kökenler, Hakimiyet ve Eleştirel Miras. Bodrum Journal of Art and Design, 4(2), 288-303. https://doi.org/10.58850/bodrum.1670023