Carmen Marero says...
Hey, lol.You really want someone to do your homework for you, eh?
Well, scanning this article: http://www.tau.ac.il/arts/projects/PUB/a… I'm gathering that Greenberg saw Manet as the first modern example of a painter acknowledging -- actually emphasizing -- the fact that a painting is, after all a flat object.Greenberg was, as were many in his circle, a nut for flatness; it was, according to him and many others, the difference between modern art and what came before.That is, flatness as opposed to the preoccupation with creating an illusion of space and depth.
Now many would contend that ALL the great painters were not only aware (duh) that a canvas is flat, but played with the dichotomy of making at once an illusion AND a physical object which was flat.That is, they were well aware of the abstract elements within their paintings of observed or imagined nature -- they were aware and played them up.But, this is a different question.And I suppose Greenberg would say -- perhaps rightfully -- that it is not until true abstraction that the flatness of painting was fully exploited.And yet, he sees the seeds of this exploitation in Manet.
Posted on November 29, 2010
Simply put, How does Greenberg think is self-reflexive Manet? Specific examples from Bar at the Folies Bergère and lunch on the grass Would be nice.