Necessityof "Formalism"

Clement
Greenberg
HERE

is thecommonnotionofModernism
as something
hectic,

heated. Thus Irving Howe listsamong the "formalor literary

attributesof modernism"the fact that "Perversity-Which Is
to Say: Surprise, Excitement,Shock, Terror, Affront-Becomes a
Dominant Motif" (Introductionto a collectionof essays by various
hands called The Idea of the Modern [New York, 1967]). A related
notionis that Modernismcan be understoodas an extremeversionof
Romanticism. But a long look at Modernismdoesn't bear out either
notionas a coveringone.
Modernismis as specifica historicalphenomenonas Romanticism
was, but it doesn't representnearlyso specifican attitude,position,or
outlook. Modernism may continue certain aspects of Romanticism,
but it also reactsagainst Romanticismin general-just as in reviving
certain aspects of Classicism it reacts against Classicism in general.
In the context of what is signifiedby termslike Romanticismand
Classicismwhen they are used unhistorically,
Modernism as a whole
distinguishesitself by its inclusiveness,its openness, and also its

It embracesthe conventional
indeterminateness.
polaritiesof literary

and art history;or ratherit abandons them (and in doing so exposes

theirlimitedusefulness). Modernismdefinesitselfin the long run not
as a "movement,"much less a program,but ratheras a kind of bias
or tropism: towards estheticvalue, estheticvalue as such and as an
ultimate. The specificity
of Modernismlies in its being so heightened
a tropismin thisregard.
This more conscious,this almost exacerbatedconcern with esthetic
value emergesin the mid-19thcenturyin responseto an emergency.
The emergencyis perceivedin a growingrelaxationof estheticstandards at the top of Westernsociety,and in the threatthis offersto the
seriouspracticeof art and literature.The Modernistresponseto this
because it takesplace in actual production
emergencybecomeseffective
ratherthan in discourse; in fact,it is more conscious in the practice
of art than it is in discourseor criticism.This responsebeginsto make
a break with many well-triedconventionsand habits, ostensiblya

172

NEW LITERARY HISTORY

radical break. But forthe mostpart is remainsonlyostensiblya break

and only ostensiblyradical. Actually, it's a "dialectical" turn that
worksto maintain or restorecontinuity: a most essentialcontinuity:
continuitywiththe highestestheticstandardsof the past. It's not particularpast styles,manners,or modes that are to be maintainedor restored, but standards,levels of quality. And these levels are to be
preservedin the same way in which theywere achieved in the first
place: by constantrenewal and innovation.
The emergencyhas proved to be a lastingone, and Modernisma
lastingresponseto it. And so far it has been a more or less successful
response. The higher standards of the past have been maintained
in production,whichdoes nothave to mean thatthebestof the past has
been matched in quality in a point-for-point
way; it sufficesthat the
best of Modernistproductionattains a similar qualitative level.
The Modernistpreoccupationwith estheticvalue or quality as an
ultimateis not new in itself. What makes it new is its explicitness,its
and its intensity.This self-consciousness
and inself-consciousness,
tensity(togetherwiththe i9th century'sincreasingrationalityin fitting
means to ends) could not but lead to a much closerand largerconcern
with the nature of the medium in each art, and hence with "technique." This was also a questioningconcern,and because it got acted
on in practiceby artists,poets,novelists,and composers,notby pedants,
it could not but become an "artisanal" concerntoo (which does not
mean the same thingas a "mechanical" concern-or at least the best
of Modernismhas shownthatit does not mean the same thing). And
it's this,the artisanal concern and emphasis of Modernism that has
proved to be its coveringemphasis,its enduringand also its saving
one-the one that again and again bringsModernismback to itself.
Its artisanal emphasis is what more than anythingelse makes for
the hard-headed,sober, "cold" side of Modernism. It's also part of
what makes it react against Romanticism. An eventual tendencyof
Romanticismwas to take medium and artisanrytoo much forgranted
and to considerthem as more or less transparentor routine. I won't
say thatthiswas a decisivefactorin the deteriorationof standards,but
it was a symptomof thatdeterioration.It was not just the soft-headedness of Romanticismpopularized and in decline that provoked the
hard-headedreactionof the firstModernists;it was also a certainunprofessionalism.
I don't for a moment contend that Modernism is exclusivelyan
affair of hard-headednessand artisanal sobriety. I started out by
saying that it distinguishesitselfby its openness and inclusivenessof
temperand attitude. And I set out to correct,not demolish,what I

NECESSITY

OF c"FORMALISM

173

feelis too one-sideda view. Yet thisview almostinvitesdemolition

whenit comesto Modernistpaintingand sculpture(and maybeto
Modernistmusic too). For these exhibitModernismas almost
cruciallya concernin the firstplace withmediumand exploratory
and a veryworkman-like
concern.Manetand theImprestechnique,
sionists
wereparagonsofhard-headed
so was Cezanne
professionalism;
in his way,and so wereSeuratand Bonnardand Vuillard;so were
it was Matisse.
the Fauves-if ever therewas a cool practitioner,
Cubistwasoverwhelmingly
artisanal
initsemphasis.Andthisemphasis
in Abstract
remainsa dominant
rhetoric,
one,underall thejournalistic
and
Of
art
course,
informel.
ApolloniantemperaExpressionism
mentsmay produceDionysianworks,and Dionysiantemperaments
excludepasApollonian works.Nor does artisanalhard-headedness
sion; it may even inviteand provokeit. And of course,therewere
likeGauguinand Van Goghand Soutinewho
notableModernist
artists
butsoberly
artisanalin outlook;buteventheyoccupied
wereanything
themselves
withquestionsof "technique"to an extentand with a
thatwereuniquelyModernist.
consciousness
moreevidently
on a painteror
Artisanalconcernsforcethemselves
be
than
on
a
and
it
would
hard
to
make
writer,
my point
sculptor
the "formalist"
abouttheartisanal,
emphasisof Modernism
nearlyso
For
in
of
literature.
the
case
reasons
not
to
be
gone into
plausible
of
demands
to
words
be
taken
medium
more
for
the
here,
granted
than any otherin whichart is practiced.This holdseven in verse,
and whatis notcanwhichmayhelpexplainwhywhatis Modernist
as easilyin the poetryof thelast hundredyears
notbe discriminated
as in the painting. . . .
in art,if notin literature,
has stoodor
It remainsthatModernism
fallenso far by its "formalism."Not that Modernistart is cowith"formalism."And not that "formalism"
terminous
hasn'tlent
itselfto a lot of empty,bad art. But so far everyattackon the
"formalist"
aspectof Modernistpaintingand sculpturehas worked
out as an attack on Modernismitselfbecause everysuch attack
developedintoan attackat thesame timeon superiorartisticstandards. The recentpast of Modernistart demonstrates
this ever so
and
was
the
first
Dada's
outrightassault on
clearly. Duchamp's
from
within
the
that
or what was
came
"formalism,"
avant-garde,
and
it
stated
itself
in a lowerthe
immediately
nominally avant-garde,
there
in
The
evidence
is
the
of
onlyplace where
aspirations.
ing
in
of Duchamp
evidencecan be there: theactualproductions
artistic
and mostof the Dadaists. The same evidencecontinuesto be therein
the neo-Dadaism of the last ten years, in its works,in the inferior

NEWLITERARY
HISTORY

174

quality of these works. From which it has to be concluded that if

Modernismremainsa necessaryconditionof the best art of our time,
as it has been of the best art of the hundred years previous,then
"formalism,"apparently,remainsa necessaryconditiontoo, which is
the sole and sufficient
of eitherModernismor "formalism."
justification
And if "formalism"derivesfromthe hard-headed,"cold" side of
Modernism,thenthismustbe its essential,definingside, at least in the
case of paintingand sculpture. That's the way it looks rightnowand looks more than ever rightnow. The question is whetherit will
keep on lookingthat way in the future: that is, whetherModernism
will continueto stand or fall by its "cold" side and by its "formalism."
Modernism has been a failingthing in literaturethese past twenty
years and more; it's not yet a failingthingin paintingor sculpture,
but I can imagine its turninginto that in anotherdecade (even in
sculpture,which seemsto have a brighterfuturebeforeit than painting does). If so, this may come about in the same way that it has
come about, as it seems to me, in literature: throughthe porousness
of Modernism's "hot" side, the enthusiasticand hectic side, which is
the one that middlebrowshave foundit easierall along to infiltrate.
There have, of course,to be deeper,larger factorsin all this than
the ambiguous differencebetween Modernism's "hot" and "cold"
sides. If Modernism's"hot" side has become a liabilityin these past
years,thisis a symptom,not a cause; the cause, or causes, have to be
sought outside Modernismand outside art or literature.

Postscriptum
Artis, art getsexperienced,foritsown sake, whichis what Modernism
estheticvalue as an ultimatevalue. But this
recognizedin identifying
doesn't mean that art or the estheticis a supremevalue or end of life.
The neglect of this distinctionby the original art-for-art's-sakersmost of whom were not Modernistsanyhow-compromised a valid
perception.
Post-Postscriptum
My harpingon the artisanaland "formalist"emphasisof Modernism
as I know from
opens the way to all kinds of misunderstanding,
tiresomeexperience. Quality, estheticvalue orginatesin inspiration,
vision, "content," not in "form." This is an unsatisfactory
way of

NECESSITY

OF "FORMALISM

175

puttingit,but forthe timebeing thereseemsto be no betterone available. Yet "form"not onlyopens the way to inspiration;it can also act
as means to it; and technicalpreoccupations,when searchingenough
and compelled enough, can generateor discover"content." When a
work of art or literaturesucceeds, when it moves us enough, it does
so ipso facto by the "content" which it conveys; yet that "content"
cannot be separated from its "form"-no more in Dante's than
Mallarmd's case, no more in Goya's than in Mondrian's, no more in
Verdi's than in Schoenberg's. It embarassesme to have to repeat this,
but I feel I can count here on the illiteracyof enough of my readersin
the matterof what can and what can't be legitimatelyput in words
about worksof art.
NEW YORK,NEW YORK