It is my pleasure to have the chance of reading these articles: “Representing Picasso” by Rosalind Kraus (1980), “The Nature of Abstraction” by Meyer Schapiro (1937), “Occultism, Anarchism, and Abstraction: Kandinsky’s Art of the Future” by Rose-Carol Long (1987), and “Picasso Collages and the Threat of War, 1912-1913” by Patricia Leighton (1985).

Although the four articles were produced at different periods of time, displayed different perspectives and the different ideology of each of the authors, concerned both specific artists and various art movements, the main arguments are still clear. Those arguments are the content of abstraction, the function of abstract painting, and the artist’s development. Based on these central concepts, this paper is going to present my evaluation of them and to clarify some very confused ideas of the articles, according to my personal understanding of each reading.

What is abstract painting? Does abstract painting contain nothing or something? Is abstract painting linked to human society or is it isolated from social phenomena?

In “The Nature of Abstract Art”, Schapiro presents his opinion by arguing with another famous art historian Alfred Barr. “The Nature of Abstract Art” focuses on the general discussion about the nature of abstract painting, its aesthetic theories, its causes, and its relationship to political movements.

On the definition and the cause of abstract art, Barr illustrates the idea that abstract art is independent of historical conditions, as an underlying order of nature and as an art of pure form without content. Abstract art arises because representational art had been exhausted, so change to abstract art was inevitable. Each new style is due to a reaction against a preceding style (its parents) and repeats the form and style of its grandparents. Disagreeing with these ideas, Schapiro explains that Barr does not connect art with its history or the nature of its society. Abstract art had the value of a practical demonstration. The pure form refers to or digests the external content. Barr’s “grandfather principle” reaction development theory is improper, because the history of art is not a history of single willful reaction. Artists are deeply motivated by experience of a changing world with which they have to come to terms and which shape their practice and ideas in specific ways.

As an example, stable Egyptian art declares the history of society is the major agent determining artistic style. Another example is given by impressionism. How people are shown in painting changes, even “composition”, a traditional concept abandoned by the impressionists, is related to their social views.

Schapiro claims that “composition” is from both the eternal nature of art and the state of mind of the artist. Excluding natural form, abstract painting departed from the classical ideas of the artistic relationships and explores the new reality of science and art. Schapiro thinks that by accepting abstract art, it is possible to accept art forms from other cultures, times and sources such as remote art, the drawing of children and madmen, and especially primitive arts, on a “universal” basis.

To stop at this point of view, I like to bring some of my opinion into this heated argument. I agree with Schapiro’s interpretation of the content of abstraction. It is true that art should be based on both painter’s individuality and social surroundings. As in his Renaissance example, linear perspective is related to changing values of the middle class, a confident and measurable science. Abstraction, either objective or non-objective, also relies upon this natural law of social reference, although its color or shape sometimes seems meaningless or representing nothing. We all live in a material society in which everything is related to one another. There is no isolation or separation from each other. I also agree with Schapiro’s “universal basis” theory for abstract art. For example, he emphasizes the importance of accepting primitive art, because it is regarded as part o fall human cultures. Standing at this point, I think Schapiro’s thinking is true but seems to be lacking deep analysis. At least it could be broadened out, because primitive art was recognized and used as an artistic source in both by abstract artists and even modern artists nowadays.

Yes, abstract art made it possible for us to appreciate primitive art as a highly creative art. Abstract art allowed us to evaluate art from other cultures in terms of line, color, and shape. On the other hand, primitive art provides modern artists with another choice for meditation as well as execution. In my Chinese experience, for example, some contemporary Chinese abstract expressionists use primitive art as artistic sources. Ancient minority clothing, the pattern of folk dying, ancient Chinese petroglyphs (as in some of the images of my painting at Mankato State) provide a great inspiration to the modern Chinese painters.

Now, on one small thing, I challenge Schapiro. In the beginning of his article, Schapiro said, “before there was an art of abstract painting, it was already widely believed that the value of a picture was a matter of color and shapes alone.” Perhaps I cannot agree with the term “widely believed”. Forty-five years ago, in 1892, one of the Nabis painters declared, “Before anything else… a picture is only an arrangement of color and shape on a flat surface.” But at that time, the public did not believe this theory, so it is impossible to become “widely believed” the concept of abstraction within such a short period of time. Even now, a large population of our world still cannot accept this theory.

In the second half of the article, Schapiro continues to argue with Barr on aesthetic theories. Barr regards that representation is a passive mirroring of things and non-artistic. Abstract art is a purely aesthetic activity, unconditioned by objects and based on its own eternal laws. Barr also treats Futurism and “pure” Mechanical Abstraction as a simple reflection of existing technology. Schapiro thinks that Barr’s explanation of abstract art is definitely in error. There is no passive representation, because art is not as a mechanical process of the eye. There is no “pure art”, because painting is always according to the viewpoint of the observation through nature, even their motifs are denounced as meaningless. The philosophy of abstract art is also a philosophy of nature. Schapiro claims that abstract art is not a simple reflection of existing technology. For example, even though the U.S. and England at that time were highly advanced industrial countries with the most developed technologies and finances, Mechanical Abstraction did not start in these countries but took place in Russia, Italy, Holland, and France. In this case, Schapiro thinks that Barr mixed different situations occurring in different places as if technology has an international character. Barr put common phenomena (such as a modern machine society and technology) into a simple mode. This simple reaction does not distinguish the differentiations of people’s imagination, which is based on the different living environments, national characters, and social background.

I agree with Schapiro’s basic idea, especially in the 1930’s. But now, I’m going to bring another question into our discussion. Can Schapiro’s ideas apply to the later art movements in the 20 th century, such as Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art?

Probably we can easily find a positive answer in Pop Art, because Pop Art, in the 1960’s, presents the blatant and pervasive industrial and commercial environment in the creation of new subject matter. It directly associates Schapiro’s idea that abstract art has the value of a practical demonstration of its time.

But it is difficult to evaluate Abstract Expressionism with this idea. For example, the values of action paintings by Pollock are very hard to evaluate with Schapiro’s simple definition. Because the essence of Abstract Expressionism, especially Pollock’s action painting, is the extremely spontaneous assertion of the individual, so the painting should have more meanings or content. On one hand, it reflects some social and political elements, because Pollock personally lived in the real everyday environment of the 20 th century which gave him various stimuli that directly became a part of the elements to insert his shapeless paintings. On the other hand, besides the social aspects, are there any other elements included in his paintings? My answer is yes. One critic said Pollock’s action painting was a kind of athletic exercise. Is that true? I don’t know. At least, this theory presents a new angle of perspective to determine the aesthetic contents of Pollock’s painting. The exercise, rest, and subconscious are all involved in his paintings to make a unit in which the social elements are excluded. This particular unit associates with the other unit of social aspects, to compose the content of Pollock’s painting. According to my point of view, Pollock’s paintings as well as some other Abstract Expressionists works maintain polyphase content rather than only the single social referent that Schapiro describes.

In the article “Occultism, Anarchism, and Abstraction: Kandinsky’s Art of the Future” by Long, the author also discusses the same question as I mentioned above.

This article illustrates that the concepts of anarchistic attitudes in combination with Occultism are clearly reflected in the structure of Kandinsky’s development of abstract art. These influences have not previously received serious consideration. These ideas have often been ignored partly due to their complex ideologies and confusing organization that can easily cause misunderstanding of them as “aimlessness” or “lacking of order” and “irrational” or “chaotic”. In fact, these ideas with the underlying, unifying force have extremely high aesthetic values which influenced the development of much 20 th century abstract art. It is very important to realize the fact that both social concerns and mystical thought provided stimuli to modern artists interested in abstraction.

Here, Long’s theory supplements Schapiro’s social basis idea by displaying that mystical thought plays another significant role which complements the social basis as a source of contemporary abstract painting.

During 1911-12, Kandinsky finished two historical documents: On the Spiritual in Art and The Blaue Reiter Almanac. The term “anarchistic” was used in The Blaue Reiter Almanac to describe the direction of his work. These two books were conceived for the purpose of awakening the spiritual in all mankind.

Kandinsky blames the materialists, positivists, and scientists unwilling to seek information outside established sources and “recognizing” only the accepted rules and truths. To avoid these, he suggests that people should turn to the theosophical society. Kandinsky emphasizes his “internal mystical necessity” theory that allowed art to move beyond time and space, beyond personal and national, to the eternal and universal. It is like a kind of “new truths”, one of the greatest spiritual movements of the 20 th century.

According to his “principle of contrasts”, Kandinsky uses brilliant, clashing colors placed over images to create spatial dislocations and feelings of chaos in his paintings which produce effects equivalent to dissonance in music. Kandinsky wants the viewer to be shocked into meditating on the mysterious themes of struggle as regeneration of society. Kandinsky’s “basic truths” or “natural laws” reveal that art would change the direction of human life.

Now, according to the article, Long offers the idea that the interconnection of mysticism-occultism and anarchism would make artistic and social changes and that will influence modern artists. Anarchism here is considered as a certain systematicity and order which is different from the definition given by the Marxists. But Long talks less about its specific way of inspiring the masses and involving in political struggle.

To compare with the article “Picasso’s Collage and the Threat of War, 1912-13” by Leighton, anarchism’s influence on Picasso’s abstraction and on the political movements in the later 19 th century and the earlier 20 th century Spain and France are clearly defined by historical documentation. Strongly emphasizing political influence, especially Anarchism, on Picasso’s earlier abstraction, this article presents extremely detailed information on the use of newsprint in the crucial phase of Picasso’s Cubist collages during 1912-13, and links these to the chaotic social phenomena at that time.

“Picasso’s Collage and the Threat of War, 1912-13” states that Picasso’s collages are commonly regarded as his highly abstract works, mainly because of his color and texture. In fact, Picasso’s collages of newsprint contain concrete political meanings. The newsprint content specifically refers to political debate and discussions about the threat of war taking place. The collages are self-consciously “revolutionary” works of art.

By presenting the political and artistic background in Barcelona as well as in Paris, the article talks about both the avant-garde artistic circle around Picasso and the Anarchism which both impacted him greatly. The anarchist movement beginning in the 19 th century was in direct response to the development of a rich body theory rivaling Marxism. Its main characteristics are anti-tradition, anti-authoritarian, anti-militarism, and revolutionary. This radical thought has special significance of Picasso’s work prior to the first World War.

Picasso became actively involved in political struggle by associating with anarchists and the leading radical avant-garde artists and thinkers. His sketches and drawings of poor people evidence his direct political consciousness. During 1912-13, Picasso made approximately eighty collages of which fifty-two contain newspaper text; of these, at least half deal with the Balkan Wars and the economic and political state of Europe. Picasso used traditional still life as a stage for his synthetic cubist collages in which the newsprint frequently introduces anarchist themes. Picasso’s pacific images and revolutionary thought maintain his unusual moral position throughout the war and throughout his life.

Again, by comparing Long’s and Leighton’s depiction of Anarchism, we are presented with two basic directions: one for spiritual; one for practical. I prefer unifying these two concepts into a proper definition.

Leighton also demonstrates that the basic truth: “art must express its own time” underlies Picasso’s approach to collage. This is parallel to Schapiro’s “social basis” theory, although Schapiro’s article was produced in 1937 while Leighton’s was finished in 1985.

Although Leighton’s article successfully analyzes Picasso’s achievement in introducing political struggle into his newsprint collages of 1912-13, I should mention that Leighton overemphasizes the political function of Picasso’s collage. It is easy to confuse people that Picasso’s newsprint collage themes are made only for political purposes or social reform. In fact, these works also have extremely high artistic value which Leighton seldom mentions in her article.

However, another article, “Representing Picasso” by Krauss, discusses the same theme with different point of view which presents an unusual paraphrase of the aesthetic qualities of Picasso’s collage. “Representing Picasso” is a critique of the major retrospective exhibitions of Picasso’s work at MOMA in 1980.

Based upon re-examining Picasso’s collage from historical point of view, Krauss discusses the question of “how to evaluate Picasso” by comparing and criticizing some other historian’s opinions.

Art historical criticism seeks a coherent development toward Picasso’s personal style. In 1965, John Berger created the concept of “Protean Picasso”. Berger did not agree that Picasso invented Cubism. In his mind, Picasso is multi-talented and uses but does not create style. Another scholar, John Richardson, who had an expressionist view of Picasso, emphasizes the coherent style, the logical personal style development of Picasso’s career. But Kraus thinks that neither Berger’s Marxist theory nor the expressionist view of Richardson is necessary to explain it.

Krauss also criticizes the 1980 exhibition cataloger by Pierre Daix Picasso: the Cubist Years 1907-16 as not reviewing enough literature and in its definition of “sign” in collage representation. Krauss disagrees with Daix’s 3 rd definition of “sign”. Krauss says that Picasso pushes “sign” in collage beyond Wolfflin’s historical context to combine structuralist opposites into a new visual presence. By borrowing from previous compositions and styles, such as his own Cubism, Fauvism, Pointillism, Manet, and Le Nain, Picasso creates a new art which makes historical references to the invention, style and methods of past painters.

Krauss’ interpretation of collage is “structuralist” or “formal”, as a metalanguage of the visual. It enters our experience not as an object of perception, but as an object of representation. Krauss explains that when collage elements signify their opposites, the referent is “meaningful only in its absence”. She claims this central emptiness of collage is “in direct opposition to modernism’s search for perceptual plentitude”.

Again, I like to bring my suggestion and disagreement to this argument

Besides Krauss’s disagreement with Daix’s 3 rd definition of “sign”, the later reading “Picasso’s Collages and the Threat of War, 1912-13” by Leighton also refutes Daix’s simplistic “sign” interpretation and create a Schapiro-type argument for interpretation of anti-war sentiment in Picasso’s early art. Both argue for a consistency on the anti-war theme that may support the idea of “Alterstij”, or constant theme throughout Picasso’s style.

On the collage themes, Krauss here seems to discredit any notion that Picasso could use symbolic meaning in his choice of subject matter, or have reasons for choosing such subjects to borrow. Also, Krauss talks little about social and political influences on Picasso’s meditation on theme as Leighton and Schapiro emphasize in their theories. I agree that collage is a powerful visual and meta-language but not empty. It should have some referential meanings. The interesting thing is that Leighton overlooks the importance of visual effects in Picasso’s collage, while Krauss neglects the other significance fact that collage maintains political contents which can support the regeneration of human society. Should we combine them?