GROUP
STATEMENT
- continued from page 1:
Reinhardt:
It has always been a problem for me - about 'finishing' paintings.
I am very conscious of ways of 'finishing' a painting. Among modem
artists there is a value placed upon 'unfinished' work.
Disturbances arise when you have to treat the work as a finished
and complete object, so that the only time I think I 'finish' a
painting is when I have a deadline. If you are going to present it
as an 'unfinished' object, how do you 'finish' it?
Hofmann:
To me a work is finished when all parts involved communicate
themselves, so that they don't need me.
moderator
Motherwell: I dislike a picture that is too suave or too
skill-fully done. But, contrariwise, I also dislike a picture that
looks too inept or blundering. I noticed in looking at the
'Carreé' exhibition of young French painters who are supposed to
be close to this group, that in 'finishing' a picture they assume
traditional criteria to a much greater degree than we do. They
have a real 'finish' in that the picture is a real object, a
beautifully made object. We are involved in 'process' and what is
a 'finished' object is not so certain.
Hofmann:
Yes, it seems to me all the time there is the question of a
heritage. It would seem that the difference between the young
French painters and the young American painters is this: French
pictures have a cultural heritage. The American painter of today
approaches things without basis. The French approach things on the
basis of a cultural heritage - that one feels in all their work.
It is a working towards a refinement and quality rather than
working towards new experiences, and painting out these
experiences that may finally become tradition. The French have it
easier. They have it in the beginning.
de Kooning:
I am glad you brought up this point. It seems to me that in Europe
every time something new needed to be done it was because of
traditional culture. Ours has been a striving to come to the same
point that they had - not to be iconoclasts.
Gottlieb:
There is a general assumption that European - specifically French
- painters have a heritage which enables them to have the benefits
of tradition, and therefore they can produce a certain type of
painting. It seems to me that in the last fifty years the whole
meaning of painting has been made international. I think Americans
share that heritage just as much, and that if they deviate from
tradition it is just as difficult for an American as for a
Frenchman. It is a mistaken assumption in some quarters that any
departure from tradition stems from ignorance. ...
continued
on page 3
back
to page 1
