Jack the Dripper, the king of Abstract Expressionism, an art movement author Tom Wolfe didn't hold in high regard

You will be hard-pressed to find a more lively, wittier book on the phenomenon of modern art than Tom Wolfe’s The Painted Word, a 100-page romp through the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s where the author jabs his sharp satirical needle with signature debunking flare into Abstract Expressionism, Pop Art, Op Art, Minimalism and Conceptual Art.

And that’s 'Painted Word’ as in Wolfe’s epiphany while reading an article in The New York Times Arts & Leisure section. Ah, reflected Tom: “Modern Art has become completely literary: the painting and other works exist only to illustrate the text.”

To put it another way, Tom realized, regarding modern art, all his previous trips to museums and galleries to view the work of painters like Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko were uninformed since he neglected a critical first step – understanding the theory revealed via the text, those oh-so-important words. Oh, rats, Tom fumed, all my hours squinting and starring at unintelligible paintings and I never comprehended those massive cutting-edge, avant-garde canvases were based on ideas and philosophies outlined by hyper-perceptive, authoritative art theorists.

For the Abstract Expressionists, Clement Greenberg was the first to expound the theory. Wolfe writes, “In Greenberg’s eyes, the Freight Train of Art History had a specific destination...It was time to clear the tracks at last of all the remaining rubble of the pre-Modern way of painting. And just what was this destination? On this point Greenberg couldn’t have been clearer: Flatness.”

Nope, none of that old-fashion three-dimensional representation – paintings of portraits, landscapes, bowls of fruit, even if painted in cubes or dots, no, no, no, no. “What was needed was purity – a style in which lines, forms, contours, colors all became unified on the flat surface.” Now, attending an art event armed with Greenberg’s theory, all those Pollocks and Rothkos make abundant sense.

Then as Tom Wolfe points out, a second major theorist, Harold Rosenberg, added another dimension. “Rosenberg came up with a higher synthesis, a theory that combined Greenberg’s formal purity with something that had been lacking in abstract art from the early Synthetic Cubist days and ever since: namely, the emotional wallop of the old realistic pre-Modern pictures.” And then Wolfe quotes Rosenberg directly: “At a certain moment the canvas began to appear to one American painter after another as an area in which to act. What was to go on the canvas was not a picture but an event.” Oh, Wolfe proclaims, now I get it – understood as pure action painting, all those Pollocks really, really make sense!

As Wolfe continues: “A Promethean artist gorged with emotion and overloaded with paint, hurling himself and his brushes at the canvas as if in hand-to-hand combat with Fate. There!...there!... there in those furious swipes of the brush on canvas, in those splatters of unchained id, one could see the artist’s emotion itself – still alive! – in the final product.”

And after Abstract Expressionism, its Warhol and Pop Art, Bridget Riley and Op Art, Frank Stella and Minimalist Art, Lawrence Weiner and Conceptual Art, all on the receiving end of the author’s cynical, caustic barbs.

And what do I myself think of Tom Wolfe on the subject of modern art? Permit me to answer by way of an experience: When I was twelve-years old I accompanied my mother when she took a summer workshop at a local college for Sunday school teachers. She took me to the college bookstore and told me I could pick out any book I wanted. Ah, my very first book, ever! I scanned the bookshelves; there was a series of small books on various types of art and I chose a book with a cover that fascinated me on two counts: first, the picture – a combination of colors and shapes arranged geometrically - orange circles, black half circles, purple and cream rectangles, large dark green squares and a black square in the middle; second, two words on the cover: Abstract Art. ‘Abstract' resonated with me, a word starting with that bold ‘A’ and having such an otherworldly sound, a word with an ‘A’ matching the ‘A’ in art.

Back at the dormitory where I was staying, I turned the pages, both fascinated and mesmerized by all the paintings. The next day I played sick so I wouldn't have to go to the kid’s workshop class. I remained in my room with paper and crayons doing my best copying the art in the book. By the end of the day, when one of the Sunday school teachers returned to the dormitory, I proudly showed her my drawing and my book. She promptly belittled my efforts: "You don't have this black spot in the right place." “Your colors don't match what's in the book at all." She was furious I did what I did. My response to her fury was not to be upset, but to be pleased. I enjoyed being transported to this special, new world of art and how this art could trigger such a violent emotional reaction in an adult.

In retrospect, I can only smile at the encounter - a boy's entering into the world of abstract art and communicating his love to a Sunday school teacher. Now wonder she was so mad! And, predictably, she countered with all the judgment and outrage she could muster as spokeswoman for the conventional, average, bland, mundane world. On reading The Painted Word, I can't help but wonder how much Tom Wolfe has in common with that Sunday school teacher.

Clearly Tom Wolfe dislikes the pretensions of modern art, and prefers his own pretensions. Of course, his satirical voice is so smooth and so slick that one has to marvel at the writing, even if one’s reaction to the theses is an astonished: no, it couldn’t be. The Painted Word is ultimately, I think, an example of exactly what Wolfe thinks he critiques: an outrageous ott spectacle designed less as a serious work; more a work in the service of attention seeking, a spoof, a spoof of self, and itself a theory of art.

Wikipedia has a good sample of some of the outraged responses of art critics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_P...

Also:

https://www.artnews.com/art-news/retr...

A 1975 interview of Tom Wolfe by William F. Buckley now available on YouTube is also well worth watching. I particularly liked Wolfe’s clarification that he is objecting primarily to art following theory rather than theory following art. I also love his use of the word ‘sporting’ to describe what he is doing in The Painted Word.

This book was very entertaining. Even though I completely buy into (love, appreciate, and spend my days working amongst) art theory, modern, and contemporary art I still appreciate Wolfe's argument. It makes me question whether I truly love a work of art or the theory around the work of art - and question if art and it's theory could ever be separated.

This book is incredibly digestible and easy to follow which is often not the case when reading about art theory and theorists such as Greenberg and Rosenberg. It also provides a super-fast run through of modern art (distinctive of the urge for reduction) which I appreciated.

All parts of this book are saturated in Wolfe's sarcasm and distaste of how things went down. Once I got passed this I fell into reading his points and felt satisfied with the ending to his argument.

I can see someone who hates modern/contemporary art loving this book and someone who loves modern/contemporary art appreciating (or at least entertaining) Wolfe's pointing out the construct of it all.

Even at 99 quick reading pages, this one felt a little over-boiled to me. It's for serious modern art/art theory aficionados to judge whether it's the brilliant satire that many professional reviewers say it is. Found it mildly amusing myself. But then, I'm a total Neanderthal...

Very few writers can convey insider information without sounding annoying, but it was always a strength of Tom Wolfe’s. In this short book, he points out the way the Modernist art movement was the perfect illustration of how the “small town of the art world” excludes the public and exists for the pleasure of a small group. Also points out how/why art is a literary act. This book was written in the 1970s, and I would have loved if he had been able to write a “sequel” to discuss how art has evolved into the 21st century.

A look at modern art between 1945-1975 by the great Tom Wolfe. I think he's right. The folks involved in art, outside from the artists, built up movements that are somewhat meaningless compared to their more realist predecessors from Da Vinci on. While some of Abstract Expressionist paintings can be dazzling and Op Art illusions trick the mind, they leave the (honest) viewer wondering if they only been jerked around.

It’s always enjoyable to read anything by Tom Wolfe, including this now somewhat dated pamphlet on Modern Art and its successors (Abstract Impressionism, Pop Art, &c.).

You need to have some fairly good understanding of Modernism and the art world from 1900 onwards as Wolfe assumes a lot of knowledge and his breakneck speed doesn’t leave you much chance to catch up.

The central thesis is that Modern Art (and its successors) are essentially of no value or importance and that you cannot enjoy looking at them unless you adhere to various convoluted academic and intellectual theories about why these “artworks” are valuable and important despite the fact that they are ugly and of questionable value in terms of the skill and effort taken to produce them. In this he is essentially correct, I think.

The book forms a sort of potted history of the takeover of the aesthetic tastes of the corporate and political world by a small group of art theorists who essentially pulled a confidence trick—on this last point I think he is on shakier ground because there really isn’t much evidence that the Modernists were anything but sincere in their delusions.

“The Painted Word” of the title is his somewhat satirical conclusion about what the logical endpoint of all of this is—the fact that if the art is driven by the theory then, eventually, the art itself will become the words of the theory and the actual visual element of the art won’t be required any more. It’s interesting 50 odd years later to reflect on to what extent Wolfe was actually correct about that.

Out of interest, Wolfe actually makes his best criticism of modern art in his last novel, Back to Blood, which features an hilarious scene where an art counterfeiter, who has made a number of forged Picasso paintings, is visited by a group of uncultured Philistine middle Americans. These uncultured Americans have no knowledge of art or art history, and are seeing the “Picasso” artwork for the first time—they feel sorry for the artist because he obviously can’t draw, has no talent, and his paintings are ugly and obviously no one would want to buy them! Brilliant. This scene obviously harks back to the theory in The Painted Word because the people who are not initiated into the “correct” theory and way of understanding these works have a natural reaction of disgust when they see them. This is the reaction that any normal person would and should have to modern art.

Overall: recommended, but probably more to fans of Tom Wolfe’s writing, or people really interested in the history of and critical reception to Modern Art, otherwise it’s probably a bit out of date for the general reader now.

به طور خلاصه کتاب راجب تاثیر دیدگاه های مختلف هنری(در واقع همون نظریه های دنیای هنر)در مسیر تاریخ هنر مدرنه،و در‌واقع یه جور کراپ تاریخی هم محسوب میشه و به ما دید خوبی از یه دوره ی حدودا شصت ساله از تاریخ هنر مدرن رو میده.

"...آنها مجبور بودند زبان را بدانند،راه دومی وجود نداشت تماشای نقاشی بدون دانستن برهان های "مسطح بودن" و برهان های مرتبط با آن فایده ای نداشت که نداشت.

چقدر تلاش کردند نظریه ها را درونی و شخصی کنند تا حداقل هنگام تماشای تابلویی انتزاعی مورموری در تن احساس کنند؛اما ابتدا باید کلی نوشته ونظریه در ذهنشان ورق میزدند،برخی موفق شدند ،اما همه خسته شده بودند"

یک ‌نکته ای که هم‌توی این کتاب هم‌تو کتاب "بازارگرمی در هنر"توجهمو جلب کرد تاثیر خیلی کم و تو بعضی جاها تقریبا بی تاثیر بودن مردم تو پیشبرد هنره،به طوری که از خلق تا تحسین و فروش و نقد و بررسی یک اثر هنری در انحصار یک گروه خیلی اندکه.

Tom wolfe is the guy in the museum who you here say “I could make that” and walks away. For someone who researched the history of these art movements so well, I have a series of questions: what are you even frustrated with tom? is it the success of artists? is it that art and literature are friends? why are you mad at success and commingling of artistic intention? take a deep breath weirdo. calling this ‘exposing’ is wolfe stroking his own ego. all he ‘exposed’ is that artists want to be successful, paid, and recognized for their work. big ass shocker tom. did people pay you well? was your name not known? Art has always been for the elite, but wolfe says he’s mad about that.. and also that it wasn’t commercial, but then explains that he feels abstract expressionism was too weird to be commercial. okay…. so then it’s simply art for the artist? why be mad about any of this? why write this in the first place man.

and why are you pretending to be surprised? oh no, after people went through crazy war, their art changed! oh no! it’s not what it used to be! how dare artistic movements shift. go drink a mountain dew. eat a moon pie.

The essence of the story is that representative painting became overtly political and often Marxist in the 1930s to the point it alarmed the plutocrats that were funding it. The patrons shifted their money to some new bohemians, putting paint on the canvas with no story to tell. Abstract Expressionism and then Pop Art were the reactions and rejoinders to the realism. The beginning of this era is covered well and comically in Tim Robbin’s film, The Cradle Will Rock, where Nelson Rockefeller (John Cusack) hires Diego Rivera to paint a mural in Rockefeller Center but the work he delivers is a tribute to Lenin and the working man where the rich are portrayed as decadent to the point that he paints germs over them representing venereal disease. Nelson, whose family started the Museum of Modern art and provided many priceless paintings, destroys the mural and begins to find shapes and forms over ideas to fund.

I appreciated The Painted Word much more the second time. I first read it in 1999 and in the 1990s I enjoyed the humor and style and could laugh at the pretentiousness of artists and patrons, but I didn’t really know enough to appreciate how “important” some of these artists had become. Back then I had never heard of DeKooning or Jasper Johns. I’m sure I had seen the Pop Art comic book paintings, but I wouldn’t know they were Lichtenstein. Since then, I have been to enough museums to know the names and sometimes guess them correctly. All of that gave me greater context for the book. But like all great writing, I understood things on the second read that I was too young to appreciate the first time.

The art patrons portrayed here and their need to belong in this society was humorous to the youngster me, but my middle aged reading sees it more somberly. These art patrons are people looking for meaning and belonging to fill the void of their empty spiritual souls. They are too rich to believe in a higher power and to find fellowship there. So they built a secular church where the unbathed grotesque painters are the prophets and demi-Gods. Those rubes and their Jesus don’t know the sophisticated pleasure of letting Jackson Pollack come over to your penthouse and piss in your fireplace. Maybe the simplest pleasure in life is no longer caring what anyone else thinks. That’s what made Tom Wolfe a happy man to the end. The people portrayed here hopefully found the same zen before it was over.

This was a quick, easy listen-read on Wolfe spectating the burgeoning modern art movement. Very short and in audio without pics, most of it breezes by this Wolfe fan that is not an art aficionado. I can picture Pollack, sure, but not Jasper Johns... It is interesting and relevant the point that the painting world does not have a popular following, like music, film, etc. Also, it is interesting but I can not form an opinion on the accentuating of inherent "flatness" in the post-cubists art movements.

I don't have the education to review this from an art criticism or art history perspective, but Tom Wolfe's argument here meshes with and reinforces similar perspectives from Odd Nerdrum and Roger Scruton. And Wolfe does so in his own lightning prose style.

It's not the main point of the book, but it stood out to me that Wolfe attributes Modern Art - as a culture, as a religion, as a movement - to a kind of bourgeois guilt. That is, the shame of the Western secular elite over their own economic success and comfort in a world broken by two World Wars. Beginning in the 1920s these elites patronized the anti-bourgeois vanguard artists as an act of atonement, even though this bohemian vanguard sought to destroy anything (e.g. realism) comprehensible to the elites' bourgeois taste.

The idea is that people in a post-Christian moral economy are desperately seeking a release from guilt. The moral economy has retained a legalistic morality but has eliminated any mechanism of salvation, atonement, absolution, forgiveness. This is the same argument that some are putting forward to explain the rise of identity politics (with being a loyal ally to the victimized as the analog to supporting bohemian artists).

To see it here, in 1975, is evidence in support of Wolfe's prescience.