Talk:Clement Greenberg

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

Contemporary Art (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contemporary Art, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Contemporary ArtWikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary ArtTemplate:WikiProject Contemporary ArtContemporary Art

Philosophy: Philosophers / Aesthetics / Contemporary Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Aesthetics
	Contemporary philosophy

Smithsonian Institution: Archives of American Art Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of Smithsonian Institution WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Smithsonian Institution and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Smithsonian InstitutionWikipedia:GLAM/Smithsonian InstitutionTemplate:WikiProject Smithsonian InstitutionSmithsonian Institution-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Archives of American Art.

Greenberg and P11

Greenberg, of course, didn't visit Ronald in Toronto. Of the P11, Greenberg seems to have been most taken, initially, with Jock Macdonald. I don't think that it's quite correct to say that he was especially taken with Ronald. --Ggbroad 14:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I hate to ask again, but is everything in this article original?Ggbroad 15:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left leanings

Is it politically correct to mention, in the article, that Greenberg was an avowed Trotskyite Marxist who believed in the inevitable, historical, progressive development of art, similar to the Hegelian "forward march" of Communism?Lestrade 16:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

At one point, yes he was a Marxist (I'm not sure if he ever belonged to the Communist Party). He later changed his views, which is really where it gets controversial. It is felt by some critics of Greenberg that his move away from Marxism was not so much a true political shift but more opportunistic. With the Cold War, Greenberg positioned American abstract art as ideologically against Soviet art (i.e. Socialist Realism), and that abstraction equaled individualism (as opposed to Soviet-styled realism and collectivism). I'm not sure what this has to do with political correctness, but there is plenty written on Greenberg's politics, so it could make for an interesting (if well-sourced) section. Freshacconci 17:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan Review crowd

It seems interesting that, speaking as a layman, Mr. Greenberg's critical ideas stem more from the "New Criticism" crowd, coming from the point of view of close reading, pureness of the object itself, irony, etc...as opposed to the Partisan Review/Alfred Kazin concept of including extra material such as biography, surrounding culture etc. Is there any material discussing this out there that could be included in article, or am I way off base? I mention this as Greenberg was a Partisan Review editor, and was wondering if there were any tensions between the two disciplines (novels/history and contemporary art) if my theory is valid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.117.181 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading IP

Please refrain from re-adding your negative out of context and misleading personal opinions and reviews of Caroline A. Jones' Eyesight Alone: Clement Greenberg's Modernism and the Bureaucratization of the Senses. The book is a legitimate work by a respected Art historian. Clearly you you don't like it which is your prerogative. However your selective quotes are out of line..as well as your link to your own unpublished thesis, - please stop your disruptive editing here...Thank you...Modernist (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Three Jewish Intellectuals"

The last sentence og this article disturbs me. Unless the writer can make a valid connection between the religious backgrounds of Greenberg, Rosenberg, and Steinberg and their ideas, I can't see the point of describing them as "Jewish Intellectuals." I don't believe that Tom Wolfe does so, even once, in the one hundred plus pages of "The Painted Word." Orapronobis (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've read The Painted Word but the description of Greenberg et al as "Jewish intellectuals" I would guess is a perhaps clumsy way of explaining what Wolfe means by "cultureberg": I think it's pretty obvious what Wolfe means but it would fall under original research to come to that conclusion without finding a source to back it up. freshacconci talktalk 19:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On page 119 of Design and Crime: and other diatribes, Hal Foster states "Tom Wolfe notoriously trashed all late-modernist art as a critical scam, a "painted word" contrived in 'Cultureberg' (his anti-Semitic slam against Greenberg, Rosenberg and Steinberg)." So, Foster, a good source for us, makes the claim that Wolfe clearly means three Jewish critics controlling the art world in New York. That it's about words clearly alludes to intellectuals. Now, can we make that final jump? I'm not sure the wording allows for this. We could just quote Foster directly. I'll keep searching for other sources. freshacconci talktalk 19:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://archives2.getty.edu:8082/xtf/view?docId=ead/950085/950085.xml. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]