Talk:Clement Greenberg

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)

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


 * 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)

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)

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)

"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)
 * 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  talk talk  19:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 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  talk talk  19:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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)