Concepts of Writing

Art and Art Criticism
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Art and Art Criticism
Introduction
The field of art has undergone transformation in the manner in which theories are advanced. The field has also witnessed the entry of numerous artists, with some like Greenberg leaving a permanent imprint in the course of modern art. Whereas such artists like Greenberg developed theories from their original content, others like Michael Fried based their theories on existing frameworks (by Greenberg in this case). In such cases, Greenberg and Fried show similarity in their approach, but there also exists differences in their theories. Similarly, Krauss’s (1972, 1974) response to Modernist discourse (represented in the writings of Greenberg and Fried) shows how the response is similar to the theory it responds to, and the differences between the two. Overall, the field of art has partly grown due to the contribution of critics to already existing theories.
Part 1: Greenberg (1960) and Fried (1966, 1967)
How the second (later) author uses the theories of the first as a basis (or jumping off point) for her/his own theories
Friedman was raised in New York and started using watercolors and oils to paint at an early age. He would also draw cartoons for the Forest Hills High School newspaper while still a student. He first developed interest in art criticism as an undergraduate at Princeton University. During his university time, he met Walter Darby and Frank Stella, who eventually became prominent artists (Levin, 2017). Although he was interested in English and literature studies at undergraduate level, Fried was draw into the field of art and art criticism by the writings of Clement Greenberg, an art critic, namely Partisan Review and Art News. As such, Fried started critiquing art based on the same approach as he had learned from Greenberg. Fried’s theories are thus inspired by Greenberg’s. This also led to Fried becoming one of the art critics. His focus, just like that of his mentor Greenberg, was critiquing artists who criticized art out of context. His argument was that art should first be understood and then criticized within its context. He did several works concerning them, thus laying bare his opinion and principles regarding critiquing art.
Key connections: what concepts (plural) are shared between these authors’ texts
Fried remains among the most reputable and established art critics and historians in the world today. His approach to criticism is closely similar and linked with that of Greenberg, his late mentor. Fried first met Greenberg during his time at Princeton University. Just like Greenberg, Fried grew suspicious of critics and academics who focused on critiquing modern art within a certain cultural or historical context instead of examining the piece of art formally and within its context and terms (Robbins, 2018). As such, Fried is also recognized for the contribution that he was staunchly opposed to the lack of differentiation between the piece of art and the experience of viewing it; he described this phenomenon as ‘theatricity’. As such, both Greenberg and Fried were critical of art critics who critiqued art out of context. Their main argument was that many of those who considered themselves as modern artists actually critiqued art in the wrong way, as they critiqued it out of context.
Key differences: what distinguishes the writing of the later author from that of the earlier author?
Greenberg and Fried differed on the approach to minimal art. In one of his essays, Recentness of Sculpture (1967), Greenberg was dismissal of minimal art as a ‘novelty’ art. He argued that the ‘aesthetic surprise’ which one gets on viewing a ‘true’ work is important and long lasting, while novelty only provokes a superfluous and momentary surprise. In Art and Objecthood, an article he published in 1967, Fried published an influential and controversial criticism on minimalist sculpture (Roberts, 2020). He differed from Greenberg, who considered minimal art as a mere novelty, because he considered minimalism as modernism that had gone wrong. His argument was that if the focus of modernist work was exploring its medium (poetry, sculpture, or paintings), then the investigation by minimal art had gone too far. Greenberg and Fried differed on what exactly minimal art entails and its focus, as well as it scope.
What ideas (plural), ways of thinking, approaches, appear in thelater author’s writings that did not in the earlier author’s writings? How does the second author take things in a new direction?
Greenberg is considered one of the earliest art critics in history. Later on, Fried learned the art of criticism from Greenberg, although taking a different stance on what minimal art should entail and its scope. However, Fried’s approach gave modern art criticism a different approach. He became highly critical of art historians and critics who claimed that they were the objective observers of art (Morgan, 2020). He took things in a different direction by defining the roles of the formalist critic as imperative and that the critic should always put into consideration that their objectivity focus is only but relative. The statement was provocative, considering the writing style and tone used by the greatest critics in the era, whose aspiration was writing objectivel...