But in both the stripe paintings and the irregular polygons, it was not the «pictorial activity» of the depicted shape that «
defeated objecthood.»
Not exact matches
As Michael Fried said in Art and
Objecthood in 1967 of Stella's work, «It aspires, not to defeat or suspend its own objecthood, but on the contrary to discover and project objecthood as su
Objecthood in 1967 of Stella's work, «It aspires, not to
defeat or suspend its own
objecthood, but on the contrary to discover and project objecthood as su
objecthood, but on the contrary to discover and project
objecthood as su
objecthood as such.»
It's come to be crucial and important in abstract sculpture recently, where it by no means comes easily or naturally, and where «
objecthood»
defeats it.
American critic Michael Fried, in the essay «Art and
Objecthood» (1967), apotheosized «art» in contrast to «theatricality» — another version of Greenberg's elevation of formal art over literary art, more particularly of Cubism over Dadaism — arguing that «it is by virtue of their presentness and instantaneousness that modernist painting and sculpture
defeat theater.»
My point is that the «
defeat of
objecthood» — and therefore the achievement of abstraction, which is the same as the achievement of pictorial quality — is never secure but always unstable, and this instability expresses the fact that the
defeat of
objecthood (and therefore the achievement of abstraction) is not and can not be a quality that is predicated (once and for all) of things in the world (like color, shape, weight and so on).
«Rauschenberg and Johns «used this feature [«the brushstroke»] not just to
defeat but rather to obliterate
objecthood by covering their hybrid «combines» and «assemblages» with the gestures that invoked painting's hegemonic period, loading their work with the repeated sign for painting itself.»
That
objecthood is never fully
defeated but only staved off (which is a matter of one's experience of particular works is illustrated in the example of Frank Stella.