Leonardo

The Documents of 20th-Century Art: The Tradition of Constructivism by Stephen BannReview by: Donald K. McNameeLeonardo, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter, 1976), p. 78Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1573324 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 18:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The MIT Press and Leonardo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLeonardo.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 18:03:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

still life painting. The pages on Harnett and Sheeler, as well as the chapter on trompe-l'oeil, are especially good. The essay, then, may still serve as a general introduction to the beginner and as a general survey of the field to be supplemented by later studies.

The Documents of 20th-Century Art: The Tradition of Constructivism. Stephen Bann, ed. Thames & Hudson, London, 1974. 334 pp., illus. Cloth ?3.75. Reviewed by Donald K. McNamee*

Bann's book is an attempt to present Constructivism through the writings of artists primarily within the move- ment itself. The attempt is a logical outcome of a phenomenon most prominent in the 20th century, that is, the pressure on artists to explain their works in writing and to define their positions in lectures. This is done in self-defence as much as by way of explanation. Thus encouraged, artists also have, many times foolishly, rushed to be counted among those who have taken a courageous or daring step into the non-mimetic (abstract) art of our time. In response, critics have scrambled to define the trends, often derisively or arbitrarily labelling them as they see fit while others have 'packaged' history, supposedly to explain the labels. There are dangers inherent in Bann's attempt. The documentation is inevitably limited to those artists who did explain or define, a group that does not necessarily include even all the important representatives of the movement. Moreover, Bann's own selection among the documents available provides a further distortion.

After the introduction, the documents sketch the work of Gabo, Tatlin, Alexei Gan, El Lissitzky, the Congress of International Progressive Artists and the now famous Van Diemen exhibition of 1922. Then follow three sections that give excerpts from some of the Little Magazines (Lef, G, Disk and Blok), introduce van Doesburg, the Bauhaus, the cinema and architecture to the argument, and extend the date to 1932. This is followed by the French Art Concrete concerns and the English publication Circle, which brings one to 1942. The book ends with eight comments on the period 1948-65 by such persons as Biederman, Vasarely, Lohse, Kenneth Martin and Baljeu and with a selected bibliography.

This sampling of Constructivism is offered to students and teachers, as well as to knowledgeable viewers and collectors. The goal of the book is to demonstrate how the term Constructivism 'arose . . . was extended and perhaps distorted' (emphasis mine) but purposely avoids 'a historical or genetic definition', in order to weave together 'broader lines of historical development' and 'identifiable movements', to explain the term's continued use up to the 1960s.

The title is impressive and the aim admirable; it implies a well researched, carefully organized and objective book at least three times the size of this one. However, the limitations imposed by the editor's methods and selections make it a dangerously misleading guide for students or newcomers to the area; only the very experienced readers may be better equipped to fill in the gaps for themselves. The editor has tried to do too much and this has resulted in an arbitrary selection of material: serious omissions, strange inclusions and several confusions caused both by what is and what is not included. While the 37 reproduc- tions (all in black and white) are good, the introductory chart setting out some artists and publications and two schools, chronologically and by country, is historical distortion ill-presented. It omits Poland and, therefore, the contributions of Strzeminski, Berlewi, Kobro, Stazewski et al. Yet, the work of Ms. Kobro could certainly cause some re-examination of the position of the minimalists and of modern architecture, as well as relate to the mobiles of Kenneth Martin, and Stazewski had an important exhi-

still life painting. The pages on Harnett and Sheeler, as well as the chapter on trompe-l'oeil, are especially good. The essay, then, may still serve as a general introduction to the beginner and as a general survey of the field to be supplemented by later studies.

The Documents of 20th-Century Art: The Tradition of Constructivism. Stephen Bann, ed. Thames & Hudson, London, 1974. 334 pp., illus. Cloth ?3.75. Reviewed by Donald K. McNamee*

Bann's book is an attempt to present Constructivism through the writings of artists primarily within the move- ment itself. The attempt is a logical outcome of a phenomenon most prominent in the 20th century, that is, the pressure on artists to explain their works in writing and to define their positions in lectures. This is done in self-defence as much as by way of explanation. Thus encouraged, artists also have, many times foolishly, rushed to be counted among those who have taken a courageous or daring step into the non-mimetic (abstract) art of our time. In response, critics have scrambled to define the trends, often derisively or arbitrarily labelling them as they see fit while others have 'packaged' history, supposedly to explain the labels. There are dangers inherent in Bann's attempt. The documentation is inevitably limited to those artists who did explain or define, a group that does not necessarily include even all the important representatives of the movement. Moreover, Bann's own selection among the documents available provides a further distortion.

After the introduction, the documents sketch the work of Gabo, Tatlin, Alexei Gan, El Lissitzky, the Congress of International Progressive Artists and the now famous Van Diemen exhibition of 1922. Then follow three sections that give excerpts from some of the Little Magazines (Lef, G, Disk and Blok), introduce van Doesburg, the Bauhaus, the cinema and architecture to the argument, and extend the date to 1932. This is followed by the French Art Concrete concerns and the English publication Circle, which brings one to 1942. The book ends with eight comments on the period 1948-65 by such persons as Biederman, Vasarely, Lohse, Kenneth Martin and Baljeu and with a selected bibliography.

This sampling of Constructivism is offered to students and teachers, as well as to knowledgeable viewers and collectors. The goal of the book is to demonstrate how the term Constructivism 'arose . . . was extended and perhaps distorted' (emphasis mine) but purposely avoids 'a historical or genetic definition', in order to weave together 'broader lines of historical development' and 'identifiable movements', to explain the term's continued use up to the 1960s.

The title is impressive and the aim admirable; it implies a well researched, carefully organized and objective book at least three times the size of this one. However, the limitations imposed by the editor's methods and selections make it a dangerously misleading guide for students or newcomers to the area; only the very experienced readers may be better equipped to fill in the gaps for themselves. The editor has tried to do too much and this has resulted in an arbitrary selection of material: serious omissions, strange inclusions and several confusions caused both by what is and what is not included. While the 37 reproduc- tions (all in black and white) are good, the introductory chart setting out some artists and publications and two schools, chronologically and by country, is historical distortion ill-presented. It omits Poland and, therefore, the contributions of Strzeminski, Berlewi, Kobro, Stazewski et al. Yet, the work of Ms. Kobro could certainly cause some re-examination of the position of the minimalists and of modern architecture, as well as relate to the mobiles of Kenneth Martin, and Stazewski had an important exhi-

still life painting. The pages on Harnett and Sheeler, as well as the chapter on trompe-l'oeil, are especially good. The essay, then, may still serve as a general introduction to the beginner and as a general survey of the field to be supplemented by later studies.

The Documents of 20th-Century Art: The Tradition of Constructivism. Stephen Bann, ed. Thames & Hudson, London, 1974. 334 pp., illus. Cloth ?3.75. Reviewed by Donald K. McNamee*

Bann's book is an attempt to present Constructivism through the writings of artists primarily within the move- ment itself. The attempt is a logical outcome of a phenomenon most prominent in the 20th century, that is, the pressure on artists to explain their works in writing and to define their positions in lectures. This is done in self-defence as much as by way of explanation. Thus encouraged, artists also have, many times foolishly, rushed to be counted among those who have taken a courageous or daring step into the non-mimetic (abstract) art of our time. In response, critics have scrambled to define the trends, often derisively or arbitrarily labelling them as they see fit while others have 'packaged' history, supposedly to explain the labels. There are dangers inherent in Bann's attempt. The documentation is inevitably limited to those artists who did explain or define, a group that does not necessarily include even all the important representatives of the movement. Moreover, Bann's own selection among the documents available provides a further distortion.

After the introduction, the documents sketch the work of Gabo, Tatlin, Alexei Gan, El Lissitzky, the Congress of International Progressive Artists and the now famous Van Diemen exhibition of 1922. Then follow three sections that give excerpts from some of the Little Magazines (Lef, G, Disk and Blok), introduce van Doesburg, the Bauhaus, the cinema and architecture to the argument, and extend the date to 1932. This is followed by the French Art Concrete concerns and the English publication Circle, which brings one to 1942. The book ends with eight comments on the period 1948-65 by such persons as Biederman, Vasarely, Lohse, Kenneth Martin and Baljeu and with a selected bibliography.

This sampling of Constructivism is offered to students and teachers, as well as to knowledgeable viewers and collectors. The goal of the book is to demonstrate how the term Constructivism 'arose . . . was extended and perhaps distorted' (emphasis mine) but purposely avoids 'a historical or genetic definition', in order to weave together 'broader lines of historical development' and 'identifiable movements', to explain the term's continued use up to the 1960s.

The title is impressive and the aim admirable; it implies a well researched, carefully organized and objective book at least three times the size of this one. However, the limitations imposed by the editor's methods and selections make it a dangerously misleading guide for students or newcomers to the area; only the very experienced readers may be better equipped to fill in the gaps for themselves. The editor has tried to do too much and this has resulted in an arbitrary selection of material: serious omissions, strange inclusions and several confusions caused both by what is and what is not included. While the 37 reproduc- tions (all in black and white) are good, the introductory chart setting out some artists and publications and two schools, chronologically and by country, is historical distortion ill-presented. It omits Poland and, therefore, the contributions of Strzeminski, Berlewi, Kobro, Stazewski et al. Yet, the work of Ms. Kobro could certainly cause some re-examination of the position of the minimalists and of modern architecture, as well as relate to the mobiles of Kenneth Martin, and Stazewski had an important exhi- bition in London in 1963 at the Grabowski Gallery.

*Dept. of Art, University of Saskatchewan, Sask., Canada.

bition in London in 1963 at the Grabowski Gallery.

*Dept. of Art, University of Saskatchewan, Sask., Canada.

bition in London in 1963 at the Grabowski Gallery.

*Dept. of Art, University of Saskatchewan, Sask., Canada.

Indeed, only 31 pages (103-6) selected from Blok are devoted to Poland-an English translation of 'What Con- structivism Is' and a montage, both by Szczuka. There is no mention of the important Polish publications Praesens and a.r. nor of Zwrotnica, Dzwingnia and Forma. In the few publications the chart does exhibit, why is prominence given to Structure but The Structurist omitted ? The former has ceased to function; the latter, by Bann's own ad- mission, does still 'flourish' and the respective editors (Baljeu and Bornstein) were co-founders of Structure. Passing mention is made of the American Abstract Artists group but of none of the followers in South America, and the Italian and German contributions, particularly since 1955, are also omitted. The prominence given to Vasarely -an artist 'in it' far more than 'of it'-certainly is curious, particularly in the absence of any such mention of Max Bill, Domela, Exter, Kassak, Kupka, Popova, the Sten- bergs, Vantongerloo and many others. And why does Bann mock the vorticists, whose position in 1914 must surely have been more courageous, even if less realized, than that of Vasarely in 1965 ?

One should remember that writing is by definition a second language for, and a secondary source on, artists. Therefore, a more helpful chart would consist of the names and dates of the artists both by nationality and by theoretical groups (and possibly another giving the schools, both formal and informal, as well as the diverse groups up to the present). Similarly, a much more complete chronology and the major catalogues should have been included. Such comprehensive charts would have been use- ful guides to the whole development that Bann has attempted to cover and to the place his selections had in it. It might also, to some extent, have offset the effect of his more gross omissions, such as the emergence of the relief as an entirely new medium, the Polish contributions and tem- pered the excessive confusions and distortions.

Bann's greatest problem is that he does not see either the actual works or their historical context; he does not, like some that he uses as the basis of his work, clearly define and set forward historical data and his point of view-he is inclined to misuse them. In short, he does not see art, he reads it. This, when coupled with his confusions and biased selectivity prevents him from adopting the stance of a prosecuting attorney concerned with the accumulation of evidence to obtain a conviction. At the same time, when one adds to this errors, distortions and literary arguments, he is disqualified as an art historian, much less one who can empathise as well as judge. The book is as incomplete and damaging as it is useful and the title more correctly ought to have read Some Comments and Secondary Sources on 20th-Century Art: Constructivism Misconstrued.

Discovering the Present: Three Decades in Art, Culture and Politics. Harold Rosenberg. University of Chicago Press, London and Chicago, 1973. 336 pp. ?5.00, $10.00. Reviewed by Henry P. Raleigh**

The collecting of a professional writer's essays published over a farly long span of time, in this case some 30 years, poses the problem of achieving consistency of thought and quality. At worst, the result may be a motley assembly, a few pot-boilers, an occasional heavyweight-the total serving no good purpose for the writer. At best, it is possible to reveal the genesis of a good critic's reflections on the things he or she knows best-one thinks of the collected essays of Herbert Read in Art and Alienation. Harold Rosenberg's editor makes a compromise that serves us something of each and it is not the most satisfying fare.

These essays, reviews and sundry notebook entries are

Indeed, only 31 pages (103-6) selected from Blok are devoted to Poland-an English translation of 'What Con- structivism Is' and a montage, both by Szczuka. There is no mention of the important Polish publications Praesens and a.r. nor of Zwrotnica, Dzwingnia and Forma. In the few publications the chart does exhibit, why is prominence given to Structure but The Structurist omitted ? The former has ceased to function; the latter, by Bann's own ad- mission, does still 'flourish' and the respective editors (Baljeu and Bornstein) were co-founders of Structure. Passing mention is made of the American Abstract Artists group but of none of the followers in South America, and the Italian and German contributions, particularly since 1955, are also omitted. The prominence given to Vasarely -an artist 'in it' far more than 'of it'-certainly is curious, particularly in the absence of any such mention of Max Bill, Domela, Exter, Kassak, Kupka, Popova, the Sten- bergs, Vantongerloo and many others. And why does Bann mock the vorticists, whose position in 1914 must surely have been more courageous, even if less realized, than that of Vasarely in 1965 ?

One should remember that writing is by definition a second language for, and a secondary source on, artists. Therefore, a more helpful chart would consist of the names and dates of the artists both by nationality and by theoretical groups (and possibly another giving the schools, both formal and informal, as well as the diverse groups up to the present). Similarly, a much more complete chronology and the major catalogues should have been included. Such comprehensive charts would have been use- ful guides to the whole development that Bann has attempted to cover and to the place his selections had in it. It might also, to some extent, have offset the effect of his more gross omissions, such as the emergence of the relief as an entirely new medium, the Polish contributions and tem- pered the excessive confusions and distortions.

Bann's greatest problem is that he does not see either the actual works or their historical context; he does not, like some that he uses as the basis of his work, clearly define and set forward historical data and his point of view-he is inclined to misuse them. In short, he does not see art, he reads it. This, when coupled with his confusions and biased selectivity prevents him from adopting the stance of a prosecuting attorney concerned with the accumulation of evidence to obtain a conviction. At the same time, when one adds to this errors, distortions and literary arguments, he is disqualified as an art historian, much less one who can empathise as well as judge. The book is as incomplete and damaging as it is useful and the title more correctly ought to have read Some Comments and Secondary Sources on 20th-Century Art: Constructivism Misconstrued.

Discovering the Present: Three Decades in Art, Culture and Politics. Harold Rosenberg. University of Chicago Press, London and Chicago, 1973. 336 pp. ?5.00, $10.00. Reviewed by Henry P. Raleigh**

The collecting of a professional writer's essays published over a farly long span of time, in this case some 30 years, poses the problem of achieving consistency of thought and quality. At worst, the result may be a motley assembly, a few pot-boilers, an occasional heavyweight-the total serving no good purpose for the writer. At best, it is possible to reveal the genesis of a good critic's reflections on the things he or she knows best-one thinks of the collected essays of Herbert Read in Art and Alienation. Harold Rosenberg's editor makes a compromise that serves us something of each and it is not the most satisfying fare.

These essays, reviews and sundry notebook entries are

Indeed, only 31 pages (103-6) selected from Blok are devoted to Poland-an English translation of 'What Con- structivism Is' and a montage, both by Szczuka. There is no mention of the important Polish publications Praesens and a.r. nor of Zwrotnica, Dzwingnia and Forma. In the few publications the chart does exhibit, why is prominence given to Structure but The Structurist omitted ? The former has ceased to function; the latter, by Bann's own ad- mission, does still 'flourish' and the respective editors (Baljeu and Bornstein) were co-founders of Structure. Passing mention is made of the American Abstract Artists group but of none of the followers in South America, and the Italian and German contributions, particularly since 1955, are also omitted. The prominence given to Vasarely -an artist 'in it' far more than 'of it'-certainly is curious, particularly in the absence of any such mention of Max Bill, Domela, Exter, Kassak, Kupka, Popova, the Sten- bergs, Vantongerloo and many others. And why does Bann mock the vorticists, whose position in 1914 must surely have been more courageous, even if less realized, than that of Vasarely in 1965 ?

One should remember that writing is by definition a second language for, and a secondary source on, artists. Therefore, a more helpful chart would consist of the names and dates of the artists both by nationality and by theoretical groups (and possibly another giving the schools, both formal and informal, as well as the diverse groups up to the present). Similarly, a much more complete chronology and the major catalogues should have been included. Such comprehensive charts would have been use- ful guides to the whole development that Bann has attempted to cover and to the place his selections had in it. It might also, to some extent, have offset the effect of his more gross omissions, such as the emergence of the relief as an entirely new medium, the Polish contributions and tem- pered the excessive confusions and distortions.

Bann's greatest problem is that he does not see either the actual works or their historical context; he does not, like some that he uses as the basis of his work, clearly define and set forward historical data and his point of view-he is inclined to misuse them. In short, he does not see art, he reads it. This, when coupled with his confusions and biased selectivity prevents him from adopting the stance of a prosecuting attorney concerned with the accumulation of evidence to obtain a conviction. At the same time, when one adds to this errors, distortions and literary arguments, he is disqualified as an art historian, much less one who can empathise as well as judge. The book is as incomplete and damaging as it is useful and the title more correctly ought to have read Some Comments and Secondary Sources on 20th-Century Art: Constructivism Misconstrued.

Discovering the Present: Three Decades in Art, Culture and Politics. Harold Rosenberg. University of Chicago Press, London and Chicago, 1973. 336 pp. ?5.00, $10.00. Reviewed by Henry P. Raleigh**

The collecting of a professional writer's essays published over a farly long span of time, in this case some 30 years, poses the problem of achieving consistency of thought and quality. At worst, the result may be a motley assembly, a few pot-boilers, an occasional heavyweight-the total serving no good purpose for the writer. At best, it is possible to reveal the genesis of a good critic's reflections on the things he or she knows best-one thinks of the collected essays of Herbert Read in Art and Alienation. Harold Rosenberg's editor makes a compromise that serves us something of each and it is not the most satisfying fare.

These essays, reviews and sundry notebook entries are grouped in sections of loosely unifying themes, some

**304 Springtown Road, New Paltz, NY 12561, U.S.A.

grouped in sections of loosely unifying themes, some

**304 Springtown Road, New Paltz, NY 12561, U.S.A.

grouped in sections of loosely unifying themes, some

**304 Springtown Road, New Paltz, NY 12561, U.S.A.

78 78 78 Books Books Books

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 18:03:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions