Painting Outside the Lines: Patterns of Creativity
in Modern Art
David W. Galenson
Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press, 2001
Cloth, 190 pp.
ISBN 0-674-00612-7
1. Painting, American20th century
Reviewed by Robert Pepperell
PøLAR (Posthuman Laboratory for Arts Research)
pepperell@ntlworld.com
According to author David Galenson, despite the many and various ways
in which art and science have intersected in recent times, art historians
have consistently failed to apply the methodology of econometrics
to the analysis of trends in art: "Yet although quantitative methods
have now been profitably applied to a host of topics in social and economic
history, the history of modern art has remained virtually untouched
by quantification." (p. xv). Derived from the quantitative statistical
measurement techniques of economic theory, econometrics seeks to establish
causal relationships between social behaviour patterns and statistical
data. In this case Galenson, an economics professor, looks for a correlation
between artists ages and their creative peaks. To cite two of
the most obvious "archetypes": the work Cézanne produced
late in his career (such as Les Grandes Baigneuses) is his most widely
known and highly valued, whereas for Picasso it was the work produced
early in his career (such as Les Demoiselles dAvignon) which has
the highest art historical profile, and hence market value. Galenson
asserts that artists of Cézannes generation tended to have
late creative peaks, whereas those of Picassos tended to peak
early.
Galenson conducts a detailed statistical survey of two intensive periods
of western art: the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries in
France, and the post-war period from the forties to the sixties
in the US, with cultural and commercial epicentres in Paris and New
York respectively. The essential thesis is quite straightforward, and
well made. For Galenson, an artists practice can be characterised
in one of two general ways experimental or conceptual. Experimental
artists tend to engage with the creative process in an extended war
of attrition, an on-going struggle between artist and materials which
results in a slow, incremental evolution of style. The exemplar is,
again, Cézanne whose painfully careful method and constant repetition
of subject matter suggests an oeuvre gravitating towards some distant
and unobtainable state of perfection. On the other hand, Picasso, who
for Galenson exemplifies the conceptual approach, was prone to rapid
stylistic turnover in a career marker by early and significant innovations
(often referred to in the literature as protean).
The pattern is repeated in the US art community after the war, where
Abstract Expressionists developed a style that evolved over several
decade of gradual change (e.g. Pollock and de Kooning), with an attendant
uncertainty about the content and direction of the work. This was followed
by the more conceptually driven Pop artists (e.g. Johns, Warhol) who
tended to exploit the inherently rapid and immediate processes of print
or replication that gave rise to more certain results. Galenson summarises
his case thus: "For the experimentalists, innovations usually came
slowly and gradually, appearing incrementally in large bodies of work,
whereas for the conceptualists, innovations could come quickly and abruptly,
often appearing in celebrated individual breakthrough works." (p.
163).
The book provides enough entertaining and well-informed art history,
including many specific quotes from artists, dealers, critics and collectors,
to sustain the broad argument, despite the many exceptions and overlaps
between artists who display both experimental and conceptual tendencies.
To this extent, the "Painting Outside the Lines" project has
something of value to offer students of art in general, and students
of art historical trends in particular.
But the claims made by Galenson about the efficacy of the methods of
quantitative analysis in his introduction seem less secure the more
one works through the book. Indeed, in several places he betrays a degree
of uncertainty about one of its core assertion the correealtion
between artists birth-date and their creative output. In concluding
the main chapter on French painting he offers two apparently inconsistent
sentences in the same paragraph: "Although this chapter has only
briefly surveyed the early development of modern painting in Paris,
its evidence is sufficient to show that there was no simple, deterministic
relationship between an artists date of birth and his conception
of the nature and goals of art.", while a few sentences on he claims:
"Nonetheless, it is clear that there was an association between
an artists birthdate and his approach to painting . . . "
(p.111). This prevarication is at odds with more confident tone of the
opening sections.
Given that much of the argument rested on detailed economic research
gathered from auction rooms, I was surprised at the omission of two
key economic influences that might have contributed to the tendencies
Gelenson identifies. First, many nineteenth century artists, like Cézanne,
Degas and Corot, enjoyed private incomes which allowed extended periods
of experimentation free from the pressures of dealers and salesrooms.
Many of the artists that followed, such as Picasso, were impelled by
conditions of extreme personal poverty towards rapid innovation, if
only to establish a foothold in a market which celebrated innovation
and was accustomed to stylistic progress. Second, Galenson touches only
lightly on the determining role played by the rapid expansion of the
art markets in both turn-of-the-century Paris and post-war New York.
In each case the art market booms fuelled new methods and stylistic
approaches, spurred on by acquisitive collectors and articulate, ambitious
critics. The relationship between style and market expansion would have
seemed an ideal subject for Galensons quantitative approach.
Finally, there is another interesting psychological dimension to the
observation that certain artists peak late in their careers, which can
be summarised as success breeds complacency. It is a phenomenon
seen regularly in the music industry, when an individual, or group,
achieve great early success they tend to lose the creative edge and
hunger that originally drove them to produce good work. By contrast,
a lack of formal recognition early in a career spurs certain people
to even greater efforts to find success, which sometimes culminates
in late recognition. This is a further aspect of this interesting question
that Galenson omits to address.
It is difficult to see who could benefit most from "Painting Outside
the Lines". The art historical stories and anecdotes are readable
and narratively pacey, but widely available elsewhere. The quantitative
analysis is, in many respects, selective and open to differing interpretations,
and therefore of limited value to the empirical researcher. Perhaps
the most valuable contribution is the evidence drawn up in favour of
the distinction between the experimental and conceptual approaches,
as discussed above. But these labels are less quantitative measures
than subjective, qualitative judgements, which by Galensons own
admission are anything but precise when whole decades of artistic practice
are considered.
But despite its deficiencies, Galensons attempt to unite the otherwise
incompatible disciplines of quantitative analysis and art history in
"Painting Outside the Lines" represents an act of intellectual
courage, and provides further evidence of the value cross-disciplinary
studies.