Viewing page 3 of 62

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-2-

I need something more precise than the feminine cattiness of an "old Freind [[Friend]]" of Stella's who says Frank hasn't been able to think for himself for some time. Who does his thinking? How? ANd what kind of thoughts does the non-polluted old freind [[friend]] have? And the other "artist-writer?" The one who says "Stella hasn't done anything in five years"? What does he say about Flavin, who has been arranging light bulbs as long as Stella has been arranging stripes? And what has he done in five years? Why do you quote these people to me? Do you really have so little empathy with the endeavors of other artists as to not even enquire as to what might be in Frank's mind and attitudes for him to seem to retreat from the unassailable earlier position into a much more questionable kind of painting? Is it really another artist whose letter I'm reading, who, upon finding the new series not to his liking, explains it in terms of Leo Castelli of all people?
About the technology artists. I've seen a lot of European shit -- in fact there are damn few Americans who even get into that bag. Why should I assume that there is secretly tucked offin Europe masterpieces of glitter and shimmy that no one will show here, even in pictures? Do you leave your best work behind? Does anyone? If you dont like my remarks about the technology stuff I've seen, then you must show me what I'm missing or agree to disagree -- but not try to tie my hands be hinting at marvelous events in Dusseldorf! I dont believe they are there. If they are, why then I say: I was wrong.
The word schism has been used before me in a secular, metaphorical manner, and I have no apologies to make for it. As for how you or I would know what mainstream abstraction is, why that's what we get paid to think about, both of us. You must have some ideas about it yourself -- your whole condemnation of Frank is based on a conception of what mainstream abstraction is; more -- you lament the fact that artists are placed in movements before they are even formed, and then "forced" to defend their work in terms of the movement that they have been placed in. This isn't very different from what you write about Frank, only, of course, your idea of what is mainstream and advanced and what is not isn't tainted by the shoddy motives of the critics, curators, dealers and everyone else whose existende your fundamentally sentimental notion of art-marking can't accomodate [[accommodate]]. I think I hate as many curators as you do, and as many critics, and certainly many more dealers, but each for particular reasons having to do with the way they do their jobs. But I'm not Tom Hess, and wont join you in hypocritical howls about "propagandists" and "promotors" and "movement makers" and so forth and so on -- that kindof stuff leads finally to crackpot ladies finding the Russians behind it all.
I must finally tell you that I regard, at least at this point, Greenburg, Tillim and Mike Fried as the three sharpest art intelligences around, and find it hilarious and marvelous that one who sounds very much like you -- Tom Hess -- should prove his position by publishing the reviews of Noland's and Stella's shows that he did, and that you in turn should find the best criticism being written as the enemy instead of this. "Give it up, Sidney," indeed! And who should not give it up? Al BrunellE?

I ask of you what you ask of me: complete privacy in the matter of these letters.

Phil

P.S. Please note that I am not finishing this letter by saying "Gladys has smilingly just remarked,' ... but he sounds so moral, Phil."