Graphic Arts in the Twentieth Century
Book by Wolf Stubbe; Frederick A. Praeger, 1963

PREFACE As it was plain from the start that any summarizing account of present-day graphic art would have to be tentative, this experiment was undertaken in the honest belief that it was an innocent one. For anyone concerning himself with the artistic events of his own times is constantly aware of the limits of his own powers of judgment, and he very soon comes to realize that, though highlights may perhaps be discerned, it is hardly possible to determine grades of value. Indeed, the very change in and probably also the broadening of one's own view are invigorating experiences, as one grows familiar with art previously unknown. Yet however ready one may be just to accept, the need for a kind of stock-taking keeps presenting itself, even if it is to occur with inadequate means. A need to "master" one's manifold experiences of new phenomena, to render oneself an account of what is really being touched in one's consciousness, and to see whether the bewildering hotchpotch of most varied sensations cannot after all be reduced to some kind of order and thus made easier to survey. That this need is legitimized, if on no other grounds, simply by its omnipresence becomes apparent time and again as people talk. Not just in the discussions of spectators experiencing something new but also, and still more distinctly, in the explanations given by creators of what they create. It is true that some artists are taciturn. The majority, however, have a view on what they ought and want to do -- a view wholly committed to what is peculiarly theirs: the self-evident basic condition of all free creation, but also more or less a prerequisite for whoever seeks, in contemplating it, to give an account of what has just been produced. Today most artists -- including the very ones who have made a decisive "practical" contribution to determining art's course -- know how to express their aesthetic and philosophical opinions far better than did their predecessors.

They are often great and intriguing theorists, and under the direct impact of their statements one can hold that these have the character of genuine commentaries and must therefore be seen as part of their maker's creative activity. With such autonomous reasoned explanations of autonomous actions it is undoubtedly a question of the most passionate and total commitment immaginable. Yet these highly personal verbal presentations of definite views on pictorial art are quite often endorsed by the appearance of the work produced, and thus help, like all relevant knowledge, to deepen the visual experience. If one must in any case set out from a fixed position, as one cannot stand above the present and obtain from afar a comprehensive prospect of what it yields, these committed views can, if one feels that a sort of correlation exists between them and the work of art, provide very useful information and direct the eye to what is essential. An unclarified residue does of course remain. One can hardly check the authenticity of relations between word and work that are, so to speak, only felt. However, this element of imprecision is reduced if views can be assembled that are due to the efforts of many minds and approach a consensus ornniurn. Such deliberations guided to agreement over a wide area are particularly in evidence at the start of the graphic evolution here to be considered. Accordingly, they have been followed in comparative detail. But since the field in which individual opinions find general acceptance narrows the closer it gets to the present day, shorter references to different trends of thought have had to take the place of rather more lengthy expositions for the immediate present. As the diverse views on the nature and functions of graphic art are enumerated in their succession during modern times, its most recent history, full of decisions, also takes shape.

The one-sidedness of this essay is an inevitable result of all this. There can be no question here of giving marks, and so the mentioning of an artist is not to be equated with a value judg- ment. Rather it is a matter of citing examples, which as such do of course have their special weight. When choosing them the aim was as far as possible to eliminate judgment founded on personal taste. Just as far as possible. The fallibility of even a well-disposed will has a disturbing effect, and the achieving of a balanced assessment is jeopardized no less by the unavoidable limitedness of one's own experience. This assessment thus depends largely on which artists and which works the selector has seen. What it has been possible to study especially thoroughly within the compass of the accessible data of exhibitions, collections, sales, and so on, inevitably creates definite trends in the mind. The general valuation of a given artist does not remain without effect upon the individual, whether it induces him to agree with it or drives him into opposition. Experts on graphic art know about the power of suggestion wielded by the "pro- vocative" offer on the art market. They see dally how various are the judgments even of really painstaking and naturally gifted connoisseurs, and witness the continual change in wh at one might call the public presentation of the artists. They know -- apart from the artists who have "arrived" undisputably -- how rapid is the succession in which ever different artists are put on display as being important. Little as this is to be lamented from the standpoint of the prospect it offers of what is going on in art, it still greatly hinders any attempt to establish a definite image of art today. From the point of view of the presentation, neither the ever necessary replacements nor the numerous deletions allow a conclusion to be reached. All this naturally applies less to graphic work from the first third of our century, but even as regards what may be held exemplary, its valuation is by no means free from movement.