In David Joselit’s essay “Notes on Surface”, he discusses Jason Pollock’s “gestural” paintings in relation to flatness from Greenberg’s modernist view.. In regards to Pollock’s work, Joselit states, “This allegory arises from the conviction, shared equally by Pollock and his critics, that gestural painting emerges from an inner source – a psychological depth” (Kocur, Leung, 294). Joselit makes this statement referring only to “gestural” painting, but in reality it could be related to all artwork. Prior to this statement, he says, “abstraction functions as a machine for recording the psychological responses of the artist in order to produce (perhaps dramatically different) psychological responses in the viewer” (Kocur, Leung, 293). I am not arguing or debating what Joselit states about Greenberg’s view (abstract work evoking a psychological response from the viewer). However I do think a psychological response can come from many types of art, not just the abstract.

Joselit discusses how Greenberg believes “flatness” is validated by the artist’s emotions expressed in the work. Joselit states, “in Greenberg’s formulation the converse is true: optical modernism is legitimated by the painter’s emotions” (Kocur, Leung, 295). In my opinion, this statement can be true for the people who are educated within the art world. However, I specifically remember looking at Pollock’s gestural paintings in an art class and the “average Joe” making remarks about how it just looked like a bunch of paint thrown on a canvas. For the average person outside of the art world, expressed emotions within a painting do not “legitimize” flatness. People expect to see form and depth when they look at something. And without form, the average person is unable to take in the image and appreciate it.

Kocur, Zoya, and Simon Leung. Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Print.