Janice Salikin

18th November 2016

John Rapko

Philosophy of Art and Aesthetics

White Painting by Robert Rauschenberg: What makes a Painting really a Painting?

White Painting by Robert Rauschenberg is a series of modular canvases, painted

completely in white, which display changes in the light and the chance effects of shadows in the

surrounding space. Rauschenbergs primary purpose was to create a painting that looked pure, as

if it had simply arrived in the world fully formed and absolutely untouched . Among the most

radical aspects of the series is that these works were conceived as remarkable: Rauschenberg

viewed them primarily as a concept and allowed for the physical artworks to be repainted and

even refabricated from scratch without his direct involvement. After the discussion we had in

class about Richard Wollheims theory on what constitutes a painting a painting, I am very much

interested to learn as to what Wollheim would say about this piece: would it be considered as a

painting? If not, does it make it an extended painting then?

My take on Wollheims theory is that, if we have to deal with a painting we must

consider its Ur/Primordial aspects of what makes it a painting. So according to Wollheim, if we

were to consider the basic sense of painting, what is involved? He said that a painter marks a

surface while keeping their eyes open, and monitors the surface. When a painter marks a surface,

the painter is playing two roles concurrently, the painter is involved in an activity of marking, but

is also observing what they do; to see what is emerging. So there is this infinitely intricate

feedback loop of the painter interchanging his role as the maker and viewer, as they engage in a
learning process, they would change their actions in accordance to what is seen in the marking.

Now if we take a look at Rauschenbergs White Painting, we would think that his marking of the

canvas really, kind of defeats the purpose of really monitoring, and modulating the ongoing

novelty of what is surfacing while simultaneously marking. The problem here is that Wollheim

places emphasis on the monitoring and the marking of the surface, and Rauschenbergs piece

in a way kind of dismisses the act of really marking the surface, and embracing the imperfections

and that sense of the unknown, as to what would emerge on to the surface, since technically, he is

merely painting the entire canvas with just white paint.

To explicate further, when the artist is marking a surface, the artist is aiming to generate

two kinds of primary meanings: Representation, which is equivalent to Dantos Aboutness and

Expression. Representation wise, I think that White Painting does exhibit a sense of

Aboutness. Rauschenberg once referred to the works as clocks, saying that if one were

sensitive enough to the subtle changes on their surfaces one could tell what time it was and what

the weather was like outside. Ultimately, the power of the White Paintings lies in the shifts in

attention they require from the viewer, asking us to slow down, watch closely over time, and

inspect their mute painted surfaces for subtle shifts in color, light, and texture. And so, clearly the

piece is about something; it portrays the concept of time, which compels the viewer to really

appreciate the simple fleeting moment in life reflected on the white canvas. So, it fulfills

Wollheims criterion of Representation, as he emphasizes again and again that the information

we seek should be implanted in the painting itself.

On the other hand, what Wollheim meant as Expression refers to the Artists mental state:

moods, emotions, feelings, and a perspective on the world. He is not saying that the states that

the artist is expressing are already formed by the artist; he already somehow has this sort of
predetermined state, without experiencing this moment or not, but he has gone through this state

that consists of that point of view, feelings and emotions, and so he wants to express that feeling

through painting. What the artist is doing is that he is keeping his eyes open; not because he is

monitoring what he is marking, simply because he wants to make sure that he is drawing it right,

but actually seeing the expressiveness that is arising on the canvas. Because, the artist cannot

know in advance what is going to happen, and so as you start to sense things, you start to

develop things, which is an infinitely complex process, personified perceptual cognitive process.

Primarily, the meanings in painting is called primary meanings: what it is about, and its

expressiveness, which again relates back to displaying the artists psychological state, not

necessarily the ones that the artist have in mind, but something that can be seen and force upon

ourselves when we encounter a work of painting. Then again, it can be argued that White

Painting sort of rebukes the idea of not knowing in advance what is going to happen as he

paints on the canvas, because he has this preconceived notion in mind, of what hes really aiming

to do and convey, by painting a blank canvas white. But then again, the piece as a whole does

show the painters mental state, which is important because it demands an intention of his, not

something careless, accidental, or mindless. A painting that does not embody a meaningful idea

does not qualify, on Wollheims terms, as art; and he is keen to do away with the type of painters

that are not artists. For the artists major aim, so Wollheim contends, is to produce content or

meaning. So it certainly is a piece of art, but can it be considered as painting?

Overall, we can see that White Painting by Rauschenberg does not really fulfill all of

Wollheims criteria as to what makes a painting a painting, but it does in some particular aspect

correspond to his theory (Representation). So, how is creating White Painting different from

painting a wall with white paint then? I personally think that the thought embodied within the
work is crucial; it is what makes it a piece of art. We know that Rauschenberg is aiming to create

meaning, and something interesting, and we can see that his work is imbued in a certain sense of

expressive values. But is that all there is to it? I think that what really determines a work of

painting as art still remains indefinite, and there might still be theories that are still developing.