But such works wouldn't have been seen as "sabotage" - the smart set would have congratulated themselves for being aware of the correct theory to enable them to "see" these as not just as Art, but the latest correct tendency; Clement Greenberg and Harold Rosenberg were smart propagandists.

Yesterday I re-read Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word", very funny and so true, I think I might do a LQD of some of the best bits, e.g.:

"What I saw before me was the critic-in-chief of the NYT saying: In looking at a painting today "to lack a persuasive theory is to lack something crucial." I read it again. It didn't say "something helpful" or "enriching" or even "extremely valuable"." No, the word was CRUCIAL.

In short, frankly, these days, without a theory to go with it, I can't see a painting.

...
I had gotten it backward all along. Not "seeing is believing," you ninny, but "believing is seeing," for Modern Art has become completely literary: the paintings and other works exist only to illustrate the text." (of Greenberg, Rosenberg et al, TW).

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.