Ever since the 1960s2, when art in Los Angeles was defined by the introduction of abstract depictions, conceptualization has grown steadily amongst artists. Previous, one sees many faces in painting3 which had led to modernism by themed-nineteenth century. In conceptualization, the focus is on using abstract modes of expression to depict materials that we see around us in daily life, in an all new way. The main advantage of having such an art form was that lovers of art got a new perspective to look at nature and things around them. The perspective was believed to be initially impressionistic. Greenberg in his work Towards a Newer Laocoon, historically delineates how art has been evolving to become “pure” in its “medium” and in doing so it must retain the paint and the canvas for what it is and only convey sensation. Once this prescription has been satisfied the painter has achieved the “medium” of abstract art. Clark’s interpretation of Greenberg’s Towards a Newer Laocoon, sparks a heated debate between him and Michael Fried. Clark argues that Greenberg is historicizing in his writing and ignoring that art is a reflection of the artist social environment. Formalism should not be the only thing accounted for in a painting but content as well. Artistic standards in history go hand in hand with social practice, which is evident in nineteenth-century Romantics.
According to Clement Greenberg (1982), official painting and art forms were set to take a backseat in new forms of artistic depiction. Greenberg argues that if an artwork can be interpreted and agreed upon to be representative of a specific “situation” or “ object”, then it is merely an imitation rather than a medium. Art (paintings and sculptures) in the 17th and 18th century was directly imitating literature, and so literature being the medium- art was just an illusion of literature.