A Dictionary of Modern Painting
Book by Carlton Lake, Robert Maillard; Tudor Publishing, 1956

PREFACE
The aim of this book is to give a simple and reliable account of modern painting from the Impressionists up to our own time. It is the joint work of a number of art critics, mostly French; but though it comes from Paris, the vital centre of most modern movements in art, the editors have been at pains to maintain a broad outlook and describe painting activities outside France. This is a dictionary in the sense that two hundred and fifty entries follow one another in alphabetical order; but they are not simply dry recitals of dates and facts. Each entry is a considered essay on its subject, a critical and sympathetic appraisal of the artist or movement in question. In this sense we believe the book to be unique, and we hope it will prove an illuminating guide to all interested in modern painting. The editors were faced with the problem of where to start and where to end. The Impressionists were chosen as a convenient starting-point, but what was to be the closing date? It was finally decided that the only living painters to be included should be those who had made their mark before the outbreak of the Second World War.

In addition to the names of painters and art movements, the reader will find accounts of men of letters such as Apollinaire and André Breton who influenced the development of painting in their time. There are also descriptions of places such as the Slade School and the Bateau-Lavoir, where painters assembled and worked. In this English version, which has been done by five translators in Paris working closely with the original publisher, a number of additional entries have been inserted in their appropriate places, and the number of illustrations has been increased. ABSTRACT ART Discussion of abstract, non-representational art has generally led to controversy rather than to any real clarification of the subject. Fanatical opponents and supporters reach a deadlock, because it is as useless to deny the legitimacy of abstract art as to try and impose its principles as absolute dogma. No artistic formula can be justified or condemned in itself; it must be judged by reference to the quality of the works that exemplify it. After half a century of vicissitudes, and despite its present widespread acceptance, abstract art still presents difficulties of an historical and aesthetic nature which no article on the subject, no matter how brief and objective, can ignore. Architecture and music are naturally admitted to be abstract arts, not required to 'represent' something, and subject to their own laws, whereas poetry, painting and sculpture are considered arts of representation.

Ought this traditional distinction to be maintained or, aesthetics being universal, can all arts claim the same inherent autonomy as music and architecture? It does seem that abstract art was born from the very desire to emulate music and architecture, with a freedom and discipline of its own. Kandinsky, with his suggestions of music, and Mondrian, with his ideal of architecture, demonstrate the limitations and, at the same time, the achievement of abstract art. In the general process of abstraction that characterizes modern art, is there a line of demarcation between the domains of representational and non-representational art? And if so, where should it be drawn? Can one speak of relative and absolute abstraction, and where does absolute abstraction begin? Finally, is abstract art in its various manifestations a truly original creation of the twentieth century, the outcome of historical conditions, or is it a cyclic phase whose equivalent is to be found in the arts of the past?