In the end, the Text is created, not by the author, but by the reader who engages with it and puts it to work.
This quote makes it seem like there is a very fine line between modernism and post-modernism. Modernist works like Kaprow's "happenings" acquired meaning with viewer participation, just like this quote is describing about postmodernism. Did the dual audience/artist role from Kaprow's "Happenings" inspire post-modernist artists?
`the shift from production to reproduction
How would you guys interpret this line? I am taking this to mean that postmodernism involved reusing materials/previous artworks to create something new. While production is the creation of something from unrelated materials, reproduction is the creation of something from a related object (i.e. the creation of a human child from a human adult). Perhaps postmodernism "zhuzhed up" modernist artwork to make a new (yet related) movement.
But this form allows us equal pleasure in participating in a delirium, a deadening of the reasoning faculties, a loss of "self" in the Western sense of the term
While Pollock was an action painter rather than a color field painter, it is clear that both types of art have something in common: a way for the viewer to "participate" in the painting. This quote suggests that Pollock's paintings allow his viewers to get lost in his paintings and take a psychological journey. I think this is partly due to the abstraction of the paintings. When a painting requires serious thought and consideration to interpret its deeper meaning, the viewer has no choice but to reflect on their own thoughts and dive into his/her creativity.
self-sufficiently.
This concept of "self-sufficiency" in painting reminds me of Greenberg's philosophy on "purity" and making a painting "independent." While self-sufficiency in this case describes the individual parts of the painting rather than the whole painting itself, I think it still reflects how unique, abstract, and original Modernist paintings are.
does not show the contrary
What is "the contrary" in this case? I am quite confused. It seems like Greenberg does not like art that is consistent with the scientific method, yet he says the best art is consistent with the scientific method, so it seems like he is contradicting himself. I do agree that science and art are very related because each are complex systems with multiple parts that are necessary for a greater, beautiful whole (i.e. the organs in the human body and all the colors and shapes in a piece of art). I actually wrote a paper about art and science in my high school biology class!
We know what has happened to an activity like religion, which could not avail itself of Kantian, immanent, criticism in order to justify itself. At first glance the arts might seem to have been in a situation like religion's.
I am having a hard time deciphering exactly "what has happened to an activity like religion." Does this refer to the devaluation of religion in the Enlightenment period? Also, why does Greenberg refer to religion as "therapy" (later in the text) when so many people rejected the idea of religion during the Enlightenment? I am confused!