Flatbed Picture Plane

Throughout the vast history of visual art, new movements and revolutions have been born as a result of breaking past conventions. This idea of moving past traditional styles was done by many artists in the 1950s and 1960s, including those artists who participated in the many different abstract movements. These artists decided to abandon old-fashioned techniques and ideas such as those of classical Renaissance, Baroque, or even Impressionist art. One of these new conventions, as discussed by art historian Leo Steinberg in his essay, “The Flatbed Picture Plane,” is the concept of a flat and horizontal type of plane in a work that does not have a typical fore, middle, or background like that of the traditional art from classical periods previously mentioned. The flatbed picture plane that Steinberg refers to is similar to that of a table in which items can be placed on top of, yet they are merely objects and do not represent any space. In his article, Steinberg explains that the opposite of this flatbed plane is the

idea of the Renaissance picture plane, or more simply the idea that a work has a clear world space that is accessible; a space that gives a sense of possible entry for an upright standing viewer. He discusses a brief history of conventional gravitational spaces in paintings, and argues that even many early Abstract and Cubist painters, such as Picasso and Pollock, still followed this convention because their work derived from real space and that the painters composed their pieces upright. Steinberg then addresses his main argument that suggests the change of vertical, conventional picture planes to horizontal, flatbed picture planes is not only a shift in artistic aesthetic, but also a shift in art culture and the way art is imagined . Steinberg uses Abstract Expressionist artist Robert Rauschenberg as his primary example for this concept, and holds a few of his pieces as exemplary for demonstrating the flattened plane concept. However, one of Rauschenberg’s pieces, Short Circuit (1955) , which is not mentioned in the paper, actually challenges Steinberg’s well-developed interpretation of the horizontal image plane. Therefore, it appears that Steinberg’s observations about Rauschenberg and the flatbed picture plane, although valid to some degree, can be very much contradicted by Rauschenberg’s own artwork – Short Circuit (1955).
Focusing on the relationship between the flatbed concepts that Steinberg describes and the proof that he provides through a formal analysis of Rauschenberg’s art, it appears that his main argument is true. He describes that the picture plane Rauschenberg uses, which is flatbed in style, meaning that there is no spatial upright to the work, and explains that there is a cultural shift that coincides with the shift in horizontal style.
Steinberg first uses Rauschenberg’s White Painting With Numbers (1949) to emphasize clearly that, as the image is stark and non-representative of a real physical space, it falls into the category of flatbed . Rauschenberg’s other works, such as Drawing by Willem de Kooning erased by Robert Rauschenberg also represents this change from a world space drawing to a flat, erased object – paper. The author even uses some of Rauschenberg’s more famous works, such as Canyon (1959), Winter Pool (1959-1960), and Pilgrim (1960), to further provide visual evidence that supports his claim . All of this evidence, in combination with Steinberg’s article, makes his point of imaginative changes with respect to the orientation of the image plane clear to the reader.
Unfortunately, Steinberg’s arguments are only so valid. It is clear that the author selected his works carefully, and selected only the works that fit his argument well. Rauschenberg’s mixed media piece entitled Short Circuit (1955), gives less credit to the author. The work itself is almost sculptural. It uses a few different images contained within two hinged cabinets, including a painting by Susan Weil in one compartment, and an American Flag by Elaine Sturtevant in the other. There are also many different paints, fabrics, and photographic images collaged together on the lower portion of the piece. The subject and interpretation of the work is much less important than its formal qualities, as these are what disprove Steinberg’s argument.
Essentially, Steinberg’s entire flatbed concept is not very apparent in Short Circuit. The piece is quite flat in the bottom portion, which coincides with the argument presented in the reading. However, there are some very obvious signs of depth that contradict Steinberg’s points. The cabinets that open and close add physical form to the piece, therefore adding more depth. This physical depth cannot be avoided; a viewer relates to the work because of the clear relation to upright cabinets found in everyday life. Even if the viewer attempted to view the work flatly, it is simply nonsensical because of how people interact with cabinets; they are meant to have a capacity.
The piece also has some clear illusions of space in the painted and collaged areas of the work. The burgundy area under the second cabinet of the artwork is reminiscent of a wall, and below that, the dark rectangle underneath the photographs draws the eye into the space. The use of paint here appears to create the illusion of deep depth, even if it is a flat surface. Steinberg does argue that although Rauschenberg does use photographs in his work, the artist uses other methods of collage and paint to draw away from the space they might portray . While this might be a relevant point in some of Rauschenberg’s other pieces, in Short Circuit it does not hold true. The depth that is created, whether intentional or not, is absolutely present and cannot be preserved as flat in any way.
The work also disproves another notion of the flatbed picture plane, which is the idea that a work that embodies the concept is meant to be completely horizontal, like a table, in which the items on the work are merely items, and nothing else.

While there are numerous collaged items on the work, they do not create the tabletop flatness that Steinberg describes. Instead, all of the images: the paintings, pictures, and text, are oriented in the same real-life gravitational direction. Unlike Rauschenberg’s White Painting with Numbers, there is a clear direction that the work is to be viewed from, and this direction does not change whether the work is placed on a wall or on the floor; the indented gravitational direction is always clear. There is no mystery in the placement of the work, and no flatbed picture plane quality like that of Rauschenberg’s Third Time Painting (1962) where a normally vertical object, a clock, has been rotated 90

degrees.
Steinberg’s argument of the flatbed picture plane is not completely invalid. His paper is thought provoking, and does aid in seeing the changes of how picture planes are interpreted artistically. Nonetheless, his emphasis on using Rauschenberg as his main example may be faulty, as not all of his artwork can prove the use of the flatbed picture plane he describes. His comments on the flatbed picture plane being a change in art culture are also still credible, as Rauschenberg’s works that do contain a flat picture plane do change the way images and art can be presented, but that could be a general statement made about the collage style Rauschenberg uses, and not necessarily the flatbed style they express. This sweeping assertion that the flatbed picture tilt changes the way the artist and viewer interacts with images, can also be said about any contemporary style of art that breaks the conventions that came before it.