Of all the Abstract Expressionists, Barnett Newman (1905-1970) was the one who talked the most. He had many ideas about what a painting should be and was constantly trying to explain them in articles, public state ments, manifestoes, letters to newspapers, or just impromptu conversations at the Betty Parsons Gallery, where he often could be found on Saturday afternoons holding forth among friends. By now many of us are familiar with the things Newman said. He believed that his paintings (and occasional sculptures) were closely related to primitive art. He believed they transcended appear ances and made contact with what he called emotional absolutes. For him, the “sublime” and the “awesome” weren’t merely by products of art, but qualities to be directly pursued and promoted, and he championed them as assiduously as politicians of his era championed victory gardens. Among the many ironies surrounding his career is that he took a hard-sell approach to spiritual exalta tion.

It isn’t difficult to understand why New man was so eager to enshroud his work in a haze of higher meaning. As one who special ized in a kind of art based on extreme reduc tion, he obviously wanted to reassure the viewer that there is more to his paintings than meets the eye. He didn’t want them to be seen as mere designs—an anathema to most any artist, but particularly to one who began his career in the garment trade. (Newman worked for his father’s menswear company for a decade