ion simply transforms nature into a sensuously pleasing surface. But what is it about nongeometrical abstraction that makes it so suitable a bearer for 'pure ideas'? Newman does not answer this question explicitly but it is reasonable to assume that he sees non-geometrical abstraction as simply having greater connotative power. It hovers, as it were, in the potently ambiguous semantic space between conventional representational art and pure geometrical abstraction. Characteristically the exploitation of this space takes the form of a combination of loosely biomorphic and geometric elements that transcend mere aesthetic value without relapsing into the mundane narratives of conventional representation. Newman himself uses the term 'ideograph' to pick out symbols of this sort, and defines it specifically as 'A character, symbol, or figure which suggests the idea without expressing its name'. 5 It is unfortunate that Newman's use of the term ideograph has not received wider currency since it quite accurately summarises the semantic foundation of the early phase of abstract expressionism in general as well as his own work of 1945-7, where elements of biomorphic abstraction are dominant. Now if matters had been left here, Newman's work would probably have remained very much within the mainstream of abstract expressionism. However, there is quite emphatic tension between Newman's theory and his practice. On the one hand he is concerned only with a specific range of pure ideas namely those rooted in the selfcomprehension of the artist before the unknown; on the other hand, his ideographic means of evoking this through organic or biomorphic abstraction leads to broader naturalistic associations that tend rather to mask or distract us from the underlying 'pure idea'. Newman, however, comes to terms with this problem in 'The Sublime is Now' of 1948. It is to this paper I now turn. The basis of Newman's discussion is broadly historical, and (as might be expected) his view of art history is very much that of a fall from the metaphysical grace attained by primitive art. As he puts it: Man's natural desire in the arts to express his relation to the Absolute became identified and confused with the absolutisms of perfect creations with the fetish of quality ....'6 For Newman, this 'fetish of quality' is synonymous with the classical tradition of ideal beauty. With Gothic art, in contrast, an authentic state of sublime exaltation is attained through the artist's desire to destroy form; where indeed, 'form can be formless'. The liberating momentum of Gothic art is, however, checked by the Renaissance's reTHE OXFORD ART JOURNAL 7:2 1985 53 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.111 on Sat, 21 May 2016 06:41:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms statement of classical ideas. In Newman's words, it 'set the artists the task of rephrasing an accepted Christ legend in terms of absolute beauty as against the original Gothic ecstacy over the legend's evocation of the absolute.'17 Michelangelo's sculpture (for reasons not explained) alone transcends the classical ideal which, for Newman, remains dominant until '. .. in modern times, the Impressionists . . . began the movement to destroy the established rhetoric of beauty by the ... insistence on a surface of ugly strokes.'1 This tendency is crucial, because whilst it is a determining factor in the rise of modern art, it stamps that rise with a merely negative significance a mere embodiment of the rhetorical exaltation that arises from the destruction of the accepted conventions of artistic style and practice. As