\nThese responses must be two pages in length, and should be double-spaced with 12-point font. Responses should consist of a summary of at least two to three main arguments from each assigned text, as well as a scholarly analysis of their content. No personal opinion pieces, please.
\nAttachments:
\nThe American Action Painters
\nHarold Rosenberg
\n[From The Tradition of the New, 1959. Originally in Art News 51\/8, Dec. 1952.]
\n?J?ai fait des gestes blanc parmi les solitudes.? Apollinaire
\n?The American will is easily satisfied in its efforts to realize itself in knowing itself.?
\nWallace Stevens
\nWhat makes any definition of a movement in art dubious is that it never fits the deepest
\nartists in the movement?certainly not as well as, if successful, it does the others. Yet
\nwithout the definition something essential in those best is bound to be missed. The
\nattempt to define is like a game in which you cannot possibly reach the goal from the
\nstarting point but can only close in on it by picking up each time from where the last play
\nlanded.
\nModern Art? Or An Art of the Modern?
\nSince the war every twentieth-century style in painting is being brought to profusion in the
\nUnited States: thousands of ?abstract? painters?crowded teaching courses in Modern
\nArt?a scattering of new heroes?ambitions stimulated by new galleries, mass
\nexhibitions, reproductions in popular magazines, festivals, appropriations.
\nIs this the usual catching up of America with European art forms? Or is something new
\nbeing created? For the question of novelty, a definition would seem indispensable.
\nSome people deny that there is anything original in the recent American painting.
\nWhatever is being done here now, they claim, was done thirty years ago in Paris. You
\ncan trace this painter?s boxes of symbols to Kandinsky, that one?s moony shapes to Mir?
\nor even back to C?zanne.
\nQuantitatively, it is true that most of the symphonies in blue and red rectangles, the
\nwandering pelvises and birdbills, the line constructions and plane suspensions, the
\nvirginal dissections of flat areas that crowd the art shows are accretions to the ?School of
\nParis? brought into being by the fact that the mode of production of modern masterpieces
\nhas now been all too clearly rationalized. There are styles in the present displays which
\nthe painter could have acquired by putting a square inch of a Soutine or a Bonnard under
\na microscope?. All this is training based on a new conception of what art is, rather than
\noriginal work demonstrating what art is about to become.
\nAt the centre of this wide practising of the immediate past, however, the work of some
\npainters has separated itself from the rest by a consciousness of a function for painting
\ndifferent from that of the earlier ?abstractionists?, both the Europeans themselves and the
\nAmericans who joined them in the years of the Great Vanguard.
\nThis new painting does not constitute a School. To form a School in modern times not
\nonly is a new painting consciousness needed but a consciousness of that
\nconsciousness?and even an insistence on certain formulas. A School is the result of the
\nlinkage of practice with terminology?different paintings are affected by the same words.
\nPage 2 of 8 | Rosenberg, AAP
\nIn the American vanguard the words, as we shall see, belong not to the art but to the
\nindividual artists. What they think in common is represented only by what they do
\nseparately.
\nGetting Inside the Canvas
\nAt a certain moment the canvas began to appear to one American painter after another
\nas an arena in which to act?rather than as a space in which to reproduce, redesign,
\nanalyse or ?express? an object, actual or imagined. What was to go on the canvas was not
\na picture but an event.
\nThe painter no longer approached his easel with an image in his mind; he went up to it
\nwith material in his hand to do something to that other piece of material in front of him.
\nThe image would be the result of this encounter.
\nIt is pointless to argue that Rembrandt or Michelangelo worked in the same way. You
\ndon?t get Lucrece with a dagger out of staining a piece of cloth or spontaneously putting
\nforms into motion upon it. She had to exist some place else before she got on the
\ncanvas, and paint was Rembrandt?s means for bringing her there, though, of course, a
\nmeans that would change her by the time she arrived. Now, everything must have been
\nin the tubes, in the painter?s muscles and in the cream-coloured sea into which he dives.
\nIf Lucrece should come out she will be among us for the first time?a surprise. To the
\npainter, she must be a surprise. In this mood there is no point to an act if you already
\nknow what it contains.
\n?B?is not modern,? one of the leaders of this mode said to me. ?He works from sketches.
\nThat makes him Renaissance.?
\nHere the principle, and the difference from the old painting, is made into a formula. A
\nsketch is the preliminary form of an image the mind is trying to grasp. To work from
\nsketches arouses the suspicion that the artist still regards the canvas as a place where
\nthe mind records its contents?rather than itself the ?mind? through which the painter
\nthinks by changing a surface with paint.
\nIf a painting is an action the sketch is one action, the painting that follows it another. The
\nsecond cannot be ?better? or more complete than the first. There is just as much in what
\none lacks as in what the other has.
\nOf course, the painter who spoke had no right to assume that his friend had the old
\nmental conception of a sketch. There is no reason why an act cannot be prolonged from
\na piece of paper to a canvas. Or repeated on another scale and with more control. A
\nsketch can have the function of a skirmish.
\nCall this painting ?abstract? or ?Expressionist? or ?Abstract-Expressionist?, what counts is its
\nspecial motive for extinguishing the object, which is not the same as in other abstract or
\nExpressionist phases of modern art.
\nThe new American painting is not ?pure? art, since the extrusion of the object was not for
\nthe sake of the aesthetic. The apples weren?t brushed off the table in order to make room
\nfor perfect relations of space and colour. They had to go so that nothing would get in the
\nway of the act of painting. In this gesturing with materials, the aesthetic, too, has been
\nsubordinated. Form, colour, composition, drawing, are auxiliaries, any one of which?or
\npractically all, as has been attempted logically, with unpainted canvases?can be
\ndispensed with. What matters always is the revelation contained in the act. It is to be
\nPage 3 of 8 | Rosenberg, AAP
\ntaken for granted that in the final effect, the image, whatever be or be not in it, will be a
\ntension.1
\nDramas of As If
\nA painting that is an act is inseparable from the biography of the artist. The painting itself
\nis a ?moment? in the adulterated mixture of his life?whether ?moment? means the actual
\nminutes taken up with spotting the canvas or the entire duration of a lucid drama
\nconducted in sign language. The act-painting is of the same metaphysical substance as
\nthe artist?s existence. The new painting has broken down every distinction between art
\nand life.
\nIt follows that anything is relevant to it. Anything that has to do with action?psychology,
\nphilosophy, history, mythology, hero worship.2
\n Anything but art criticism. The painter gets
\naway from art through his act of painting; the critic can?t get away from it. The critic who
\ngoes on judging in terms of schools, styles, form?as if the painter were still concerned
\nwith producing a certain kind of object (the work of art), instead of living on the
\ncanvas?is bound to seem a stranger.
\nSome painters take advantage of this stranger. Having insisted that their painting is an
\nact, they then claim admiration for the act as art. This turns the act back toward the
\naesthetic in a petty circle. If the picture is an act, it cannot be justified as an act of genius
\nin a field whose whole measuring apparatus has been sent to the devil. Its value must be
\nfound apart from art. Otherwise the ?act? gets to be ?making a painting? at sufficient speed
\nto meet an exhibition date.
\n 1
\n “With regard to the tensions it is capable of setting up in our bodies the medium of any art is an
\nextension of the physical world; a stroke of pigment, for example, ‘works’ within us in the same way
\nas a bridge across the Hudson. For the unseen universe that inhabits us an accidental blot or
\nsplash of paint may thus assume an equivalence to the profoundest happening?. “If the ultimate
\nsubject matter of all art is the artist’s psychic state or tension (and this may be the case even in
\nnonindividualistic epochs), that state may be represented either through the image of a thing or
\nthrough an abstract sign. The innovation of Action Painting was to dispense with the representation
\nof the state in favor of enacting it in physical movement. The action on the canvas became its own
\nrepresentation. This was possible because an action, being made of both the psychic and the
\nmaterial, is by its nature a sign?it is the trace of a movement whose beginning and character it
\ndoes not in itself ever altogether reveal (e.g., Freud’s point about love-making being mistaken in the
\nimagination for an assault); yet the action also exists as a ‘thing’ in that it touches other things and
\naffects them?. “In turning to action, abstract art abandons its alliance with architecture, as painting
\nhad earlier broken with music and with the novel, and offers its hand to pantomime and dance. One
\nthinks of Rilke’s Dance the orange. The warmer landscape, fling it out of you, that the ripe one be
\nradiant in homeland breezes! “In painting, the primary agency of physical motion (as distinct from
\nillusionary representation of motion, as with the Futurists) is the line, conceived not as the thinnest
\nof planes, nor as edge, contour or connective but as stroke or figure (in the sense of ‘figure
\nskating’). In its passage on the canvas each such line can establish the actual movement of the
\nartist’s body as an esthetic statement. Line, from wiry calligraphy to footwide flaunts of the house
\npainter’s brush, has played the leading part in the technique of Action Painting, though there are
\nother ways besides line of releasing force on canvas.” H.R., from “Hans Hofmann: Nature into
\nAction,” Art News, May, 1957.
\n2 “Action cannot be perfected without losing its human subject and being transformed thereby into
\nthe mechanics of man-the-machine. Action never perfects itself; but it tends towards perfection and
\naway from the personal. This is the best argument for dropping the term ‘Abstract Expressionism,’
\nwith its associations of ego and personal Schmerz, as a name for the current American painting.
\nAction Painting has to do with self-creation or self-definition or self-transcendence; but this
\ndissociates it from self-expression, which assumes the acceptance of the ego as it is, with its
\nwound and its magic. Action Painting is not ‘personal,’ though its subject matter is the artist’s
\nindividual possibilities.” H.R., “A dialogue with Thomas B. Hess.” Catalogue of the Exhibition:
\nAction Painting, 1958, The Dallas Museum for Contemporary Arts.
\nPage 4 of 8 | Rosenberg, AAP
\nArt?relation of the painting to the works of the past, rightness of colour, texture, balance,
\netc.?comes back into painting by way of psychology. As Stevens says of poetry, ?it is a
\nprocess of the personality of the poet?. But the psychology is the psychology of creation.
\nNot that of the so-called psychological criticism that wants to ?read? a painting for clues to
\nthe artist?s sexual preferences or debilities. The work, the act, translates the
\npsychologically given into the intentional, into a ?world??and thus transcends it.
\nWith traditional aesthetic references discarded as irrelevant, what gives the canvas its
\nmeaning is not psychological data but r?le, the way the artist organizes his emotional and
\nintellectual energy as if he were in a living situation. The interest lies in the kind of act
\ntaking place in the four-sided arena, a dramatic interest.
\nCriticism must begin by recognizing in the painting the assumptions inherent in its mode
\nof creation. Since the painter has become an actor, the spectator has to think in a
\nvocabulary of action: its inception, duration, direction?psychic state, concentration and
\nrelaxation of the will, passivity, alert waiting. He must become a connoisseur of the
\ngradations between the automatic, the spontaneous, the evoked.
\n?It’s Not That, It’s Not That, It’s Not That’
\nWith a few important exceptions, most of the artists of this vanguard found their way to
\ntheir present work by being cut in two. Their type is not a young painter but a reborn one.
\nThe man may be over forty, the painter around seven. The diagonal of a grand crisis
\nseparates him from his personal and artistic past.
\nMany of the painters were ?Marxists? (WPA unions, artists? congresses); they had been
\ntrying to paint Society. Others had been trying to paint Art (Cubism, PostImpressionism)?it
\namounts to the same thing.
\nThe big moment came when it was decided to paint . . . just to PAINT. The gesture on the
\ncanvas was a gesture of liberation, from Value?political, aesthetic, moral.
\nIf the war and the decline of radicalism in America had anything to do with this sudden
\nimpatience, there is no evidence of it. About the effects of large issues upon their
\nemotions, Americans tend to be either reticent or unconscious. The French artist thinks of
\nhimself as a battleground of history; here one hears only of private Dark Nights. Yet it is
\nstrange how many segregated individuals came to a dead stop within the past ten years
\nand abandoned, even physically destroyed, the work they had been doing. A far-off
\nwatcher unable to realize that these events were taking place in silence might have
\nassumed they were being directed by a single voice.
\nAt its centre the movement was away from, rather than toward. The Great Works of the
\nPast and the Good Life of the Future became equally nil.
\nThe refusal of values did not take the form of condemnation or defiance of society, as it
\ndid after World War I. It was diffident. The lone artist did not want the world to be
\ndifferent, he wanted his canvas to be a world. Liberation from the object meant liberation
\nfrom the ?nature?, society and art already there. It was a movement to leave behind the
\nself that wished to choose his future and to nullify its promissory notes to the past.
\nWith the American, heir of the pioneer and the immigrant, the foundering of Art and
\nSociety was not experienced as a loss. On the contrary, the end of Art marked the
\nbeginning of an optimism regarding himself as an artist.
\nPage 5 of 8 | Rosenberg, AAP
\nThe American vanguard painter took to the white expanse of the canvas as Melville?s
\nIshmael took to the sea.
\nOn the one hand, a desperate recognition of moral and intellectual exhaustion; on the
\nother, the exhilaration of an adventure over depths in which he might find reflected the
\ntrue image of his identity.
\nPainting could not be reduced to that equipment which the artist needed for an activity
\nthat would be an alternative to both utility and idleness. Guided by visual and somatic
\nmemories of paintings he had seen or made?memories which he did his best to keep
\nfrom intruding into his consciousness?he gesticulated upon the canvas and watched for
\nwhat each novelty would declare him and his art to be.
\nBased on the phenomenon of conversion the new movement is, with the majority of the
\npainters, essentially a religious movement. In almost every case, however, the
\nconversion has been experienced in secular terms. The result has been the creation of
\nprivate myths.
\nThe tension of the private myth is the content of every painting of this vanguard. The act
\non the canvas springs from an attempt to resurrect the saving moment in his ?story? when
\nthe painter first felt himself released from Value?myth of past self-recognition. Or it
\nattempts to initiate a new moment in which the painter will realize his total
\npersonality?myth of future self-recognition.
\nSome formulate their myth verbally and connect individual works with its episodes. With
\nothers, usually deeper, the painting itself is the exclusive formulation, a Sign.
\nThe revolution against the given, in the self and in the world, which since Hegel has
\nprovided European vanguard art with theories of a New Reality, has re-entered America
\nin the form of personal revolts. Art as action rests on the enormous assumption that the
\nartist accepts as real only that which he is in the process of creating. ?Except the soul has
\ndivested itself of the love of created things . . .? The artist works in a condition of open
\npossibility, risking, to follow Kierkegaard, the anguish of the aesthetic, which
\naccompanies possibility lacking in reality. To maintain the force to refrain from settling
\nanything, he must exercise in himself a constant No.
\nApocalypse and Wallpaper
\nThe most comfortable intercourse with the void is mysticism, especially a mysticism that
\navoids ritualizing itself.
\nPhilosophy is not popular among American painters. For most, thinking consists of the
\nvarious arguments that TO PAINT is something different from, say, to write or to criticize:
\na mystique of the particular activity. Lacking verbal flexibility, the painters speak of what
\nthey are doing in a jargon still involved in the metaphysics of things: ?My painting is not
\nArt; it?s an Is.? ?It?s not a picture of a thing; it?s the thing itself.? ?It doesn?t reproduce Nature;
\nit is Nature.? ?The painter doesn?t think; he knows.? Etc, etc. ?Art is not, not not not not . . .?
\nAs against this, a few reply, art today is the same as it always has been.
\nLanguage has not accustomed itself to a situation in which the act itself is the ?object?.
\nAlong with the philosophy of TO PAINT appear bits of Vedanta and popular pantheism.
\nIn terms of American tradition, the new painters stand somewhere between Christian
\nScience and Whitman?s ?gangs of cosmos?. That is, between a discipline of vagueness by
\nwhich one protects oneself from disturbance while keeping one?s eyes open for benefits;
\nPage 6 of 8 | Rosenberg, AAP
\nand the discipline of the Open Road of risk that leads to the farther side of the object and
\nthe outer spaces of the consciousness.
\nWhat made Whitman?s mysticism serious was that he directed his ?cosmic ?I?? towards a
\nPike?s-Peak-or-Bust of morality and politics. He wanted the ineffable in all behaviour?he
\nwanted it to win the streets.
\nThe test of any of the new paintings is its seriousness?and the test of its seriousness is
\nthe degree to which the act on the canvas is an extension of the artist?s total effort to
\nmake over his experience.
\nA good painting in this mode leaves no doubt concerning its reality as an action and its
\nrelaxation to a transforming process in the artist. The canvas has ?talked back? to the
\nartist not to quiet him with Sibylline murmurs nor to stun him with Dionysian outcries but
\nto provoke him into a dramatic dialogue. Each stroke had to be a decision and was
\nanswered by a new question. By its very nature, action painting is painting in the medium
\nof difficulties.3
\nWeak mysticism, the ?Christian Science? side of the new movement, tends in the opposite
\ndirection, toward easy painting?never so many unearned masterpieces! Works of this
\nsort lack the dialectical tension of a genuine act, associated with risk and will. When a
\ntube of paint is squeezed by the Absolute, the result can only be a Success. The painter
\nneed keep himself on hand solely to collect the benefits of an endless series of strokes of
\nluck. His gesture completes itself without arousing either an opposing movement within
\nitself nor the desire in the artist to make the act more fully his own. Satisfied with wonders
\nthat remain safely inside the canvas, the artist accepts the permanence of the
\ncommonplace and decorates it with his own daily annihilation. The result is an
\napocalyptic wallpaper.
\nThe cosmic ?I? that turns up to paint pictures, but shudders and departs the moment there
\nis a knock on the studio door, brings to the artist a megalomania which is the opposite of
\nrevolutionary. The tremors produced by a few expanses of tone or by the juxtaposition of
\ncolours and shapes purposely brought to the verge of bad taste in the manner of Park
\nAvenue shop windows are sufficient cataclysms in many of these happy overthrows of
\nArt. The mystical dissociation of painting as an ineffable event has made it common to
\nmistake for an act the mere sensation of having acted?or of having been acted upon.
\nSince there is nothing to be ?communicated?, a unique signature comes to seem the
\nequivalent of a new plastic language. In a single stroke the painter exists as a
\nSomebody?at least on a wall. That this Somebody is not he seems beside the point.
\nOnce the difficulties that belong to a real act have been evaded by mysticism, the artist?s
\nexperience of transformation is at an end. In that case what is left? Or to put it differently:
\nWhat is a painting that is not an object, nor the representation of an object, nor the
\nanalysis or impression of it, nor whatever else a painting has even been?and which has
\nalso ceased to be the emblem of a personal struggle? It is the painter himself changed
\ninto a ghost inhabiting The Art World. Here the common phrase, ?I have bought an O ??
\n 3 “As other art movements of our time have extracted from painting the element of structure or the
\nelement of tone and elevated it into their essence, Action Painting has extracted the element of
\ndecision inherent in all art in that the work is not finished at its beginning but has to be carried
\nforward by an accumulation of ‘right’ gestures. In a word, Action Painting is the abstraction of the
\nmoral element in art; its mark is moral tension in detachment from moral or esthetic uncertainties;
\nand it judges itself morally in declaring that picture to be worthless which is not the incorporation of
\na genuine struggle, one which could at any point have been lost.” H.R., The Dallas Museum
\nCatalogue, above.
\nPage 7 of 8 | Rosenberg, AAP
\n(rather than a painting by O ?) becomes literally true. The man who started to remake
\nhimself has made himself into a commodity with a trademark.
\nMilieu: The Busy No-Audience
\nWe said that the new painting calls for a new kind of criticism, one that would distinguish
\nthe specific qualities of each artist?s act.
\nUnhappily for an art whose value depends on the authenticity of its mysteries, the new
\nmovement appeared at the same moment that Modern Art en masse ?arrived? in America:
\nModern architecture, not only for sophisticated homes, but for corporations,
\nmunicipalities, synagogues; Modern furniture and crockery in mail-order catalogues;
\nModern vacuum cleaners, can openers; beer-ad ?mobiles??along with reproductions and
\narticles on advanced painting in big-circulation magazines. Enigmas for everybody. Art in
\nAmerica today is not only nouveau, it?s news.
\nThe new painting came into being fastened to Modern Art and without intellectual
\nallies?in literature everything had found its niche.
\nFrom this liaison it has derived certain superstitions comparable to those of a wife with a
\nfamous husband. Superiorities, supremacies even, are taken for granted. It is boasted
\nthat modern painting in America is not only original but an ?advance? in world art (at the
\nsame time that one says ?to hell with world art?).
\nEveryone knows that the label Modern Art no longer has any relation to the words that
\ncompose it. To be Modern Art a work need not be either modern nor art; it need not even
\nbe a work. A three-thousand-year-old mask from the South Pacific qualifies as Modern
\nand a piece of wood found on a beach becomes Art.
\nWhen they find this out, some people grow extremely enthusiastic, even, oddly enough,
\nproud of themselves; others become infuriated.
\nThese reactions suggest what Modern Art actually is. It is not even a Style. It has nothing
\nto do either with the period when a thing was made nor with the intention of the maker. It
\nis something that someone has had the social power to designate as psychologically,
\naesthetically or ideologically relevant to our epoch. The question of the driftwood is: Who
\nfound it?
\nModern Art in America represents a revolution of taste?and serves to identify the caste
\nconducting that revolution. Responses to Modern Art are primarily responses to claims to
\nsocial leadership. For this reason Modern Art is periodically attacked as snobbish, Red,
\nimmoral, etc., by established interests in society, politics, the Church. Comedy of a
\nrevolution that restricts itself to weapons of taste?and which at the same time address
\nitself to the masses: Modern-design fabrics in bargain basements, Modern interiors for
\noffice girls living alone, Modern milk bottles.
\nModern art is educational, not with regard to art but with regard to life. You cannot explain
\nMondrian?s painting to people who don?t know anything about Vermeer, but you can
\neasily explain the social importance of admiring Mondrian and forgetting about Vermeer.
\nThrough Modern Art the expanding caste of professional enlighteners of the
\nmasses?designers, architects, decorators, fashion people, exhibition directors ?informs
\nthe populace that a supreme Value has emerged in our Time, the Value of the NEW, and
\nthat there are persons and things that embody that Value. This Value is a completely fluid
\none. As we have seen, Modern Art does not have to be actually new; it only has to be
\nPage 8 of 8 | Rosenberg, AAP
\nnew to somebody?to the last lady who found out about the driftwood?and to win
\nneophytes is the chief interest of the caste.
\nSince the only thing that counts for Modern Art is that a work shall be NEW, and since the
\nquestion of its newness is determined not by analysis but by social power and pedagogy,
\nthe vanguard painter functions in a milieu utterly indifferent to the content of his work.
\nUnlike the art of nineteenth-century America, advanced paintings today are not bought by
\nthe middle class.4
\n Nor are they by the populace. Considering the degree to which it is
\npublicized and f?ted, vanguard painting is hardly bought at all. It is used in its totality as
\nmaterial for educational and profit-making enterprises: colour, reproductions, design
\nadaptations, human-interest stories. Despite the fact that more people see and hear
\nabout works of art than ever before, the vanguard artist has an audience of nobody. An
\ninterested individual here and here, but no audience. He creates in an environment not of
\npeople but of functions. His paintings are employed not wanted. The public for whose
\nedification he is periodically trotted out accepts the choices made for it as phenomena of
\nThe Age of Queer Things.
\nAn action is not a matter of taste.
\nYou don?t let taste decide the firing of a pistol or the building of a maze.
\nAs the marquis de Sade understood, even experiments in sensation, if deliberately
\nrepeated, presuppose a morality.
\nTo see in the explosion of shrapnel over No Man?s Land only the opening of a flower of
\nflame, Marinetti had to erase the moral premises of the act of destruction?as Molotov did
\nexplicitly when he said that Fascism is a matter of taste. Both M?s were, of course,
\nspeaking the driftwood language of the Modern Art International.
\nLimited to the aesthetic, the taste bureaucracies of Modern Art cannot grasp the human
\nexperience involved in the new action paintings. One work is equivalent to another on the
\nbasis of resemblances of surface, and the movement as a whole a modish addition to
\ntwentieth-century picture making. Examples in every style are packed side by side in
\nannuals and travelling shows and in the heads of newspaper reviewers like canned
\nmeats in a chain store?all standard brands.
\nTo counteract the obtuseness, venality and aimlessness of the Art World, American
\nvanguard art needs a genuine audience?not just a market. It needs understanding?not
\njust publicity.
\nIn our form of society, audience and understanding for advanced painting have been
\nproduced, both here and abroad, first of all by the tiny circle of poets, musicians,
\ntheoreticians, men of letters, who have sensed in their own work the presence of the new
\ncreative principle.
\nSo far, the silence of American literature on the new painting all but amounts to a
\nscandal.
\n 4 The situation has improved since this essay first appeared in 1952. Several younger collectors
\nhave appeared who are specializing in the new American painting?and to some degree the work
\nof Americans has entered the world art market.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
These responses must be two pages in length, and should be double-spaced with 12-point font. Responses should consist of a summary of at least two\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7641,8827,10535,10533,10534,10531,10529,6744,10532,10530,7741],"tags":[10553,10549,10616,10615,7687,10254,10627,10104,10247,8857,10552,10295,10900,2984,3903,10548,10622,8901,10551,8907],"class_list":["post-126830","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australia-essay-writers","category-australia-essays","category-do-my-university-assignment-for-me","category-essay-pro-dissertation-writers","category-homework-help-services-best-websites","category-i-need-help-writing-a-page-paper-assignment","category-masters-essays","category-nursing-studybay","category-pay-someone-to-write-a-paper-for-you","category-website-that-writes-assignments","category-studybay","tag-1-assignment-help-online-service-for-students-in-the-usa","tag-ai-plagiarism-free-essay-writing-tool","tag-australian-best-tutors","tag-best-trans-tutors","tag-buy-essay-uk","tag-can-someone-write-my-assignment-for-me","tag-cheap-dissertation-writer","tag-essypro","tag-help-me-write-my-dissertation","tag-help-with-writing-an-essay","tag-help-write-my-paper-ai-free","tag-homework-for-you","tag-nursing-bay","tag-nursing-essay","tag-nursing-study-bay","tag-online-essay-writers","tag-phd-essays","tag-studbay","tag-write-my-assignment-help-for-college-students","tag-write-my-essay-for-me"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126830","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=126830"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126830\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126830"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126830"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126830"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}