Clement Greenberg's Definition Of 'Modernist Painting'

Can Art be Limited to Single Categories
What is Clement Greenberg’s definition of “modernism”?
I do not agree with Clement Greenberg definitions of modernism, in his essay ‘Modernist Painting’. Because it is wrong to place artistic limits on artistic expression, whether that is painting, sculpture or any other artistic work. As Manet’s sad “art for art sack”. Single person cannot be permitted to make decision on what good art is. In doing so he took away the freedom to explore, and once needed, push the boundaries of what they are working with. Clement Greenberg would strongly disagree with my perspective. Because his study throughout his career included many artistic methods, in this essay, he is primarily concerned with ‘Modernist Painting’.
Greenberg begins his essay with a Kant’s argument; that is a medium should be self-critical, produce itself, and in so doing, it will establish itself as necessary and competent. Greenberg stressed the
No doubt, he would, argue that there should not exist any other style of painting within the realm of painting aside from Modernism. Abstract Expressionism was the typical style, with the highpoint of painting, as far as he was concerned. However, to terminate other work based on an inflexible set of artistic and technical criteria is an injury to the medium. Art is fluid, but Greenberg’s Modernist view is not. One can quickly become limited, stuck in nightmare trying to argue the views of Modernism verse Post-Modernism, or Modernism and Romanticism and so on. Greenberg doesn’t concede anything with regards to his viewpoint. The theoretical is removed, in every way, for the work to be successful, according to Greenberg. He defends this by stating that Modernist art has simply turned the theoretical into the realistic, but he only roughly expands that point enough to clarify his