What is the first 'modernist' film?
Lokke Heiss
will be include Leonard Maltin, Jeffery Vance and Kenneth Turan. The
panel is titled: "Motion Pictures and the birth of modernism."
This raises an interesting (well, at least for some of us) question
of: what was the first modernist film?
The first question one has to ask is: what is modernism, and how is it
different from what was going on before? This a can of worms which I
will mostly sidestep for the present, and move on to point out that
most people historically consider modernism as a movement that starts
around 1870-1890, so modernism and motion pictures are 'invented'
about the same time. So one could conclude that movies themselves are
modernist. I think that begs the question, the real question is when
did a modernist sensibility become clearly evident in a movie? The
first film that is unquestionably modernist in my eyes is Intolerance
in 1916. Even though its themes are often Victorian in nature, the
construction of the story and the emphasis in the artist (ie Griffith)
as prophet and storyteller are quite clear.
So modernism has arrived by 1916. Does anyone want to submit an
earlier title and justify why it was the first 'modernist' film?
Robert Lipton
Here, Lokke. Here's a shoehorn. Now, get this elephant into this Mini
Cooper, will you?
Movements in the arts are created in two ways:
1: By examining what has gone on and classifying things. Thus, film noir.
2: An artist with a someone else's money creates a work in line with
artistic theories. Thus the auteur of GUMMO accepts the precepts of
Dogma and produces the immortal JULIEN DONKEY-BOY.
Douvbless there were "modernist" films produced. There is also MISS
MINERVA COURTNEY IN HER IMPERSONATION OF CHARLIE CHAPLIN --which is a
scene-for-scene remake of THE CHAMPION and two sequels. My considered
opinion to all these issues is a deeply-felt "so what?"
Bob
Tony Spadaro
to the art movement of the 20s that spawned the Bauhous and eventually the
Chicago Bauhous then I would have to say pick from the earliest of the
"city" films "Berlin - Symphony of a City" or "Man With a Movie Camera" etc.
One could argue that Eisenstein put modernism together with plot as early as
1924 in "Strike".
But there are other ways to define modernism and I couldn't begin to sort
them out - some might call Art Deco set design like "Metropolis" modernism
or even surreal sets "Caligary" etc. I would personally not argue for the
latter but there is a case to be made.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Lokke Heiss" <lokke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:50c2fb1d.04042...@posting.google.com...
Constance Kuriyama
Peter Conrad's massive _Modern Times, Modern Places_ (752 pages) has a
chapter called "The Chapliniad," in which he casts the Tramp as the
"representative modern man." Therefore any film which centers on the
Tramp character would be modernist, and that would push the date back
to early 1914, to _Kid Auto Races_, or if that's not quite the
Tramp, how about _Caught in a Cabaret_, also 1914, which anticipates
many of Chaplin's later Tramp films.
Conrad's title has a familiar ring, and his chapter on Chaplin
borrows its title from a surrealisatic film faantasy by Iwan Goll,
Claire's husband.
But for self-conscious modernism, one would have to turn to something like
_Caligari_ or _Andalusian Dog_.
Connie K.
--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."
Constance Kuriyama
> A lot will depend on what you mean by "modernist". If you are referring
> to the art movement of the 20s that spawned the Bauhous and eventually the
> Chicago Bauhous then I would have to say pick from the earliest of the
> "city" films "Berlin - Symphony of a City" or "Man With a Movie Camera" etc.
> One could argue that Eisenstein put modernism together with plot as early as
> 1924 in "Strike".
> But there are other ways to define modernism and I couldn't begin to sort
> them out - some might call Art Deco set design like "Metropolis" modernism
> or even surreal sets "Caligary" etc. I would personally not argue for the
> latter but there is a case to be made.
_Caligari_ is definitely modernist because of its self-conscious
expressionism._Metropolis_ has distinctly modernist themes and decor.
Probably neither would qualify for the first modernist film.
Connie K.
--
Uncle Dave Lewis
an abstact animation. Survage never photographed the drawings themselves -
they
lacked the property of in-betweening, which Survage could not have known
about
as the necessities of animation itself was hardly explored at such an early
date.
In the 1960s or 1970s an animated film was made based on 12 of the drawings
as this was the only segment of the project known to survive. Since then 93
more
drawings have turned up, but if anything has been done with them I haven't
heard
of it - they are at MOMA I think. It seems like an ideal project for
computerization.
If Survage's film had a title I don't know it.
Also in 1912 Italian Futurists Arnaldo Ginna and Bruno Corra published a
manifesto
entitled "Abstract Cinema - Chromatic Music" in which they describe five
films, possibly
made 1910-1912, which are abstract animations created through directly
painting on film
from which the gelatin has been soaked off; they describe how the raw stock
was cleaned
as well. Ginna and Corra only provide titles for two of the films, "The
Rainbow" and "The
Dance," films described as their most recent in 1912. It would've been
impossible to print such
films in 1912, and as far as I know no one has ever even looked for them,
let alone found
them. Corra died in 1976, Ginna in 1982.
So self-concious modernism in film really begins in abstract animation,
although it's hard to
keep sight of that idea, as all of the earliest abstract animations that can
be viewed today
date from the year 1921 - Hans Richter's Rhythm 21, Walter Ruttmann's Opus
1, and Oskar
Fischinger's Seeliche Konstruktionen (various films knitted together on the
same reel which
date from 1921-1923).
In 1914 Russian Futurists Mikhail Larianov and Nathalia Goncharova filmed
their "Drama
of the Futurist Cabinet No. 14" on the streets of St. Petersburg. One dim
still has survived
from a contemporary magazine, and reviews of this one-reeler are universally
negative. It
was distributed through regular film channels in Russia and I hope someday
it will still manage
to turn up. Italian futurists also made photographic subjects, and even
features, in the years
1916-1917. A fragment of one of these, Thias (1916), was shown at Pordedone
a year or so ago.
As to notice of modernistic elements in films that were not self-conciously
modern, how early
do you want to start?
The Yellow Girl: A Decorative Playlet (1916) by Edgar M. Keller is an
American film that has
"modernist" sets well before "Caligari."
Uncle Dave Lewis
"Constance Kuriyama" <do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c6cvif$r7s$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Constance Kuriyama
Most interesting. 1914 is generally regarded as the year expressionism
emerged as a movement. _Caligari_ falls right in the middle of the
decade when expressionism flourished.
Connie K.
>> Lokke Heiss (lokke...@yahoo.com) writes:
>> > This weekend UCLA is hosting a yearly book fair, and one of the panels
>> > will be include Leonard Maltin, Jeffery Vance and Kenneth Turan. The
>> > panel is titled: "Motion Pictures and the birth of modernism."
>> >
>> > This raises an interesting (well, at least for some of us) question
>> > of: what was the first modernist film?
>> >
>> > The first question one has to ask is: what is modernism, and how is it
>> > different from what was going on before? This a can of worms which I
>> > will mostly sidestep for the present, and move on to point out that
>> > most people historically consider modernism as a movement that starts
>> > around 1870-1890, so modernism and motion pictures are 'invented'
>> > about the same time. So one could conclude that movies themselves are
>> > modernist. I think that begs the question, the real question is when
>> > did a modernist sensibility become clearly evident in a movie? The
>> > first film that is unquestionably modernist in my eyes is Intolerance
>> > in 1916. Even though its themes are often Victorian in nature, the
>> > construction of the story and the emphasis in the artist (ie Griffith)
>> > as prophet and storyteller are quite clear.
>> >
>> > So modernism has arrived by 1916. Does anyone want to submit an
>> > earlier title and justify why it was the first 'modernist' film?
Lokke Heiss
> > American film that has
> > "modernist" sets well before "Caligari."
> >
> > Uncle Dave Lewis
>
> Most interesting. 1914 is generally regarded as the year expressionism
> emerged as a movement. _Caligari_ falls right in the middle of the
> decade when expressionism flourished.
So it sounds like somewhere around 1916 is about the time that
'Modernist' sensibility has creeped more or less explicitly into
films. Part of the confusion is the awful term 'Modernism' and
'Modernist' which is mixed up with 'modern.' I think it's easy to
make a case for Chaplin being film's first representative of the
'modern' man, but that doesn't make him 'Modernist.'
And of course none of these ideas are 'modern' in a contemporary
sense, unless we take the broad definition of modern as opposed to
say, Medievalism.
OK, I didn't come up with these names. Neither did the panel's
moderator, Kenneth Turan, who explained that the title of the panel
had been assigned them. He asked the panel if anyone really understood
what the *&%& the panel title meant, no one really did, the panel
threw away the question and spent most of the time railing against
'modern' culture's dismissal of all things BSW (before Star Wars).
Robert Lipton
Oh, that's Post Modern.
For a few years I ran a panel discussion for Lunacon -- everything at
Lunacon is a panel discussion. This enables you to comp a friend who
sits on a panel and nods sagely without saying anything.
I had a reputation for some knowledge of antiquarian sf -- garnered by
having read a lot of Groff Conklin anthologies, Sam Moskowitz' books and
several translations of Verne -- and was asked -- by a friend of mine
who was in charge of programming and wished to comp me into the
convention, if perhaps I was willing to run a panel on antiquarian
science fiction. I said "The convention will be in 1990. We'll call it
'Science Fiction Before You Were Born -- 1975 and back."
The first year I trotted out a anecdote in which it was claimed that
H.P. Lovecraft (died 1938) had stolen several place names from Marion
Zimmer Bradley (floreat 1945-1995). In actual fact, I pointed out, it
had been the other way around and that the person Lovecraft had stolen
them from had been Robert W. Chambers, who had lifted them from Ambrose
Bierce, who had, apparently, simply pulled them off maps. Byt he end of
the series, I was explaining to the audience that Mary Shelley had not
lifted her plot ideas from Lois McMasters Bujold.
People have a hard time believing that there was a universe before they
were born and that it will continue after they die. I was rereading KIM
for the first time in forty years. The learned individual who did th
preface pointed out the hidden false assumptions that Kipling had made
in presuming that the situation in India was permanent. Instead, they
were a temporary blip, an error to be repaired by the current situation
-- which, the author indicated, was the right, true, inevitable and
permanent situation of India.
I call it "The end of history" syndrome. We despise our children for
enjioying rap, our parents despised us for liking rock, their parents
despised them for liking jazz and so on. Get used to it.
Bob
Constance Kuriyama
> > > The Yellow Girl: A Decorative Playlet (1916) by Edgar M. Keller is an
> > > American film that has
> > > "modernist" sets well before "Caligari."
> > >
> > > Uncle Dave Lewis
> >
> > Most interesting. 1914 is generally regarded as the year expressionism
> > emerged as a movement. _Caligari_ falls right in the middle of the
> > decade when expressionism flourished.
>
> So it sounds like somewhere around 1916 is about the time that
> 'Modernist' sensibility has creeped more or less explicitly into
> films. Part of the confusion is the awful term 'Modernism' and
> 'Modernist' which is mixed up with 'modern.' I think it's easy to
> make a case for Chaplin being film's first representative of the
> 'modern' man, but that doesn't make him 'Modernist.'
Not in the sense that he was making films according to a theory or
formula, "ism" or manifesto, certainly. But one could argue that he
intuitively incorporated some features of modernist sensibility into
his persona and films, which might explain why his work appealed to
artists who did identify themselves as Modernists.
> And of course none of these ideas are 'modern' in a contemporary
> sense, unless we take the broad definition of modern as opposed to
> say, Medievalism.
>
> OK, I didn't come up with these names. Neither did the panel's
> moderator, Kenneth Turan, who explained that the title of the panel
> had been assigned them. He asked the panel if anyone really understood
> what the *&%& the panel title meant, no one really did, the panel
> threw away the question and spent most of the time railing against
> 'modern' culture's dismissal of all things BSW (before Star Wars).
Bob L. is right--make that postmodern. But actually what's postmodern
often sounds to me suspiciously like what's modern, and some people
consider the sixteenth century early modern.
It's a versatile term.
Connie K.
Lokke Heiss
> Not in the sense that he was making films according to a theory or
> formula, "ism" or manifesto, certainly. But one could argue that he
> intuitively incorporated some features of modernist sensibility into
> his persona and films, which might explain why his work appealed to
> artists who did identify themselves as Modernists.
I agree with that. We're all products of our times, whether in
accepting the status quo, rebelling against the 'quo' or doing both at
the same time, depending on the context, which, let's face it we all
do to some extent. This is what makes 'ism's' so complicated, since
there IS a historical issue always involved, although it may not
always be obvious.
> > threw away the question and spent most of the time railing against
> > 'modern' culture's dismissal of all things BSW (before Star Wars).
>
> Bob L. is right--make that postmodern. But actually what's postmodern
> often sounds to me suspiciously like what's modern, and some people
> consider the sixteenth century early modern.
That's part of the point I was trying to make. Historically this view
is definitely po-mo, since it starts to happen around 1980. But in
theory, po-mo one should have a playful acceptance of all previous
styles, including Modernism. In fact a dismissal of a previous style
is very 'Modernist' in its concept.
>
> It's a versatile term.
Versatile to the point of being almost useless. If you can't get five
'experts' to agree on a definition of a word, it's hard to use the
word. And it klunks with the original meaning of 'modern' which means
'now.' Chess had a similar problem, they had an opening called the
'Modern' which was invented around 1920. They finally took the bull by
the horns and just renamed it. I nominate a new term for the period
we've been discussing. Let's call it:'Naldicism.' Frederica can be
the official scorekeeper and referee.
Uncle Dave Lewis
> > > American film that has
> > > "modernist" sets well before "Caligari."
> > >
> > > Uncle Dave Lewis
> >
> > Most interesting. {Thanks CK!! - UDL} 1914 is generally regarded as the
year
> > expressionism
> > emerged as a movement. _Caligari_ falls right in the middle of the
> > decade when expressionism flourished.
>
> So it sounds like somewhere around 1916 is about the time that
> 'Modernist' sensibility has creeped more or less explicitly into
> films. Part of the confusion is the awful term 'Modernism' and
> 'Modernist' which is mixed up with 'modern.' I think it's easy to
> make a case for Chaplin being film's first representative of the
> 'modern' man, but that doesn't make him 'Modernist.'
> And of course none of these ideas are 'modern' in a contemporary
> sense, unless we take the broad definition of modern as opposed to
> say, Medievalism.
>
that are reflective of familiarity with "modernist" ideas, such as the
nymphs dream
sequence in "Sunnyside." This sequence echoes in my view the modernism found
in the 1890s, such as in Maeterlinck, Symonds, Swinburne, Wilde etc., work
which seems late-Victorian to us but was still considered pretty "modern" in
1919.
Of course Beardsley's work is the jumping off point for Nazimova's "Salome"
(1922) which many of us feel is still pretty avant-garde. (BTW, has anyone
ever
seen her "Camille" (1921)?)
Also relating to "The Yellow Girl" is the scenes in Coke Ennyday's wild pad
in
"The Mystery of the Leaping Fish" (1916). As in "Caligari," the interior is
"crazy"
because we are seeing the world through the eyes of someone who in incapable
of perceiving realty like the rest of us; in Coke Ennyday's case because he
is a
drug addict. In Abel Gance's "La Folie du Docteur Tube" (1915) there is a
similar
idea at work - a chemical powder which is developed by a mad doctor
stretches
everything out of proportion (via of an anamorphic lens) when it is blown
onto
obejcts and towards people.
> OK, I didn't come up with these names. Neither did the panel's
> moderator, Kenneth Turan, who explained that the title of the panel
> had been assigned them. He asked the panel if anyone really understood
> what the *&%& the panel title meant, no one really did, the panel
> threw away the question and spent most of the time railing against
> 'modern' culture's dismissal of all things BSW (before Star Wars).
In my view this was irresponsible on the part of the panel; I disagree with
Bob Lipton in that I see this as a very pertinent historical question.
Understand it
or not, the panel should've made some attempt to talk about where they
felt the beginnings of "modern film" might've fallen in the historical chain
of events
- with Bunuel, Renoir, Welles, Bob Clampett - what? With whom? I would've
expected Leonard at least to have an opinion about that. To go in the other
direction and gripe about the refusal of younger audiences to accept the
pre-1978
universe of movies can only serve two purposes, (A) to older audiences of
"preaching to the converted" and (B) to sound like "preaching" to younger
audiences, and not in a good way. Either way Maltin, Turan et al can hardly
avoid sounding like pundits who, like Confucius, are trying to prop up the
values
system of a dying order. The problem is not that simple, and deserves
analysis
from a variety of viewpoints - educators, studio executives, archivists,
distributors,
consumers, screenwriters, sociologists and others, rather than a handful of
film critics
grinding their old, dull battle axes for a room of people that mostly agree
with them.
Uncle Dave Lewis
Ypsilanti, MI
Eric Stott
Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
>
> Bob L. is right--make that postmodern. But actually what's postmodern
> often sounds to me suspiciously like what's modern, and some people
> consider the sixteenth century early modern.
>
> It's a versatile term.
>
> Connie K.
There's a great exchange in a Charles Ludlam play. I don't have it handy, but part of it is:
"That's not Modernism- you've just revived Futurism"
Stott
Robert Lipton
Uncle Dave Lewis wrote:
SNIP
I disagree with
> Bob Lipton in that I see this as a very pertinent historical question.
> Understand it
> or not, the panel should've made some attempt to talk about where they
> felt the beginnings of "modern film" might've fallen in the historical chain
> of events
> - with Bunuel, Renoir, Welles, Bob Clampett - what? With whom? I would've
> expected Leonard at least to have an opinion about that. To go in the other
> direction and gripe about the refusal of younger audiences to accept the
> pre-1978
> universe of movies can only serve two purposes, (A) to older audiences of
> "preaching to the converted" and (B) to sound like "preaching" to younger
> audiences, and not in a good way. Either way Maltin, Turan et al can hardly
> avoid sounding like pundits who, like Confucius, are trying to prop up the
> values
> system of a dying order. The problem is not that simple, and deserves
> analysis
> from a variety of viewpoints - educators, studio executives, archivists,
> distributors,
> consumers, screenwriters, sociologists and others, rather than a handful of
> film critics
> grinding their old, dull battle axes for a room of people that mostly agree
> with them.
Of course. But these broad, meaningless classifications of works of
art -- This is modernist; that is film noir; that is Gothic and all Rap
is crap -- are meaningless simply because there is no concern for the
audience in their classification. You and I can argue whether these
terms have ny meanining. To someone whose concept of film begins with
MTV, we are two old farts arguing about ancient junk. And you know
something? That person would be right. Because until we manage to show
the MTV kid what is beautiful about these films -- in terms meaningful
to him -- then we can argue about whether Oscar Apfel is deserving of a
higher reputation based on his lost films all we want, but it's still
nonsense. Noise.
You want to convince kids that silents are fun? When a friend of mine
brought his five-year old son over, he asked if I had something to
distract him. I put on THE LOST FILMS OF LAUREL AND HARDY and the kid
was roaring with laughter. "Our tv only plays color" he said. "Well,
this is a very expensive tv," I said. Since then, he has bugged his
father to get a tv that plays B&W.
Bob
Lloyd Fonvielle
Modernism was the dominant aesthetic mode of the 20th Century for the
fine arts. I believe it emerged from the romance and excitement of the
conflict between the French Impressionists and the French Academy,
though it had deeper roots in early 19th-Century Romanticism. Artists
began to define themselves according to the degree to which their work
violated conventional expectations. The result was a logical absurdity
-- a sort of permanent, increasingly institutionalized avante-garde, to
which every serious artist had to subscribe. It ended in a lock-step
conformity of attitude which of course violates the very idea of an
avante-garde.
The term itself is illogical -- all art is modern when it's being
created . . . and is the modernism of the early 20th Century still modern?
The self-willed antagonism towards conventional and popular taste
did not penetrate far into movies -- which is one reason movies came to
dominate the arts of the 20th Century.
I don't see "Intolerance" as modernist, however radical its
structure. Its dramatic methods remained close to the methods of
Victorian theater and its visual style harked back specifically to
academic painting, while at the same time expanding its investigations
into spatial drama. Griffith was a traditionalist, as were most
important filmmakers, even though they might occasionally inflect their
work with cosmetic references to modernism. "The Cabinet Of Dr.
Caligari" is an extreme example of this tactic -- the modernist visual
world it presents is revealed to be a madman's dream.
In general, modernist films remained isolated phenomena.
The soi-dissant radicalism of modernism resulted in a calamity for
the fine arts in the 20th Century -- separating artists from the vast
inspirations of artistic tradition and from a living dialogue with the
culture at large. It has evolved in our day to puerile and increasingly
desperate attempts to shock the bourgeois -- which is increasingly
unshockable. The bold innovations of the Impressionists have degraded
into nursery school pranks.
Lokke Heiss
> Modernism was the dominant aesthetic mode of the 20th Century for the
> fine arts. I believe it emerged from the romance and excitement of the
> conflict between the French Impressionists and the French Academy,
> though it had deeper roots in early 19th-Century Romanticism. Artists
> began to define themselves according to the degree to which their work
> violated conventional expectations.
I don't buy your answer. I could use your definition above to label
almost any new art form ever made. Isn't the central point of a 'new'
art form is that it violates conventional expectations?
The result was a logical absurdity
> -- a sort of permanent, increasingly institutionalized avante-garde, to
> which every serious artist had to subscribe. It ended in a lock-step
> conformity of attitude which of course violates the very idea of an
> avante-garde.
> The term itself is illogical -- all art is modern when it's being
> created . . . and is the modernism of the early 20th Century still modern?
See Lyotard. I think we can all agree that Modernism is an awful name
for the movement.
> The self-willed antagonism towards conventional and popular taste
> did not penetrate far into movies -- which is one reason movies came to
> dominate the arts of the 20th Century.
> I don't see "Intolerance" as modernist, however radical its
> structure.
If you defined the central idea of Modernism as a change of idea that
man (or more specifially the artist or scientist) can change the
world, instead of a religious figure, then Intolerance is Modernist.
If you don't like this definition, try to come up with a coherent
definition yourself. It's not easy. I suggest you look at Robert
Hughes' Shock of the New, who goes into the artist as Messiah
definition for Modernism in some detail. I think he is completely
convincing.
Lloyd Fonvielle
>>Modernism was the dominant aesthetic mode of the 20th Century for the
>>fine arts. I believe it emerged from the romance and excitement of the
>>conflict between the French Impressionists and the French Academy,
>>though it had deeper roots in early 19th-Century Romanticism. Artists
>>began to define themselves according to the degree to which their work
>>violated conventional expectations.
>
> I don't buy your answer. I could use your definition above to label
> almost any new art form ever made. Isn't the central point of a 'new'
> art form is that it violates conventional expectations?
The very idea of new art forms, of "progress" in art, is a modern
invention, but it is so ingrained in our notion of what art is that we
see it as absolute. Until the Romantic era, most of the great
"revolutions" in art, like the Renaissance, saw themselves as returning
to older forms and being true to them. Artists, who are always part
showmen, have always pioneered advances in art, new sensations to get
the attention of their age, but they never defined themselves in
opposition to their age, in opposition to the art of the past. Until
the Romantic era, art was never about "self-expression" -- it was about
working within the continuities of a craft and expressing the genius of
a culture. What Harold Bloom calls the "creative misreading" of
tradition always led to innovations, new ways of addressing old
disciplines, but the posture of actively rejecting and overturning old
disciplines is a development of recent origin. This posture I call
modernism. It involves a value judgment that the new is always, by
definition, preferable to the old.
> If you defined the central idea of Modernism as a change of idea that
> man (or more specifially the artist or scientist) can change the
> world, instead of a religious figure, then Intolerance is Modernist.
> If you don't like this definition, try to come up with a coherent
> definition yourself. It's not easy. I suggest you look at Robert
> Hughes' Shock of the New, who goes into the artist as Messiah
> definition for Modernism in some detail. I think he is completely
> convincing.
Art has always been about changing the world -- giving man's highest
ideals and aspirations expression. It is the notion that old ideas and
aspiration have been exhausted and that only new ideals and aspirations
are valid which defines modernism. It's a preposterous notion which
history has already by and large consigned to oblivion. Picasso will
soon -- very soon -- be seen as the Bouguereau of the 20th Century.
Today, this may seem unthinkable, but in the 19th century, the idea that
Bouguereau's reputation might someday fade and become a kind of joke was
equally unthinkable. The aesthetic pieties of one generation often
become the embarrassments of the next.
Robert Lipton
Lloyd Fonvielle wrote:
SNIP
> Art has always been about changing the world -- giving man's highest
> ideals and aspirations expression. It is the notion that old ideas and
> aspiration have been exhausted and that only new ideals and aspirations
> are valid which defines modernism. It's a preposterous notion which
> history has already by and large consigned to oblivion. Picasso will
> soon -- very soon -- be seen as the Bouguereau of the 20th Century.
>
> Today, this may seem unthinkable, but in the 19th century, the idea that
> Bouguereau's reputation might someday fade and become a kind of joke was
> equally unthinkable. The aesthetic pieties of one generation often
> become the embarrassments of the next.
>
Art has always been about "What do we do with that blank spce on the
wall" and its equivalences in other dimensions (nook in the hall,
Saturday evening, etc) and the desire of artists to be paid.
Bob
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Art has always been about "What do we do with that blank spce on the
> wall" and its equivalences in other dimensions (nook in the hall,
> Saturday evening, etc) and the desire of artists to be paid.
This is quite true. We have very little information about the artists
who carved the great statues and reliefs of classical Greece, but this
bit of advice from one of them survives: "You should strive above all
for excellence, for by excellence you will beat other sculptors in
competitions and earn greater wealth."
In our own age, Stravinsky said, "There are only two questions a
musician should ask -- how long should it be and how much do I get paid?"
The self-absorbed pretension of modern artists is a recent (and
disastrous) anomaly.
Lokke Heiss
> invention, but it is so ingrained in our notion of what art is that we
> see it as absolute. Until the Romantic era, most of the great
> "revolutions" in art, like the Renaissance, saw themselves as returning
> to older forms and being true to them.
I disagree. Pre-Romantic artists did return to previous forms, but
this action was always, or almost always a response to the idea that
the present form had lost energy. In other words, you have to be
disastified with the present norm to invoke a past form. The Greeks
decried their present statues and vaulted back to the Hellenists (with
a twist). The Romans decried their architecture, and looked back to
the Greeks (with a twist, or should I say, arch) and so on. The
Romantics fell right into this pattern, they decried the Romans, but
codifed Greek art.
This posture I call
> modernism. It involves a value judgment that the new is always, by
> definition, preferable to the old.
Huh? Who says that, besides you? If you are saying that Modernism is
built on a teleological construction, that does imply a direction.
Not that the art is "better" but it is "more informed." If you
disagree with my spin on your spin, can you give me a reference that
takes Modernism toward your definition?
Back to silent movies--that is the topic here. I still defend
Intolerance as a Modernist text. Obviously, this depends on your
definition of Modernism, but if someone can cite a reference in a book
that says something different, now is the time to bring it out.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Pre-Romantic artists did return to previous forms, but
> this action was always, or almost always a response to the idea that
> the present form had lost energy. In other words, you have to be
> disastified with the present norm to invoke a past form. The Greeks
> decried their present statues and vaulted back to the Hellenists (with
> a twist). The Romans decried their architecture, and looked back to
> the Greeks (with a twist, or should I say, arch) and so on. The
> Romantics fell right into this pattern, they decried the Romans, but
> codifed Greek art.
Art evolves and changes, forms become exhausted for artists of one
generation and are reimagined. But before the Romantics, really before
the artists of our age, the process involved a looking backwards, a
renewal of roots -- a belief that tradition held the key to regeneration.
This changed in our age, at least for the fine arts, when the new
was privileged above all, in response to a sense that old values had
become nullities. Modernism is a good term for this development,
because it sets up "modern" -- i. e., not old, not traditional -- as the
overriding virtue of art and the only guarantee of an artist's virtue.
A deracinated, reactionary art of gesture and pose and attitude replaced
the old continuities, in which artists tested themselves against the
achievements of the past and the needs of the culture at large.
> Huh? Who says that, besides you?
What difference does that make? Is this something to be settled by a
vote, or by a presentation of credentials? What credentials? Academic
ones? It is the academy which has enshrined "modernism" as the ultimate
criterion of value in art.
> If you are saying that Modernism is
> built on a teleological construction, that does imply a direction.
> Not that the art is "better" but it is "more informed."
Do you mean "more informed" in the sense of expressing a deeper and more
comprehensive truth about the world and human experience? Are you
suggesting that any work of art made in the 20th Century is more
"informed" in that sense than "The Iliad" or "The Odyssey"? That any
work of art made in the 20th Century is more "informed" in that sense
than the plays of Shakespeare? That any work of art made in the 20th
Century is more "informed" in that sense than the Altarpiece of Ghent?
The idea of progress in art, of any kind, is untenable.
> If you
> disagree with my spin on your spin, can you give me a reference that
> takes Modernism toward your definition?
>
> Back to silent movies--that is the topic here. I still defend
> Intolerance as a Modernist text. Obviously, this depends on your
> definition of Modernism, but if someone can cite a reference in a book
> that says something different, now is the time to bring it out.
It is a mark of modernism in the fine arts that it depends on the
academy for validation, since it can find little validation in tradition
or in the culture at large. It is in the art of the past, in history,
that one must look for a true appreciation of the art of our time -- not
in approved academic texts.
Lokke Heiss
> the old continuities, in which artists tested themselves against the
> achievements of the past and the needs of the culture at large.
>
> > Huh? Who says that, besides you?
>
> What difference does that make?
If you are having an internal monologue, it doesn't make much
difference. If you are trying to persuade someone else, it makes a lot
of difference.
Bringing up opinions from experts, other information is called
'evidence.' It's a standard rhetoric device that's been around longer
than 2000 years. People use it in debate, conversation, courts of law
... If you don't have 'evidence' then conversations quickly run down
into a common track called 'blatant assertionism' which basically runs
something like: "I'm right, you're wrong." "No, you're wrong and I'm
right."
To keep this topical, if we were arguing about a silent film topic,
and I was making a point about Napoleon, and you said, "No, you're
wrong." and I'd say, "But Kevin Brownlow says A,B and C about
Napolean." that's called evidence.
And if you say you don't care what Brownlow thinks and don't offer
some evidence of your own, then the forum can make up its mind who to
believe.
Is this something to be settled by a
> vote, or by a presentation of credentials? What credentials? Academic
> ones? It is the academy which has enshrined "modernism" as the ultimate
> criterion of value in art.
Thats a hilarious disregard of Western Civ. history. Academies have
been enshrining art for eons. That's the job of academies. Then you
have rebellion. To take just one of many examples, look at the French
Academy of Painting in the 1840s. They thought the plein air studies
of new painters were terrible, these new painters started their own
group, and this lead to Impressionism. Hardly a new phenomenom.
> > If you are saying that Modernism is
> > built on a teleological construction, that does imply a direction.
> > Not that the art is "better" but it is "more informed."
>
> Do you mean "more informed" in the sense of expressing a deeper and more
> comprehensive truth about the world and human experience? Are you
> suggesting that any work of art made in the 20th Century is more
> "informed" in that sense than "The Iliad" or "The Odyssey"? That any
> work of art made in the 20th Century is more "informed" in that sense
> than the plays of Shakespeare? That any work of art made in the 20th
> Century is more "informed" in that sense than the Altarpiece of Ghent?
> The idea of progress in art, of any kind, is untenable.
I mean informed in that the contemporary artist has more information
to work with. When Joyce writes Ulysses, he not only has Homer, but
he has 2000 years of fiction to also consider. That doesn't make
modern art any "better" than old art, and the modern artist can choose
to disregard and NOT use information, but one cannot escape the fact
that we are all products of our time and place.
>
> It is a mark of modernism in the fine arts that it depends on the
> academy for validation, since it can find little validation in tradition
> or in the culture at large. It is in the art of the past, in history,
> that one must look for a true appreciation of the art of our time -- not
> in approved academic texts.
Your circular logic is producing vertigo. Who do you think has
codified the worth of the art of the past but a long series of
academies? These academies may have been filled with stuffed shirts
and long tails in France, or they may have been filled with intricate
beads and tattoos in Africa, but they all were considered opinions
about what was in front of them. No guarantees that the opinions will
be worth much, but if I had a silent film question and had your
opinion vs. Brownlow's opinion, I'd know who I'd go for first.
Lokke Heiss
> the old continuities, in which artists tested themselves against the
> achievements of the past and the needs of the culture at large.
>
> > Huh? Who says that, besides you?
>
> What difference does that make?
If you are having an internal monologue, it doesn't make much
difference. If you are trying to persuade someone else, it makes a lot
of difference.
Bringing up opinions from experts, other information is called
'evidence.' It's a standard rhetoric device that's been around longer
than 2000 years. People use it in debate, conversation, courts of law
... If you don't have 'evidence' then conversations quickly run down
into a common track called 'blatant assertionism' which basically runs
something like: "I'm right, you're wrong." "No, you're wrong and I'm
right."
To keep this topical, if we were arguing about a silent film topic,
and I was making a point about Napoleon, and you said, "No, you're
wrong." and I'd say, "But Kevin Brownlow says A,B and C about
Napolean." that's called evidence.
And if you say you don't care what Brownlow thinks and don't offer
some evidence of your own, then the forum can make up its mind who to
believe.
Is this something to be settled by a
> vote, or by a presentation of credentials? What credentials? Academic
> ones? It is the academy which has enshrined "modernism" as the ultimate
> criterion of value in art.
Thats a hilarious disregard of Western Civ. history. Academies have
been enshrining art for eons. That's the job of academies. Then you
have rebellion. To take just one of many examples, look at the French
Academy of Painting in the 1840s. They thought the plein air studies
of new painters were terrible, these new painters started their own
group, and this lead to Impressionism. Hardly a new phenomenom.
> > If you are saying that Modernism is
> > built on a teleological construction, that does imply a direction.
> > Not that the art is "better" but it is "more informed."
>
> Do you mean "more informed" in the sense of expressing a deeper and more
> comprehensive truth about the world and human experience? Are you
> suggesting that any work of art made in the 20th Century is more
> "informed" in that sense than "The Iliad" or "The Odyssey"? That any
> work of art made in the 20th Century is more "informed" in that sense
> than the plays of Shakespeare? That any work of art made in the 20th
> Century is more "informed" in that sense than the Altarpiece of Ghent?
> The idea of progress in art, of any kind, is untenable.
I mean informed in that the contemporary artist has more information
to work with. When Joyce writes Ulysses, he not only has Homer, but
he has 2000 years of fiction to also consider. That doesn't make
modern art any "better" than old art, and the modern artist can choose
to disregard and NOT use information, but one cannot escape the fact
that we are all products of our time and place.
>
> It is a mark of modernism in the fine arts that it depends on the
> academy for validation, since it can find little validation in tradition
> or in the culture at large. It is in the art of the past, in history,
> that one must look for a true appreciation of the art of our time -- not
> in approved academic texts.
Your circular logic is producing vertigo. Who do you think has
PT Caffey
<snip>
> Art has always been about changing the world -- giving man's highest
> ideals and aspirations expression. It is the notion that old ideas and
> aspiration have been exhausted and that only new ideals and aspirations
> are valid which defines modernism. It's a preposterous notion which
> history has already by and large consigned to oblivion. Picasso will
> soon -- very soon -- be seen as the Bouguereau of the 20th Century.
>
> Today, this may seem unthinkable, but in the 19th century, the idea that
> Bouguereau's reputation might someday fade and become a kind of joke was
> equally unthinkable. The aesthetic pieties of one generation often
> become the embarrassments of the next.
Anyone out there unlucky enough to own a Picasso or two, I'd be glad
to take them off your hands and spare you the coming embarassment.
PT Caffey
Constance Kuriyama
Actually Picasso is currently under fire from some quarters, but I
wouldn't be in a hurry to sell my holdings. Even the greatest artists
go through periods
of relative devaluation.
Connie K.
Lloyd Fonvielle
>>It is a mark of modernism in the fine arts that it depends on the
>>academy for validation, since it can find little validation in tradition
>>or in the culture at large. It is in the art of the past, in history,
>>that one must look for a true appreciation of the art of our time -- not
>>in approved academic texts.
>
> . . . if I had a silent film question and had your
> opinion vs. Brownlow's opinion, I'd know who I'd go for first.
So do I, but you're missing the point. Brownlow is not an academic
historian. Indeed, as a general rule, the best and most trustworthy
historians of the silent era, like Michael Blake and Bob Birchard, are
not academic historians, but, like Brownlow, filmmakers who pursue
silent film history as an avocation.
This doesn't automatically give them better credentials than an
academic historian -- their credentials are on display in their work, in
their source notes and in the good sense conclusions they draw from them.
If you would pay more attention to my opinions if they were backed
up by academic citations, you are looking to the wrong authority for
aesthetic wisdom and even historical accuracy in the area of film.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Lloyd Fonvielle <navi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<NLzxc.7676$uX2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
>>Art has always been about changing the world -- giving man's highest
>>ideals and aspirations expression. It is the notion that old ideas and
>>aspiration have been exhausted and that only new ideals and aspirations
>>are valid which defines modernism. It's a preposterous notion which
>>history has already by and large consigned to oblivion. Picasso will
>>soon -- very soon -- be seen as the Bouguereau of the 20th Century.
>>
>>Today, this may seem unthinkable, but in the 19th century, the idea that
>>Bouguereau's reputation might someday fade and become a kind of joke was
>>equally unthinkable. The aesthetic pieties of one generation often
>>become the embarrassments of the next.
>
> Anyone out there unlucky enough to own a Picasso or two, I'd be glad
> to take them off your hands and spare you the coming embarassment.
Bouguereaus are still valuable, though not as valuable as they used to
be. But nobody takes them very seriously as art. The Picasso market
will be strong for a while, but if I owned one or two of them I'd sell
them now. They won't make the fortunes of anyone's grandchildren.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Actually Picasso is currently under fire from some quarters, but I
> wouldn't be in a hurry to sell my holdings. Even the greatest artists
> go through periods
> of relative devaluation.
And some never rebound from them.