Wolfe's The Painted Word, Postmodernism ?, etc.
J Paschel
of folks commented on Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word". Specifically, I
found two mentions like the following:
Mark Vinssel:
"I personally dislike the book (because he ignores the topic of color in
modern art, a giant and serious ommission) but Tom Wolfe's "The Painted
Word" might help you understand the purpose and effect of the obfuscating
language, a lingering effect of modernism. Don't rely on this book as a
primary reference because it is full of holes and generally held in
contempt by most artists that have read it."
BT:
"I advise against the Tom Wolfe book that another respondent
mentioned--it's a funny piece of muckraking journalism that attempts to
dismiss the whole enterprise of modern art and art criticism. It might be
worth a look if you're interested in such a thing after the paper is done,
but I really doubt it will be of any practical value in writing (if
anything, it would probably further discourage you)."
I'm curious as to several questions. First, why, specifically, does the
art world hold it in such low regard ? My guess is that they would argue
that he plays things "fast and loose" when making his observations and
conclusions regarding art theories...
Second, why does this book arise in dicussions of postmodernism ?
Finally, my own take on this book was that Wolfe was merely pointing out,
somewhat sarcastically, that art is, first and foremost, a social
construction and subject to the associated doctrines of relativism, etc.
As such, theories become more important than the work, since they provide
the justification for the label "art". None of this seems that profound or
controversial to me--after all, even with all that said, social
constructions are important, powerful, and most important _real_ things.
So, why all the fuss ?
Just curious....
Jarrett
Philip Ayers
(J Paschel) wrote:
: >My guess is that they would argue
: > that he plays things "fast and loose" when making his observations and
: > conclusions regarding art theories...
I read the book back in 1975 but did like it for the writing. Where Wolfe
fall flat is the examples he gives for what he considers worthwhile. Now
the examples he gives...Statues to Civil War Heroes and other public works
mostly....nothing else really comes to mind, undercut his arguments . It's
easy to poke fun at Jackson Pollock( who I somewhat like) and Warhol
(which I hate), but his overall ignorance of art & the art history
(notice I seperate the two) was glaring!
: > Finally, my own take on this book was that Wolfe was merely pointing out,
: > somewhat sarcastically, that art is, first and foremost, a social
: > construction and subject to the associated doctrines of relativism, etc.
Berger's theory aside, what isn't?
snip
: >
: > Jarrett
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
mark webber
> Recently, while discussing notions and theories of postmodernism, a couple
> of folks commented on Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word". Specifically, I
> found two mentions like the following:
(snip)
>
>
> I'm curious as to several questions. First, why, specifically, does the
> art world hold it in such low regard ? My guess is that they would argue
> that he plays things "fast and loose" when making his observations and
> conclusions regarding art theories...
>
I think some people would make that argument, and others other
arguments. The "art world" rarely comes to unanimous consensus on any
issue. I see it as a book for anyone who wants to feel above any aspect of
the scene he writes about. Ready-made audience.
>
> So, why all the fuss ?
Not so much fuss, I didn't think, anyway, and in not too many quarters.
There are a few people always willing to fuss about anything, aren't
there?
It isn't clear if you were offended by it. If you were, I think several of
us would be happy to hear more. It could prove a pretty interesting
thread.
Mark
G*rd*n
big...@u.washington.edu (J Paschel):
| I'm curious as to several questions. First, why, specifically, does the
| art world hold it in such low regard ? My guess is that they would argue
| that he plays things "fast and loose" when making his observations and
| conclusions regarding art theories...
|
| Second, why does this book arise in dicussions of postmodernism ?
|
| Finally, my own take on this book was that Wolfe was merely pointing out,
| somewhat sarcastically, that art is, first and foremost, a social
| construction and subject to the associated doctrines of relativism, etc.
| As such, theories become more important than the work, since they provide
| the justification for the label "art". None of this seems that profound or
| controversial to me--after all, even with all that said, social
| constructions are important, powerful, and most important _real_ things.
|
| So, why all the fuss ?
I think Tom Wolfe annoys people in the same way Camille
Paglia does -- he manages to couch platitudes, banalities,
and popular delusions in zippy language. Many people think
someone with dumb ideas should write badly, and Wolfe
confounds this prejudice.
As for art being a social construction, of course it is --
but that's wasn't Wolfe's point. He made a point of
focusing on _Modernism_ and the contradiction between the
desire of Modernists to escape "literature" (that is,
narrative interpretation of works of art) and the enormous
amount of descriptive, interpretive and critical literature
which was produced about Modernist work. It's not a bad
point, although it's a slim one -- people were carrying on
about art in funny ways long before Modernism. The book
was filled out by making fun of artists' and art critics'
styles and behavior, a pretty easy target. While the book
is funny, there's just not that much to it.
I suspect the book is brought up in discussions of
"postmodernism" because there is a widespread belief among
the folk that nothing should be difficult to understand,
unless maybe the kinds of science you can blow things up
with. Artspeak can be difficult to understand, Tom Wolfe
makes fun of it, therefore if some other kind of language is
similarly difficult to understand and is even vaguely
connected with the arts, literature, or other suspect stuff,
Wolfe must applicable... somehow. The people who feel this
way often seem to confuse Modernist, modern, and postmodern
art as well, so they may be unaware that the concern about
"literature" in the plastic arts has long since fallen by
the wayside. Wolfe's book was a little bit out of date the
day it was published, in that regard -- Andy Warhol had
already solved the "literature" problem pretty definitively.
("People ask me what's "behind" my painting. There's
_nothing_ "behind" it. It's what you see.")
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 10/8} <-adv't
Mark Vinsel
J Paschel wrote in message <71st75$tlo$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu>...
>I'm curious as to several questions. First, why, specifically, does the
>art world hold it in such low regard ? My guess is that they would argue
>that he plays things "fast and loose" when making his observations and
>conclusions regarding art theories...
I am guilty of generalizing, I really was only speaking for myself not the
art world. Only a few artists I know have read it and they hated it. There
was a lot more going on than making the picture plane flat but as I read it,
his point was that there was nothing else to modern art.
>Second, why does this book arise in dicussions of postmodernism ?
I only posted my response on rec.arts.fine; perhaps somene else cross posted
to alt.postmodern.
The person with the cry for help on rec.arts.fine was bamboozled by the
obfuscatory language in art criticism, and I think The Painted Word does
help one understand the purpose of this language whether the topic is
modernism or post-modernism. The purpose is elitist in Wolfe's opinion and
I think that is significant in helping her wade through it without fear.
>
>Finally, my own take on this book was that Wolfe was merely pointing out,
>somewhat sarcastically, that art is, first and foremost, a social
>construction and subject to the associated doctrines of relativism, etc.
>As such, theories become more important than the work, since they provide
>the justification for the label "art". None of this seems that profound or
>controversial to me--after all, even with all that said, social
>constructions are important, powerful, and most important _real_ things.
Yes.
>So, why all the fuss ?
No fuss here. No Argument with BT either - his post was brilliant and
clearly helped her much more than mine. Other than you and he I didn't see
that anyone was going to help Ms. Brown, so I tried.
Mark V.
mark webber
G*rd*n, I like your reply; I think you summarize the difficulty some
people have with Wolfe very well (including me.) I was curious, though,
how you would distinguish between Modernist and modern art.
thanks,
Mark
G*rd*n
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>:
| G*rd*n, I like your reply; I think you summarize the difficulty some
| people have with Wolfe very well (including me.) I was curious, though,
| how you would distinguish between Modernist and modern art.
Modernist, Modernism refer to the movement; by _modern_ I
mean all the different movements and styles of the 20th
century up to and flowing into postmodern styles.
Postmodern art rejects or departs from Modernism, but one
can see it as a continuation and development of some other
things that were going on earlier in the modern period.
My own very personal interpretation of Modernism was that it
was an attempt to classicize modern art and thus save it
from itself. But now it seems to have been saved from
salvation.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/5 <-adv't
Charles Eicher
> I'm curious as to several questions. First, why, specifically, does the
> art world hold it in such low regard ?
There's an old joke: How do you piss off another artist? By being an artist
yourself. Wolfe's book is a work of literary art, it just happens to be
about the NY art scene. Wolfe was a brilliant writer in those early days of
"New Journalism." During the post-Nixon era, I wanted to be a Journalist,
me and my writer-wannabe friends all idolized Tom Wolfe and Hunter
Thompson, not Woodward & Bernstein. Woodward & Bernstein were great
Journalists, but Wolfe and HST were artists. Wolfe singlehandedly invented
New Journalism, it was as radical a movement as Modernism in painting. For
those that don't know about it, New Journalism was an attempt to abandon
objectivity in reporting, one of the oldest axioms in the reporter's
repertoire. Wolfe thought that by participating in the scene, and
abandoning any pretense of detachment, he could get closer to the real
feeling of his subjects, and create a richer tableau by making his own
personal feelings the center of the story. Its a lot more complex than
that, but that's the main point.
> Second, why does this book arise in dicussions of postmodernism ?
Because its there. Wolfe wrote about the NY scene at its peak. The pomos
will have quite a few years to get to that point. And then, they will have
missed it when it occurred, and could only hope to have had a writer as
good as Wolfe around to document it for them when they weren't paying
attention.
----------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@inav.net
----------------
Gerry Quinn
>In article <71st75$tlo$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu>, big...@u.washington.edu
>(J Paschel) wrote:
>
>: > that he plays things "fast and loose" when making his observations and
>: > conclusions regarding art theories...
>
Most unfair of him, considering the rigorous logic which underpins
such theories.
- Gerry
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
mdeli
However, his critique of critics though correct is not a reason to
reject the artists he criticizes. Wolfe fails to mention their lack of
skill and their inability to create works which have any uniqueness.
Like any layman he senses skill when he sees it, but is unable to
speak about its qualities. He also fails to criticize what I call
firstitus; the praising of anything a critic imagines was done for
the first time no matter how idiotic.
(Philip Ayers) wrote:
>I read the book back in 1975 but did like it for the writing. Where Wolfe
>fall flat is the examples he gives for what he considers worthwhile. Now
>the examples he gives...Statues to Civil War Heroes and other public works
>mostly....nothing else really comes to mind, undercut his arguments .
He mentioned Estes which implies a lot.
> It's
>easy to poke fun at Jackson Pollock( who I somewhat like)
Gee I wonder why?
> and Warhol
>(which I hate),
How is he any worse than Matisse or Pollock?
> but his overall ignorance of art & the art history
>(notice I seperate the two) was glaring!
>
This is a criticism I often hear when one mentions something someone
else doesn't like. I challenge you to show an example where Wolfe
reveals this ignorance.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mdeli
>Modernist, Modernism refer to the movement; by _modern_ I
>mean all the different movements and styles of the 20th
>century up to and flowing into postmodern styles.
It doesn't. Modernism essentially only refers to the artwork which
inhabits the modern sections of our museums.
The major styles of the 20th century are ignored namely the tail end
of art nuveau, art Deco, illustration comics cartoons, major works of
surrealism etc; most anything exhibiting superior skill..
>Postmodern art rejects or departs from Modernism, but one
>can see it as a continuation and development of some other
>things that were going on earlier in the modern period.
Indeed its a continuation of the same old crap with a slightly
different line of excuses.
>My own very personal interpretation of Modernism was that it
>was an attempt to classicize modern art and thus save it
>from itself. But now it seems to have been saved from
>salvation.
Modernism or Modern Art with a capitol "A" is a phoney excuse which
claims to reject the past for the ever new. In rejecting the subject
matter of the past it has also rejected the need for skill and
competence. The Modern artists who makes it to fame is no more
exceptional than the thousands of artists who do the same hack work
and never get anyplace. Success as a Modern is dependent on
connections and a steady stream of Artspeak. The actual artwork is of
hardly any interest.
Philip Ayers
(mdeli) wrote:
: > > but his overall ignorance of art & the art history
: > >(notice I seperate the two) was glaring!
: > >
: > This is a criticism I often hear when one mentions something someone
: > else doesn't like. I challenge you to show an example where Wolfe
: > reveals this ignorance.
: > --
: > Mani DeLi
Greetings
Because, like you, he assumes he knows everything and this just isn't
possible. Even if some artist is doing what you think is crap, it maybe
that you just don't understand it.
Come on do you know it all mani? I don't.
But I do know that many people have drawn incorrect conclusions in areas
where right and wrong could eventually be known...like the original
perceptions about electricity. Many thought it was not real or it would be
destructive
...anyway other examples come to mind.
Now we can never prove or disprove that Matisse is worse or better than
andrew Wyeth. No, we can't. I think Matisse is far more interesting during
at least one period..I.E. "the Music Lesson"@ the Modern...can't think of
a single painting by wyeth that I like a 1000th as much. But that's just
me...I won't say that Matisse is better, even if I prefer him to Wyeth.
Art is a wonderful thing humans do and it's for the reasons I mention
here...we all know what we like if we like and enjoy art at all, which
does require time.
I found Wolfe's arguments to be convincing only because I -do- think he
writes convincingly and with a sense of humor.&.irony works well for him.
As I said, Pollock's pretty easy to make fun of. But you know I still like
a period of Pollock because I think his best paintings are parallel to
nature in there complexity and I think as a colorist he is better than
most from this period. The drip paintings hold up surprisingly well. I've
never thought he was as great or as bad as he's described. Warhol is
another story..mostly I find his commercialism boring and repetition for
him is more boring than watching corn grow! As for Estes(modern
Canaletto) being mentioned by Wolfe..I don't remember it but I'm not
surprised but what got me was his praising some pretty bad statues. He has
bad taste in art and knows very little from the EYE. Just my opinion.
Boring too.
He's like a lot of smart successful intellectual I've know., and I've
know some pretty famous ones. Usually they don't know much about anything
more than what they think. Liking and developing an understanding of Art
requires some time...mostly these people have never put in the time. Shame
on Wolfe...American Studies from Yale, he should know more. I bet he
hasn't any use for Harold Bloom either!
Saul Bellows is a wonderful writer who has a similar narrow perspective
but I can recommended his _Humbolt's Gift_ for it's sometime profound and
accurate description of an artist零(poet) road to doom. We artists are all
a little like Delmar Schwartz going for broke but usually we don't make
it.
I pity artists with too much self confidence.
G*rd*n
| >Modernist, Modernism refer to the movement; by _modern_ I
| >mean all the different movements and styles of the 20th
| >century up to and flowing into postmodern styles.
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli):
| It doesn't. Modernism essentially only refers to the artwork which
| inhabits the modern sections of our museums.
In my youth I was taught that Modernism was a distinct,
self-conscious movement, not merely a collection of similar
styles. I heard such remarks as "form follows function"
and "abstract expressionism is the depiction of thought
itself" and the like. These (function, thought itself) are
classical concerns, akin to the search for the true, the
beautiful, and the good. In postmodernity, nothing is true
and everything is permitted, at least if it sells. Or so
they tell me. As I've noted before, there's a certain
backsliding toward slickness in the galleries, so they may
start in again about truth at any moment.
| ...
writ...@hotmail.com
p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
> In article <36433c3c...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
> (mdeli) wrote:
>
> : > > but his overall ignorance of art & the art history
> : > >(notice I seperate the two) was glaring!
> : > >
> : > This is a criticism I often hear when one mentions something someone
> : > else doesn't like. I challenge you to show an example where Wolfe
> : > reveals this ignorance.
> : > --
> : > Mani DeLi
>
> Greetings
>
> Because, like you, he assumes he knows everything and this just isn't
> possible. Even if some artist is doing what you think is crap, it maybe
> that you just don't understand it.
This is slightly off-topic here.... I just had to put in my own opinion here.
The "You just don't understand it" cop out. So what you are saying Phil is
that the reason that I think that, oh let's see here... that I feel that an
artist defecating in cans, sealing them and trying to sell them for $10,000
dollars each is not art... is because I don't understand it? Or I know... or
making a huge pile of candy on an art room floor, and then selling it to
someone for an astronomical amount of money just doesn't make sense to me,
because I'm too lowbrow to understand it. I'm not attacking you... I'm
attacking one of the oldest lines in evaluation.
A fool and his money are soon parted... especially when a critic says its
great art. Seems to me that the art criticism is the only place that doesn't
have a checks-and-balance system to it. I mean, in literature, film, music
and drama criticism have far wider set of opinions than the colluded art
world.
Matthew
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
mdeli
>In article <36433c3c...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
>(mdeli) wrote:
>
>: > > but his overall ignorance of art & the art history
>: > >(notice I seperate the two) was glaring!
>: > >
>: > This is a criticism I often hear when one mentions something someone
>: > else doesn't like. I challenge you to show an example where Wolfe
>: > reveals this ignorance.
>: > --
>: > Mani DeLi
>
>Greetings
>
>Because, like you, he assumes he knows everything and this just isn't
>possible. Even if some artist is doing what you think is crap, it maybe
>that you just don't understand it.
Ayers, you mightaddress the point instead going off on a sanctimonious
inflated tangent.
Just give us an example of Wolfes "glaring ignorance of art
history." One quote will do. Please find a "glaring" one.
>Come on do you know it all mani? I don't.
So? Yawn.
>But I do know that many people have drawn incorrect conclusions in areas
>where right and wrong could eventually be known...like the original
>perceptions about electricity. Many thought it was not real or it would be
>destructive
>...anyway other examples come to mind.
>Now we can never prove or disprove that Matisse is worse or better than
>andrew Wyeth.
Fine what does that have to do with Wolfe's supposed ignorance
>No, we can't. I think Matisse is far more interesting during
>at least one period..I.E. "the Music Lesson"@ the Modern...can't think of
>a single painting by wyeth that I like a 1000th as much. But that's just
>me...I won't say that Matisse is better, even if I prefer him to Wyeth.
Glad yYou won't. This should be very reassuring to Marylin. Perhaps
she'll even blow you a complimentary kiss which she had reserved for
Webber.
>Art is a wonderful thing humans do and it's for the reasons I mention
>here...we all know what we like if we like and enjoy art at all, which
>does require time.
>
Great! I'm so glad to be informed that "Art is a wonderful thing
humans do." I'm sure all here will have great use for this astounding
piece of information.
snip
>As I said, Pollock's pretty easy to make fun of. But you know I still like
>a period of Pollock because I think his best paintings are parallel to
>nature in there complexity and I think as a colorist he is better than
>most from this period. The drip paintings hold up surprisingly well.
So does the floor covering in my work room.
> I've
>never thought he was as great or as bad as he's described. Warhol is
>another story..mostly I find his commercialism boring and repetition for
>him is more boring than watching corn grow!
And of course Pollock's drips are just brimming with excitement.
>As for Estes(modern
>Canaletto) being mentioned by Wolfe..I don't remember it but I'm not
>surprised but what got me was his praising some pretty bad statues.
Like?
>He has
>bad taste in art and knows very little from the EYE.
Do tell us about your astounding "EYE." Which one left or right?
> He's like a lot of smart successful intellectual I've know., and I've
>know some pretty famous ones.
Very impressive!
> Usually they don't know much about anything
>more than what they think. Liking and developing an understanding of Art
>requires some time...mostly these people have never put in the time.
Have you put in time?
>Shame on Wolfe.
snip
.
>I pity artists with too much self confidence.
Do you also put a lot of time into this?
mdeli
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >Modernist, Modernism refer to the movement; by _modern_ I
>| >mean all the different movements and styles of the 20th
>| >century up to and flowing into postmodern styles.
>
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli):
>| It doesn't. Modernism essentially only refers to the artwork which
>| inhabits the modern sections of our museums.
I add the rest of the statement which you failed to quote
"The major styles of the 20th century are ignored namely the tail end
of art nuveau, art Deco, illustration comics cartoons, major works of
surrealism etc; most anything exhibiting superior skill."
>
>In my youth I was taught that Modernism was a distinct,
>self-conscious movement, not merely a collection of similar
>styles. I heard such remarks as "form follows function"
>and "abstract expressionism is the depiction of thought
>itself" and the like. These (function, thought itself) are
>classical concerns, akin to the search for the true, the
>beautiful, and the good.
They aren't. They are essentially Artspeak. They sound profound up to
the moment you think about what they really mean, which is practically
nothing.
>In postmodernity, nothing is true
>and everything is permitted, at least if it sells.
Which also means practically nothing. Lots of things are true whether
some POMO idiot permits it or not.
> Or so they tell me.
Well don't always believe what you hear.
> As I've noted before, there's a certain
>backsliding toward slickness in the galleries, so they may
>start in again about truth at any moment.
And what is that supposed to mean?
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >In my youth I was taught that Modernism was a distinct,
| >self-conscious movement, not merely a collection of similar
| >styles. I heard such remarks as "form follows function"
| >and "abstract expressionism is the depiction of thought
| >itself" and the like. These (function, thought itself) are
| >classical concerns, akin to the search for the true, the
| >beautiful, and the good.
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli):
| They aren't. They are essentially Artspeak. They sound profound up to
| the moment you think about what they really mean, which is practically
| nothing.
I think it's a mistake to discount the sincerity of others,
especially that of those one conceives to be one's
opposition. Or the enemies of God, or however you want to
construe the evangelists of Modernism. Probably, if they
were all charlatans they could not possibly have had the
effect they did, which was astonishing when you think about
it. I'm not denying there was plenty of the fluffier sort
of Artspeak about during the Modernist period, but this was
not an innovation -- art isn't easy to talk about, which
conduces to a certain amount of fluffiness in all periods.
What I quoted, however, is the hard stuff.
| ...
G*rd*n:
| > As I've noted before, there's a certain
| >backsliding toward slickness in the galleries, so they may
| >start in again about truth at any moment.
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli):
| And what is that supposed to mean?
If people become sufficiently fascinated with the power of
techniques, they will try to get them to produce durable,
easy-to-use, powerful spiritual products like _truth_. When
this is done, what the techniques produce will be called
truth, because the techniques are the techniques that are
_supposed_ to produce truth -- part of the technique is a
rhetoric which convinces people of that.
In the world of graphic arts, there have been a number of
iterations of this process, including the Modernism
mentioned above.
Philip Ayers
(mdeli) wrote:
: > (Philip Ayers) wrote:
: >
: > >In article <36433c3c...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
: > >(mdeli) wrote:
: > >
: > >: > > but his overall ignorance of art & the art history
: > >: > >(notice I seperate the two) was glaring!
: >
: > >As I said, Pollock's pretty easy to make fun of. But you know I still like
: > >a period of Pollock because I think his best paintings are parallel to
: > >nature in there complexity and I think as a colorist he is better than
: > >most from this period. The drip paintings hold up surprisingly well.
: >
: > So does the floor covering in my work room.
True
: > > I've
: > >never thought he was as great or as bad as he's described. Warhol is
: > >another story..mostly I find his commercialism boring and repetition for
: > >him is more boring than watching corn grow!
: >
: > And of course Pollock's drips are just brimming with excitement.
As a matter of fact they are!
: > >As for Estes(modern
: > >Canaletto) being mentioned by Wolfe..I don't remember it but I'm not
: > >surprised but what got me was his praising some pretty bad statues.
: > Like?
I don't know who they where by...one in Madison Square near 23rd and
Broadway...pretty lame peice of work. Others where mentioned..some I know
some I don't. Sheeeesh it was 1975 I read this.
: >
: > >He has
: > >bad taste in art and knows very little from the EYE.
: >
: > Do tell us about your astounding "EYE." Which one left or right?
This little reply is all I need to know?.....Left or right?
Mani you are a complete and total idiot.
mark webber
> | ... [ _The_Painted_Word_ ] ....
>
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>:
> | G*rd*n, I like your reply; I think you summarize the difficulty some
> | people have with Wolfe very well (including me.) I was curious, though,
> | how you would distinguish between Modernist and modern art.
>
> Modernist, Modernism refer to the movement; by _modern_ I
> mean all the different movements and styles of the 20th
> century up to and flowing into postmodern styles.
Sorry to be so slow in responding to this - and I don't mean to make a big
deal about it, but I am curious. Thanks for trying to clarify, but I'm
still a bit confused. Can you give me an example of an artist who is
specifically a "Modernist" as you define it?
I ask this because I'm still having difficulty seeing a difference between
"modernist", which you are describing as a particular movement, and
"modern", which you seem to be describing as a period in which modernist,
as well as other modern works occur.
> Postmodern art rejects or departs from Modernism, but one
> can see it as a continuation and development of some other
> things that were going on earlier in the modern period.
>
Yes, we hear alot about how pomo rejects modernism, but it seems that pomo
is an extension of modernism that rejects formalism - and that isn't even
a new modernist idea.
> My own very personal interpretation of Modernism was that it
> was an attempt to classicize modern art and thus save it
> from itself. But now it seems to have been saved from
> salvation.
This is really interesting to me. Do you mean this attempt was made by
particular artists or historians or critics? I'd really like to hear more
about this.
thanks!
mark webber
>
> In my youth I was taught that Modernism was a distinct,
> self-conscious movement, not merely a collection of similar
> styles.
While we're here I wanted to see if I could make my questions clearer.
Here is one way to pose it: distinct from what? Distinct from other
20th century art? I'm trying to figure out which artists wouldd be in this
movement. Thanks for being patient with me....
Mark
mark webber
> Ref: Post modern ????
>
> In one sense post-modern is the dialectical anti-thesis or
> reaction to modernism which as antithesis to impressionism ....
Nabokov writes about how philistines can be found in all classes,
populations, etc. To my mind, seeing "modernism" as an antithesis to
impressionism could be a symptom of too much theory and not enough
looking.
I'm replying to this post because a copy was emailed to me, but I'm not
sure why - is there something I've written in the thread that you want to
address?
In the thread so far, I haven't really been asking about pomo - I was
asking another poster about his understanding of the differences between
Modernist art and Modern art (a distinction I'm still having difficulty
with.)
>
> One of the confusing things is that modernism is not modern at all
> but dated in that it is personified by the Bahaus
> "form-follows-function" and art-deco schools of clean lines and
> lack of ornamentation or other evidence of human occupation or
> participation.
I have a little difficulty understanding how a school can personify
anything, and more difficulty with the notion that these elements
("form-follows-function" and art-deco schools of clean lines....)
have anything to do with a great deal of what we call modern art. Cubism,
fauvism, abstract expressionism, for example , come to mind.
> You can expand this into literature.
I think I'll pass on that one, thanks.
>
> Just as there is no end of history, there is and will be no end to
> this process either. Each generation will react to the previous
> ones, and the more outrage they can generate the better :-)
If outrage is your cup of tea.
Mark
G*rd*n
| > mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>:
| > | G*rd*n, I like your reply; I think you summarize the difficulty some
| > | people have with Wolfe very well (including me.) I was curious, though,
| > | how you would distinguish between Modernist and modern art.
G*rd*n wrote:
| > Modernist, Modernism refer to the movement; by _modern_ I
| > mean all the different movements and styles of the 20th
| > century up to and flowing into postmodern styles.
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>:
| Sorry to be so slow in responding to this - and I don't mean to make a big
| deal about it, but I am curious. Thanks for trying to clarify, but I'm
| still a bit confused. Can you give me an example of an artist who is
| specifically a "Modernist" as you define it?
Rothko. Although I don't know if he literally ideologized
(about) his work, he's certainly in the bag.
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>:
| I ask this because I'm still having difficulty seeing a difference between
| "modernist", which you are describing as a particular movement, and
| "modern", which you seem to be describing as a period in which modernist,
| as well as other modern works occur.
A few examples of artists who are modern without being
Modernists (most of the time) are O'keeffe, Francis Bacon,
Max Ernst.
| ...
G*rd*n:
| > My own very personal interpretation of Modernism was that it
| > was an attempt to classicize modern art and thus save it
| > from itself. But now it seems to have been saved from
| > salvation.
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>:
| This is really interesting to me. Do you mean this attempt was made by
| particular artists or historians or critics? I'd really like to hear more
| about this.
I haven't really considered who was doing what, just the
change in the language and the apparent intent which seemed
to be current. If you have an art which concentrates on
formal values, as ab-ex does, you can put it in same value
spectrum as the Parthenon (because that's what people
valued in the Parthenon after its religious and political
value evaporated.)
It's much harder to do that with Duchamp or Warhol
(although of course some critics and academics are making
the effort). We have an interesting thesis and antithesis
starting with Impressionism. Artists are saying, "We can
do anything we want", and a few generations later, as a
direct result of some of the practices that they used, like
abstraction, they're no longer allowed to do anything but
concoct pure unreferential forms in the plastic arts and
shiny boxes in architecture. "Allowed", that is, in the
sense of receiving important forms of social approval for
their work.