Beginnings of Modernism
Sinhue
thesis I am working on concerning the beginnings of modernism and was
wondering what some of you might think of this.
Many people refer to Cezanne as the first modern painter. Often what
they are referring to is C's being the break which started the trend.
That is to say that following C more artists began concerning themselves
more openly with exploring certain specific formal aspects of painting
and how they work independantly of the subject matter.
Previously artists had used these elements, design, color tension and
what not but had incorporated them into pictorial imagery.
My thesis is basically exploring, or rather comparing and contrasting
these formal elements in the works of earlier artists. Specifically I
wish to look to people like Corot and his contemporaries as a means of
building the argument.
Essentialy I wish to make a clear connection with the beginnings of
modernism and the elements the artists of the past hundred or so years
have been exploring. Then connect these elements, attitudes, and
intentions with those of earlier artists in an attempt to show what we
refer to as modernist attitudes at work in what would be refered to as
pre-modernist times.
One such example would be the correlation between Jackson Polloks all
over compositions with Nicolas Poussin's Rape of the Sabine.
Any thoughts, suggestions, ideas or comparisons of your own?
Miles
In order to move forward, one must learn to disregard their own death,
moving boldly and without hesitation. Only then shall they attain
enlightenment. This is the way of the Samurai.
Timet...@netscape.net
If it needed explaining it wouldn't need painting.
The art historians stand in the galleries with their eyes and minds
closed. They are just another form of self procreating administrators
and couldn't do an honest days work if it fed them. Is that what you
want to be?
If you truly love art ---> DO IT!!!
Sinhue
Alright now here is a guy who likes to get his hands dirty. I respect
that.
As for materials Im way ahead of you my man. Got my stuff all set (with
a few details left to go).
As for the bit about wanting to be a stuffy old art critic thingamabob -
not for me. But I do think that wrighting and talking with fellow
artists is a great way to challenge our own ideas and grow. Why else
would I be posting on this page?
Thanks!
cher...@webtv.net
mdeli
wrote:
>I am going to be going to Paris later this year in order to research a
>thesis I am working on concerning the beginnings of modernism and was
>wondering what some of you might think of this.
I think you will write the same old crap that occupies a thousand
dusty selves full of Artspeak graduate papers. Perhaps you would be
far better off staying home and reading a thousand of these papers.
>Previously artists had used these elements, design, color tension and
>what not but had incorporated them into pictorial imagery.
Color tension indeed.
>My thesis is basically exploring, or rather comparing and contrasting
>these formal elements in the works of earlier artists.
So touched that its only "basically."
>Essentialy I wish to make a clear connection with the beginnings of
>modernism and the elements the artists of the past hundred or so years
>have been exploring.
He's going to make a "make a clear connection." Wanna bet!
> Then connect these elements, attitudes, and
>intentions with those of earlier artists in an attempt to show what we
>refer to as modernist attitudes at work in what would be refered to as
>pre-modernist times.
Man, what some idiots don't claim.
>
>One such example would be the correlation between Jackson Polloks all
>over compositions with Nicolas Poussin's Rape of the Sabine.
I hope you carefully check out the backs of the canvas in this
comparison. There is some strong similarities there. Also learn how to
spell his name before you get to Paris it might help.
>
>Any thoughts, suggestions, ideas or comparisons of your own?
Yes, when you're finished whit this drivel, write a thesis comparing
Pollock to certain varieties of floor covering and Michelangelo's drop
cloths, if you can find one somewhere in Europe.
I bet this jerk is going to end up teaching.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
lake
before the camera came along.It was used to evoke a particular
mythological presence. Beginning at the Italian Renaissance, it became
documentary. The image as facsimile.
This insight of yours is crucial to understanding what modern painting
is, and has been about. Never mind "post-modernism" - there is no such
thing. We haven't even caught up with modernism yet.
- Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
christopher moss
is, and has been about. Never mind "post-modernism" - there is no such
thing. We haven't even caught up with modernism yet.
_Thank you lake, I was beginning to think everyone gave into the
post-modern rhetoric, this post was a delight to read.
-cm
Erik A. Mattila
> I think you are absolutely correct - the image was a kind of charm,
> before the camera came along.It was used to evoke a particular
> mythological presence. Beginning at the Italian Renaissance, it became
> documentary. The image as facsimile.
>
> This insight of yours is crucial to understanding what modern painting
> is, and has been about. Never mind "post-modernism" - there is no such
> thing. We haven't even caught up with modernism yet.
>
> - Lake
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
That's kind of like saying there was no 'Renaissance,' Lake. After all,
'modernism' 'post-modernisn' et al are terms social scientists have invented to
describe periodization, based on significent shifts in social behavior. During
the Renaissance, Florentines or Venitians or Nuremburgians weren't aware that
they were 'in the renaissance' so to speak.
The best way to ponder the beginnings of modernism is, in my opinion, is to
read Calos Fuentes essay on "Don Quixote." Fuentes argument was that Cervantes
was writing about the migration of European society from the medieval to the
modern. "Quixote" may very well be the first text to describe this dramatic
shift, although its descriptive language is shrouded in elaborate metaphor and
allegory. The 'dragons' the good Don wished to eradicate were of course the
entire ediface of the the old Church dogma, which suddenly appear to lose their
fearful identiy when viewed from the 'early modern' context. (Windmills).
Essentially, the 'shift' that ushered in the renaissance was political and
economic. The Church lost its authority dramatically, as the result of the
wealth that flooded into Europe from the so-called 'discovery' of the rest of
the world, and the subsequent economic exploitation of these new found realms.
Take Venice as an example. Suddenly Venice became the most important ship
building center in Europe, with its access to the prime timber in the Austrian
alps. The wealth that poured into commercial, secular hands redistributed,
including into the patronage of the arts. So Venitian painters, once
subsidized, had the option to explore painting beyond the interests of the
church, which tended to call for the same old pictures, over and over.
Libraries appeared for the first time, except for very private controlled
collections. The defeat of the Moors in Spain left major libraries to the new
Spainiards, who couldn't read. So Spanish Jews enjoyed a good job for a time,
translating these texts into European languages, and they were distributed
throughout Europe, often in collections that were not controlled by the church
or the royals, such as in the libraries of the newly founded secular
universities.
So change and innovation were the earmarks of the newly found social freedoms
of the early modern era. Change and innovation became inscribed in all the
subsequent developments, through middle and late modernism. Through all these
passages, there was a tendency that was effectively resisted for social
instutions to dogmatize and stiltify knowledge, and when we arrive at late
modernism, which a lot of people here are confusing with 'modernism' in total,
we have yet another example of the resistance to dogmatic interpretations,
expresseed as the various 'isms' we are so familiar with.
The category 'post modernism' is legitimate, but only as it was originally
coined to demark a general social disinclination to subscribe to a totalizing
ideology. The knid of thought we are fimiliar with is something like 'it's
really silly to go around waving a banner that communism, capitalism,
scientology, Bhuddism, UFO worship, unionism is going to save the world.
People just don't think like that any longer - although there are plenty of
atavistic remnants of groups who still champion a totalizing ideology.
Unfortunately, the difference between denizens of the renaissance and ourselves
is that they didn't have to suffer some social agent, like mass media, telling
them they are in the renaissance, so they could deny it. We do have this, and
it's not surprising that many deny that we are in the 'post-modern.' The term
itself is terribly abused, misunderstood, claimed to mean something that it
doesn't and so forth. Perhaps some day laws will be passed that will make it
illegal for a social scientist to coin a term for a contemporary phenomena, so
we could be spared the horror of self-recognition.
Erik Mattila
lake
post-modern. Maybe I'd be more charitable towards the word if people
weren't continually sticking "ism" on to it. That seems oxymoronic to
me. I'm no avocate of totalizing ideology, but if it is indeed on the
way out, why give such an important shift the innocuous, misleading
name of "post-modernism"? Etymologically it makes no sense at all. It
obfuscates even further the already-obscure.
Erik A. Mattila
lake wrote:
> That's a good synopsis of the Renaissance and a good definition of
> post-modern. Maybe I'd be more charitable towards the word if people
> weren't continually sticking "ism" on to it. That seems oxymoronic to
> me. I'm no avocate of totalizing ideology, but if it is indeed on the
> way out, why give such an important shift the innocuous, misleading
> name of "post-modernism"? Etymologically it makes no sense at all. It
> obfuscates even further the already-obscure.
>
> - Lake
If I'm reading you correctly, you're more or less saying once a category gets
enshrined as ideology you're checking out. If so, I feel the same way.
If you read Peter Büger's "Theory of the Avant Garde," he describes the many
'isms' of late modernity as quickly extinguishing themselve, or, as he put it,
exhausting all their possibilities early on.
But consider 'Hippy." Originally, there were folks who were just carrying on,
perhaps a natural extension of various forms of the 'boheminan' (
self-consciously marginalized to make the claim of the 'other' or 'not
mainstream'). Perhaps the only real difference between these folks and their
beatnik prototypes was the proliferation of pyschocellics. But somewhere along
the line this little species of bohemia got labeled 'Hippy' and the press
picked it up and it transformed. It really became superficial, in comparison
with older forms of bohemia. In some ways it became empty, slogan driven, and
enormously popular. It's interesting that the earlier 'Beat Generation' got
it's share of press, but it did not transform in the same way once popularized.
I'm wondering why. I think the difference is contextual, i.e. the general
difference in society between 1958 and 1968, and no so much any intrinsic
quality of beatnikdom vs. hippydom. However, once transformed by mass media,
hippydom became something entirely different that beatnikdom. One thing, as
far as those proclaiming hippydom were concerned, to was no longer a marginal
movement, but a mainstream movement. Even drugs, which orginally were viewed
as some sort of a sacrament, in line with the thoughts of Aldous Huxley and
others who emphaisized pyschodillia as a spiritual alternative, were
transformed to the level of turning on a TV set for entertainment, shedding
their 'spiritual aura' completely, except for the most superficial statements
like "Far Out!"
I'm just offering this as an example of how something that may have had some
original merits can be corrupted by being canonized as a movement, ideology,
life-style, or, as you say, an 'ism.' This is essentially what has happened
to the idea of post-modernism, in my opinion. What was originally a very
useful category in the social sciences (and still is) has been cannonized by
segments of our society, and is expressed as an ideological structure. So you
just have to use the term carefully to avoid the absurdity that may be attached
to this term -- filter through a lot of insubstantial claims, reification, and
pick and choose.
Or you can jump into the metadiscourse on the post-modern. I like this,
personally. It more or less wants to study how such a thing as a social
science category can be elevated to an ideology. It's fascinating - society
and culture in action. There's no better example of how 'meaning' is
continually produced and changed by culture.
Erik Mattila
lake
them. I've always been a beatnik, for example, & plan to stay that way.
Beats were into mind-altering substances long before any hippy invented
love& peace. LONG before. Not that I'm against love& peace, I
peacefully love 'em both, whenever I can.
You say the difference between hippies & beats was purely contextual,
not philosophical - well your dead wrong. You can spin any kind of
sociological analysis you want, but the fact is, beats have a
foundation, and hippies don't.
And lest you think this distinction is purely anachronistic, NOBODY
since the beats & hippies has had anything particularly new to say
about it. Forget about mass media & all its hoopla. Kerouac said it
fifty years ago, and I'm saying it again - it's irrelevant.
You say that the sacred drugs were "transformed to the level of turning
on a TV set for entertainment" - and I say bullshit. The sacred drugs
have never been, and will never be transformed to anything. They are
what they are, eternally. Beats knew this, hippies didn't. It's as
simple as that.
Merit cannot be corrupted by cannonization. Its offshoots can be used
and confused and manipulated - but Charlie Parker is Charlie Parker.
Always was & always will be. And he does not need any mass media to
sanction his crown. If anything, it's the other way around - without
artists of merit, the mass media would be no more than a playground for
idiots. ( it's getting there)
Personally, I don't care a fart how "a social science category can be
elevated to an ideology". I don't find it fascinating, I find it
repulsive.
Erik A. Mattila
seems this way. Well, assuming that you're just talking, I'll continue.
lake wrote:
> Not at all. I have nothing against "isms" if there is any substance to
> them. I've always been a beatnik, for example, & plan to stay that way.
> Beats were into mind-altering substances long before any hippy invented
> love& peace. LONG before. Not that I'm against love& peace, I
> peacefully love 'em both, whenever I can.
Yes, Marcel Proust locked himself in his bedroom for thirty years with several
pounds of hashhish and 'remembered' his life as a fiction. Drug use among the
avant garde is an old story, often repressed in the histories.
> You say the difference between hippies & beats was purely contextual,
> not philosophical - well your dead wrong. You can spin any kind of
> sociological analysis you want, but the fact is, beats have a
> foundation, and hippies don't.
Please show me where I said anything about philosophy, Lake. I don't see how
you can legitimately invent statements, attribute them to me, and then claim "I
am dead wrong." This is an inherently dishonest practice, known in some
circles as a "cheap shot." If you will read my post again, you will see that I
am clearly stating the Beats and Hippies have the same foundation - call it
counter-culture, bohemianism, avant garde or whatever. It's been around for
ages in western society. Rembrandt was more or less a beatnik - he hung out
with all the marginal people that you can think of in 17th century Amsterdam,
Turks, Jews, and what have you. There's a good chance he smoked pot, too,
after his best friend, Jan Van Loon, brought some back to Amsterdam from
overseas.
But I can conditionally agree with you about 'foundation.' That is, if you can
accept that what was originally "hippy' was transformed by mass media into
superficiality. In some ways, you could say the superfice lacked foundation -
but actually it did have a foundation, which was mass media. Mass media has
this capacity, which essentially the point of my entire post, of transforming a
classification (hippy) into an ideology.
Let me give you an example. In 1971 I worked for a SF publishing company, and
we were preparing to print an Alicia Bay Laurel book. Alicia lived on the
nortorious Wheeler Ranch in Sonoma County. A rich guy by the name of Wheeler
owned this property, and 'donated' its use to a group of SF 'beatnik' refugees
who were considering the early 'back to the land' movement. Besides Alicia,
there was another fellow naamed Verne Orlo Shrieve, as well as others, who were
very genuine about the idea of a legitimate "counter culture" and saw great
merit in the older ideas of "communialism" as a base for reinventing social
culture. They established their commune at Wheeler Ranch in the mid-sixties,
but around the time that the Press picked up on the Haight Ashbury the Wheeler
Ranch people made their fatal error, and publically announced that the
philosophy of Wheeler Ranch was that "the land would choose the people." What
they meant was that it was really hard work living off the land - a dusk till
dawn thing, as rural America always knew. They suspected that anyone who came
to live at Wheeler Ranch would be selected, as most would prefer to enjoy the
life style of the city and all its conveiniences, rather than have to cut fire
wook, weed gardens, pack water, and live without electricity or plumbing. So
the original crew were hard-working and dedicated to an ideology, but the folks
that came were, to use the term popular at the time, freaks. The guiding
philosophy of the Freaks was "Party On." A couple of thousand descended on
Wheeler Ranch, rufused to work or accept any communal responsibilities, and
carried on with their agenda of ingesting as much drugs as possible, getting
laid, and keeping the batteries on their portable hi-fis charged. It was human
society reduced down to it's bare essentials. And most were middle-class
American Kids with allowances, so instead of working in the garden, they would
simply drive to Occidental and buy hamburgers when the got hungry.
> And lest you think this distinction is purely anachronistic, NOBODY
> since the beats & hippies has had anything particularly new to say
> about it. Forget about mass media & all its hoopla. Kerouac said it
> fifty years ago, and I'm saying it again - it's irrelevant.
Well, Kerouac told me, personally, that the reason he wanted to get started on
his gallon of Ernesto Cribari Red at 10 am was because he wanted to experience
the underbelly of Americana first hand, part of his ongoing research. Cassidy
concurred, as he twisted the cap off the bottle. Today, a Punk or a Shavehead
would proudly say that they wanted to get drunk. So there's a difference for
you - the older form was compelled to valorize the experience, the newer to
just accept it, with no regrets, as substance abuse.
> You say that the sacred drugs were "transformed to the level of turning
> on a TV set for entertainment" - and I say bullshit. The sacred drugs
> have never been, and will never be transformed to anything. They are
> what they are, eternally. Beats knew this, hippies didn't. It's as
> simple as that.
And as idiotic as that. Again, you're being dishonest. I said nothing about
'sacred' or the inherent attributes of drugs. What I said was how people
regarded drugs. Now if you want to get all sacred about it, why not consider
that Ce Acatl Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl left Tollan because the people there were
using peyote as a recreation drug - and to punish him he made the cactus taste
horrible. So why is it OK for Topiltzin to make this observaton, and not I?
It's just not fair.
I am puzzled, however, how you can claim affilitation to Buddhism or Eastern
Mysticism and at the same time advocate drug use. Do you see the
contradiction? Any Tibetan Lama will tell you that drugs put you into the
lower astral plane of existence. But people like drugs because they make you
feel good. I can't say for sure, but you seem to be eclectic to a degree --
like American Civic Architeccture - you know, if you take a bit of Greek
Architecture, combine in with the best of Roman and Christopher Wren, you will
inevitably have great architecture. You seem to be eclectic in the same way.
> Merit cannot be corrupted by cannonization. Its offshoots can be used
> and confused and manipulated - but Charlie Parker is Charlie Parker.
> Always was & always will be. And he does not need any mass media to
> sanction his crown. If anything, it's the other way around - without
> artists of merit, the mass media would be no more than a playground for
> idiots. ( it's getting there)
You're neurons are misfiring here, Lake. But that's one of the illusional
benefits of the lower astral plane.
> Personally, I don't care a fart how "a social science category can be
> elevated to an ideology". I don't find it fascinating, I find it
> repulsive.
>
> - Lake
Well, I find a lot of perverse things fascinating. I'm not a moralist. I like
to take things as they come and ponder their significance or lack thereof.
What I find boring is declarations of judgement and sweeping condemnations of
social realities without any attempt to unravel the mystery of it all.
Regards,
Erik
lake
towards you personally, whose erudition, perspicacity and general good
humor I very much admire. It's towards some of your ideas.
Though I do tend to make "sweeping condemnations of social realities" I
assure you that I AM attempting to unravel their mysteries. When I said
you were dead wrong, I was referring to this particular statement of
yours:
"I think the difference was contextual and not so much any quality
of beatnikdom vs. hippiedom."
Granted, you didn't use the word philosophy, but surely, it was
implied. I have no intention whatsoever of taking a cheap shot at you.
I RESPECT you.
Alright let's get down to brass tacks - you are clearly stating that
hippies and beatniks have the same foundation, and I am emphatically
stating that they do NOT. Beatniks were based in classical culture,
which is to say poetry, drama, dance, and to a lesser extent painting
and music. Hippies were based in mass media, period.
You say yourself - the point of your post is that mass media has the
ability to transform a classification into an ideology. This brings us
back around to "post-modernism". I think it's merely an up-dated
version of "hippydom", without meaning or substance. There is no
direction or goal to it, there is no historical precedent, there is no
respect for anything. It's merely a style, a pose.
OK YOU didn't say anything about drugs being sacred, not in so many
words anyway, but I am saying something about it. There are certain
substances which ARE sacred - which is to say, far more powerful than
any jerk who tries to fuck around with them. They're eternal, like
motherhood & apple pie, & other more dangerous things.
I'm sure Topilzin had his reasons for making peyote taste so bad, & if
you read the Lotus Sutra, buddha has a few things to say about that too.
Nobody in their right mind would say that Cassidy & Kerouac were saints.
But we're still talking about them. Why do you suppose that is? What do
they symbolize? Why should we care?
Whatever it is, I don't think it relates to "postmodernism" in any way
whatsoever.
-Lake