Art in its Time: Theories and Practices of Modern Aesthetics
Art in its Time: Theories and Practices of Modern Aesthetics
Art in its Time: Theories and Practices of Modern Aesthetics
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
2<br />
SOME MASKS OF MODERNISM<br />
The days when one could sit down with an easy m<strong>in</strong>d to write an account <strong>of</strong><br />
someth<strong>in</strong>g called “modernism” are over. One might have thought that the<br />
opposite would be the case s<strong>in</strong>ce it has become common, over the past 25 years<br />
or so, for writers on culture to <strong>in</strong>sist that this term labels a phenomenon <strong>of</strong> the<br />
past. At least <strong>in</strong> the restricted field <strong>of</strong> art history, the closure <strong>of</strong> “modernism,”<br />
thus detached from the orig<strong>in</strong>al reference to the chronological present, might<br />
have been expected to have given the concept def<strong>in</strong>ability as a stylistic term. But<br />
it has not. Earlier def<strong>in</strong>itional orthodoxies, such as that embodied <strong>in</strong> Alfred<br />
Barr’s famous diagram <strong>of</strong> the history <strong>of</strong> abstract art, or Clement Greenberg’s<br />
various formulations, no longer have their former power. The complexity,<br />
<strong>in</strong>completeness, <strong>and</strong> hesitation that mark a notable recent attempt at a conceptualization,<br />
T. J. Clark’s Farewell to an Idea, 1 suggest that the purported end <strong>of</strong><br />
modernism has if anyth<strong>in</strong>g made the task more difficult.<br />
If we agree, <strong>in</strong> the search for a plausible m<strong>in</strong>imum def<strong>in</strong>ition, to apply the<br />
label “modernist” to art which orients <strong>its</strong>elf self-consciously to the socialhistorical<br />
reality called “modernity,” the source <strong>of</strong> the problem is clear: there is<br />
agreement neither on the lim<strong>its</strong> or the content <strong>of</strong> the historical period referenced<br />
nor on what to take as the “orientation” <strong>of</strong> artistic practice to the wider field <strong>of</strong><br />
social experience. As Raymond Williams put it,<br />
Although modernism can be clearly identified as a dist<strong>in</strong>ctive movement,<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>its</strong> deliberate distance from <strong>and</strong> challenge to more traditional<br />
forms <strong>of</strong> art <strong>and</strong> thought, it is also strongly characterized by <strong>its</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal<br />
diversity <strong>of</strong> methods <strong>and</strong> emphases: a restless <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong>ten directly competitive<br />
sequence <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>novations, always more immediately recognized<br />
by what they are break<strong>in</strong>g from than by what, <strong>in</strong> any simple way, they<br />
are break<strong>in</strong>g towards. 2<br />
1 T. J. Clark, Farewell to an Idea: Episodes from a History <strong>of</strong> <strong>Modern</strong>ism (New Haven: Yale University<br />
Press, 1999).<br />
2 Raymond Williams, The Politics <strong>of</strong> <strong>Modern</strong>ism (London: Verso, 1989), p. 43.<br />
9