17.12.2012 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!