modernism

[David Morris]

On Nov 16, 2007 1:16 PM, Monte Davis <monte.davis at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> A contrarian view -- a possible counterweight or sheet anchor -- is that the avant-garde was always with us, but "modernism" got its capital M when:
>
> 1) industrialization, mass production and discretionary income allowed people to buy lots of *designed* stuff (designed by people who got at least some of their training in the high culture)
>
> 2) mass education and communication fostered a sizeable market for *opinions* about designed stuff
>
> 3) the eternal human lust for novelty put a premium on having the *latest* opinions about the *newest* stuff
>
> In other words, sometime around 1890 in Europe, a bit later in the US, and by the 1920s in urban elites around the world, high culture was democratized enough to become subject to the rapid cycles of *fashion*. Surprise, surprise: Pound's "Make it new" and Diaghilev's "etonnez-moi!" (to Jean Cocteau, who did his best to oblige) become the watchwords. Maybe if you dig deep enough looking for the essence of "what was new in Modernism," you find simply the premium put on newness itself.

These discussions have the potential to fly apart into divergent
fragments, all of which are fascinating.  The challenge is to try to
keep track of what questions we're asking.  I'm not sure how
successful I'll be at that:

The concept of "High Culture" is problematic in these postmodern days,
especially since Warhol.  It's always been produced by the
Artist/Shaman and bought up by the Rich, so in that respect isn't very
"democratized."  Pre-Warhol high art was, like always before it (well
- let's say since the emergence of the Genius-Artist in Florence -
Donatello & Michelangelo), produced by Artists with varying visions,
values and skill, and yes, nobody wanted to be repeating what had
already been done.  Boring to artist and patron.  So newness was
always a goal.

But Industrialization made everyone aware that the world had entered
an unprecedented era, and expressions of the meaning of this new
"modern" era are what blossomed into Modernism.  The world really WAS
different than before, and there was a very significant shift in
awareness (human identity & potential) as a result.  The same was true
in the most significant awareness-shifting that preceded it, the
Renaissance, but that new world was the result of discovering a
richness of possibilities that preceded its time, now being unearthed
from the ancient ruins, so that new identity-potential had to do with
a renewed continuity with a glorious past.  Both eras were exuberantly
optimistic about their new domain's promise.  But their inspirations
were inherently different, as were the directions they would thus
lead.

I think both these eras (Renaissance & Modern) were seminal ones, and
both were immediately followed by somewhat cynical reactionary
movements (Mannerism & Postmodernism).  And after the immediate
reactionary Mannerist period there ensued a series of Neo-This's and
That-Revivals, with a few eddies of minor more original exploratory
movements.  I think we are now entering into a Neo-modern period,
which will probably be followed with a series of othe minor periods
until the next big awareness-shift occurs.  Most likely that shift
will be the result of a new technological advance.  Genetic
Engineering and the Neo-Human Race(s)?   Or maybe even more likely, or
simultaneously, a great disaster?

Anyway, that's my take on the significance of Modernism.

David Morris