Modernism, Hope and Art for Art's Sake

Recently, I was in a discussion with several people about Modernism that motivated me to do some research on that term and Post-Modernism.  Upon reflection, I see Modernism covering a period of about the 19th century to the present day, with some influence from Post-Modernism as a separate thread.  In what follows, I’ve edited several references, deleting material that didn’t seem pertinent to our discussion.  I also added some of my own commentary. 


One aspect of Modernism that makes a great deal of sense to me is how it’s a reflection of the culture of the day.  I like a piece from Wiki that “The term (Modernism) is usually associated with art in which the traditions of the past have been thrown aside in a spirit of experimentation.  Modern artists experimented with new ways of seeing and with fresh ideas about the nature of materials and functions of art.  A tendency toward abstraction is characteristic of much modern art. More recent artistic production is often called Contemporary art or Postmodern art.”


One writer speaks of it broad cultural terms noting that “social, economic, and cultural life in the widest sense [was] revolutionized by modernity ... [this means] that modernist art is scarcely thinkable outside the context of the modernized society of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Cahoone 1996, p. 13.


Wiki, continues noting that Modernism “in its broadest definition, is modern thought, character, or practice.  More specifically, the term describes both a set of cultural tendencies and an array of associated cultural movements, originally arising from wide-scale and far-reaching changes to Western society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The term encompasses the activities and output of those who felt the "traditional" forms of art, architecture, literature, religious faith, social organization and daily life were becoming outdated in the new economic, social and political conditions of an emerging fully industrialized world.”  What I like about this focus on broad life is it puts art in a cultural context and recognizes that art resides in a cultural context.  This doesn’t mean that art follows culture, it’s more inter-active than that – sometimes art forecasts cultural developments.  One aspect of WIki’s treatment of this term that strikes me as particularly pertinent is the role of Modernism in rejecting the “lingering certainty of Enlightenment thinking, and also that of the existence of a compassionate, all-powerful Creator.”  


I personally appreciate this aspect of Modernism – that Modern Art has an interest in questioning existence and the certainty of existence.  It also raises the question of whether there ever can be an objective reality.  My personal opinion is that such a thing simply doesn’t exist.   Wiki also touches on another salient aspect of Modernism – “…experiments with form, and work that draws attention to the processes and materials used (and to the further tendency of abstraction).”  Arte Povera and Arte Brute are two related genres genre where process and materials are at the heart of visual expression.


In this reference, the writer makes an interesting distinction between historians in general and art historians, noting that historians (not art historians) say “the modern period actually begins with the Renaissance.”  This is certainly my perspective – that the modern era began, in the West at least, at the time when science and technology, and a secular humanism, began to exert a strong influence over life.  (As an aside, if you ever have the opportunity, travel to Florence and see for yourself the birth of the Renaissance in the form of the dome to the Duomo and the greatest storehouse of Renaissance Art in Florence generally and The Uffizi Gallery in particular.)
   
Arguments today about faith versus reason (a false dichotomy in my view), debates about evolution, “intelligent design,” religious beliefs and social organization, first arose as issues with the Renaissance.  This same reference puts this issue thus,  “The Enlightenment was an intellectual movement for which the most immediate stimulus was the so-called Scientific Revolution of the 17th and early 18th centuries when men like Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, through the application of reason to the study of Nature (i.e. our world and the heavens) had made spectacular scientific discoveries in which were revealed various scientific truths.”


Generally speaking, Progressive Modernism tended to concern itself with political and social issues.  It concerned itself with the plight of the poor, that an increasingly complacent middle class ignored.  Progressives repeatedly drew attention to the political and social ills of contemporary society, Fundamentally, the intention was to educate the public, to keep alive in the face of conservative forces the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality through which the world would be made a better place.   The position taken by Progressive Modernism came to be referred to as the avant-garde (a military term meaning "advance-guard"). In contrast to conservative modernists who looked to the past and tradition, the avant-garde artist consciously rejected tradition. The avant-garde artist saw him- or herself as standing at the head of a new tradition stretching, hopefully, into the future. The Progressive Modernist looked to the future while the conservative modernist looked to the past.  


This is particularly pertinent to visual art, such as it is, in Wallowa County today.  While there’s a great deal of visual art in the county (2-D and 3-D) it’s of a very narrow focus and little if any of it would even remotely be considered part of the avant-garde. I find helpful to take a step back and look at the broader cultural and political forces at work that shape visual expression.  This helps me understand the limited scope visual expression takes in the County.  It’s also worthwhile to take stock of what cultural values it supports if not outright then by de-facto means. 


Historically, the avant-garde is liberal in its support of freedom of expression and demands of equality. Since the 18th century, the modernist belief in the freedom of expression has manifested itself in art through claims to freedom of choice in subject matter and to freedom of choice in style ( of subject matter, brushstroke and color, materials, and so forth).  


As the 19th century progressed, the exercise of artistic freedom became fundamental to Progressive Modernism. Artists began to seek freedom not just from the rules of academic art, but from the demands of the public. Soon it was claimed that art should be produced not for the public's sake, but for art's sake.  This is a crucial step and one that may people have difficulty accepting and undertstanding to this day.  Yet, this is an immense step, no less so than that represented by cubism, the use of color by Matisse, or advances in science, including Relativity Theory.


Art for Art's Sake is basically a call to release art from having to defend it's existence by appealing to meaning and purpose for it's viewer. While I support the notion of “Art for Art’s Sake,” its not an alternative to being concerned with social, cultural, or moral issues.  Rather, art doesn’t need to justify its existence.   In his 1891 essay "The Soul of Man Under Socialism", Oscar Wilde wrote:  “A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament.  Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want.  Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or dishonest tradesman. He has no further claim to be considered as an artist.”


In the late 19th century, art was to be discussed in terms of style -- color, line, shape, space, composition -- conveniently ignoring or playing down whatever social, political, or progressive statements the artist had hoped to make in his or her work.  This has a role to be sure.  However, it needs to be leavened by a focus on content.  What is the emotion of the piece?  What is the story of the piece?  Surely, visual artists as diverse as Goya, Picasso, Schnabel, to name but a few, produced art that arose form a cultural context and was their respective commentary on that cultural context.