[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
high art / modernism
I have a stupid question now. Why is the emphasis on (or "fetishization
of") an artist's creative output considered a "traditionally Modernist"
phenomenon? I would think it predates Modernism, and I think of Modernism
as being a period filled with group work, chance, improvisation and
conceptualizing.
it's not a stupid question because as with most/many spheres of critique,
the idea of what constitutes 'modernism' etc is both widely contested and
fluid (across different contexts). i would say that such a focus did
indeed predate modernism, but was most deeply entwined within the tradition
because of its close affinities with both liberal humanism and
enlightenment. that is, art in modernism is both a reflection of an inner
soul/essence, and a mirror of the progress/rationality of a society and
individual. the modernist artistic tradition sees itself as progressive
(individualist in the sense of distinction from both mass audience and
artistic peers), refined, building on the ideas preceding, and as a pathway
to establishing The Artwork.
modernism as a period, which appears to be how you took the usage to be, is
indeed often thought of as filled with the things you mentioned (among
others). however, group work was not mass work -- while the unit of
authorship/distinction is widened, it is not opened; it is still grounded
in its difference from tradition and period. chance and improvisation can
be seen as tools to this end. conceptual art in the modernist sense was
largely based on top-down ideas of communication - that is, the Artist
dictates a creative work's meaning, as the concept is a product of the
artist's imaginings/creativity/essence. that is to say, under the critical
eye of modernism, one could still be accused of "not getting it" ("it"
being the "heart" of the work, invested by its creator) - where
postmodernism posits many "its".
i could be totally wrong, though.
dustvsstars/
home.pacific.net.au/~transmit