Considerations on the Nature of Modernism - Elements

What is Modernism?

While the readings presented are focused, and the time period and personages in question relatively compact, I am still faced with the problem of a blind man who has expertly identified a snake, a tree trunk, and a wall – but cannot, with any great faculty, gel them together into an elephant.

I do, however, remark at several things.

For one, Scott states that 1940 could be considered the end of the Modernistic era. If Modernism began around the turn of the Twentieth Century and ended in 1940, that bespeaks of several things. Modernism fell during one of the great transitional periods of contemporary history, both for the world and for Britain itself. As an American, I note this date (1940) as during World War II. However, from the British perspective, one could very easily see that date as marking the twilight of the British Empire – the sun finally setting on the Union Jack.

These two events – World War II and the Fall of the British Empire – inform the spirit of the Modernists, for they are inextricably connected to Britain’s character and history. The Modernists, whose works were created as a result of and in reaction to their milieu and circumstances, breathe this transition. The passing of their artistic era and the passing of the Empire seem very congruent.

Consider space and place, especially the country, the city, and the personal (or the room). These elements, so essential to the British character of Modernism, are in transition in British society during this period. The city is becoming more cosmopolitan, as are its people. The country is being de-emphasized in favor of the urban. The social power structure itself is shifting, both economically and politically (via women’s suffrage). The Modernists in exploring these themes in their creative works, their political actions, and their sexual mores could be seen as reactions to the changing face of Britain.

One must also consider the nature of this society. An empire is, by its nature, stratified, monolithic, and domineering. The figurehead looms large, an inheritor of the legacy of the divine right of kings and the aggrandizement of a monarch whose body and nation are one. If one is then considering a reaction to this ruling structure, then it fits that the personal and the domestic would come to the fore. Reid, referencing LeCorbusier, notes how the grand and heroic is de-emphasized. Domestics are elevated. Grandeur is made small, while smallness if magnified. This points not only to the elevation of the craftsman but also the female who has been suppressed beneath the male monolith.

Thus, a collection of writers, artists, and craftspersons of multiple viewpoints and sexualities all seem quite logical in the context of the (d)evolution of a vast feudal empire into a contemporary cosmopolitan urbanized state.

In considering World War II as the end of Modernism, one must look to its prologue – World War I. The Great War showcased the grand foolishness of imperial brinksmanship and, due to the folly of kings and “great” men plunged the world into chaos. The cracks in the structure of this society emerged and lent to the natural questioning of that structure. The cultural ambivalence that resulted created an environment of inquiry. The foreign foes of the First World War were not fighting for a specific ideology (as compared to the Third Reich’s dreams of conquest). Perhaps the unequivocal nature of War War II and the nature of the threat to Britain and the world at large shut down that inquiry. Perhaps Modernism came to an end because the shattering nature of fascism, at home and abroad, suffocated the life from it.

As such, I my best description of Modernism is “a period during the twilight of the British Empire when a perfect storm of cultural questioning took place which elevated and emphasized the creative, the artistic, and the domestic over the imperial and the imperialistic.”