Modern Art

Concerning the previous class, I heard that the discussion on Prufrock was enlightening. Sadly, my own experience at that time included a dreadful piece of theatre so bad that it called into question my will to live. You may read my review here:

http://nmazzuca.blogspot.com/2008/02/first-nci-actf-2008.html

In considering the readings on Modern Art, I was greatly struck by the notion that of all the aspects of the Modernist Movement, the visual arts served as the forerunner. This seems entirely reasonable to understand. Visual art is an instantly accessible medium. It encourages immediate reaction and the sparking of revolutions upon what current thinker Malcolm Gladwell would describe as a “tipping point.” The evolution of form in a written work is somewhat less accessible. Take, for example, Howard’s End during the era of the Modernists, or, say, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas decades later. Both are examples of books that evolved or departed from the previous iteration of literary form. As books, they require time to read and parse. An image, however, strikes one instantly.

Thus, when one sees, for example, Marcel Duchamp’s “Nude Descending a Staircase,” one my instantly react to one’s preconceived notions of art, in approval or disapproval. Thus, for me, the instantaneous nature of the visual arts lends greatly to the notion that Modern Art would naturally inspire a sea change in the surrounding cultural climate.

Another thing that I found to be an interesting parallel is the mention that the American Dadaist movement of art that sprang up after the Armory Show incorporated “found pieces.” This creates a very neat little companion to the Bloomsbury Group in that they decorated the homes and domestic items – in essence, found items with art. One group incorporated the mundane into their artistic works, the other incorporated artistic works into the mundane objects of everyday life. Fitting, no?

McCarthy also stated something that concerned the Impressionists that hearkened back to my observations from a previous week. “By the year 1880 the Impressionists had practically won their battle,” and “By 1880 they had convinced practically everybody whose opinion counted.” Does this not create an interesting parallel to the battles between Eliot, Hulme, and their cadre against the prevailing tastes of Romanticism? Interestingly enough, McCarthy is describing not the Post-Impressionists whose standard he bore but the dominant opinion against whom they rebelled. Once again, the children attempt to kill the killers of their grandparents.

There were several things that I appreciated in getting a look at the mindset of Modern Art. Clive Bell made particular mention of the nature of art and “art for art’s sake.” Indeed, his assertion that art, like a rose, is beautiful in and of itself appealed to me, as a well as his statement that there is “nothing an artist cannot vivify.” Likewise, Lytton Strachey’s discussion on the nature of art and morality proved to be an interesting exploration of ethics in art. He rightly acknowledged the tension of having to “transgress” morality in creating great art as well as the balance of preserving morality against vulgarity. Black and white are not viable points of view; only the nuanced consideration of the complete artistic work in context may allow one to fully judge the social acceptability of art.

This offends me in a small way. The idea that such a subjective thing as “morality” might have dominion over creation stikes a sour note – despite its moderation, I am suspicious of anything that gives power to a potential censor. That being said, I also acknowledge that there is a transaction between artist and audience, and if an artist decides to commit artistic violence upon his or her audience, then the audience is within its right to response with condemnation.

I don’t know what art is, but I know it when I see it.