Category: Modernism

In his work titled Modernist Painting, Greenberg speculates on specific characteristics of Modernist art in general and pictures in particular. The author argues that Modernism defined itself through fundamental self-criticism and had inherited a lot from the art traditions that had existed before it. Analyzing Greenberg’s work requires three components: reviewing his arguments, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the text, and showing examples of art that demonstrate the author’s principal points.

First of all, Greenberg argues that the roots of Modernism lie in self-criticism. The author traces Modernist philosophy and aesthetics back to Kant, whose method was internal criticism. It means that something is criticized within its own framework. Greenberg states that “Modernism criticizes from the inside, through the procedures themselves of that which is being criticized” (1). The main point of criticism that underlies the Modernist art is that every kind of art had to define itself in terms of characteristics that made it essentially different from other kinds of art. For painting, flatness became such a characteristic. Greenberg gives examples from the history of art to illustrate his thought. Another major argument is that, despite sometimes seen as a protest against the art of the past, Modernism, in fact, continued “the past without gap or break” (Greenberg 6), i.e. had been largely influenced by traditions and previous developments.

The critiqued text is strong in terms of writing and profoundness of analysis, while its complicatedness can be considered a weakness. First, Greenberg employs a very sophisticated language that manages to successfully grasp the comprehensive concepts that he addresses. The text is well-written and has a certain structure. The beginning is straightforward and immediately attracts the reader’s attention. Throughout his work, the author demonstrates profound knowledge of art, which makes the text reliable and convincing. However, Greenberg’s writing may appear too complicated to some readers. The text is very dense in terms of being saturated with ideas and concepts. It requires being read several times to understand the author’s points. It may be hard to read, especially to those readers who have not encountered profound texts on the history and theory of art before.

Greenberg speculates on the Modernist art but does not show any appraisal or valuation. Judging from the critiqued text, I do not think that Greenberg divided works of art into the categories of acceptable and non-acceptable. However, it can be argued that some pieces of art fit into the author’s understanding of Modernism while some other ones do not. For instance, Picasso’s Cubism perfectly illustrates Greenberg’s idea that flatness became a crucial component of the art of Modernist painting (Clark 150). An example of Cubism is Picasso’s painting Girl with a Mandolin. Similarly, Greenberg might approve of the art by Giulio Paolini, an artist who explicitly protested against the flatness (Staff 28). His works, such as To Be or Not to Be, feature the theme of liberation from the frame. Therefore, paintings that could be regarded by Greenberg as non-acceptable are those that failed to recognize flatness as a critical element of Modernist painting, e.g. those that continued the traditions of Impressionism without modifying them in any way.

The author makes two major points throughout the text: first, self-criticism and the challenging of frameworks and media played a crucial role in the development of Modernism; second, Modernist art is a continuation of its past, not a break with it. Greenberg manages to make his text strong and convincing by demonstrating good knowledge of the subject. His ideas can be applied to particular artists and their works in order to assess their relation to Modernism.

Works Cited

Clark, Timothy. Picasso and Truth: From Cubism to Guernica. Princeton University Press, 2013.

Greenberg, Clement. Modernist Painting. Voice of America, 1959.

Staff, Craig. After Modernist Painting: The History of a Contemporary Practice. IB Tauris, 2013.

Modern, modernism, and modernization are the notions which may be easily defined in human mind, it means that one can understand what modern, modernism, and modernization mean, however, when it comes to formulation of the definition of the notions, people are unable to cover those with words.

There are a lot of different ideas presented as the definitions of modern, modernism, and modernization, however, they all may be criticized as they lack specification and realism. Thus, the main idea of this paper is to consider the definitions of modern, modernism, and modernization from different angles trying to find the most appropriate ones.

Trying to differentiate between these three notions, it is possible to consider the following data. Modernity is defined as the typical feature of the time. Each epoch has its own characteristic features of modernity. Modernism is a cultural response of the time to artistic movements.

Modernization is a social process which defines the development such as technological innovations, national states, democratization, secularization etc. It is possible to agree with the idea that modernism is the project which covers progress and emancipation. Reading Essays on Mexican Art by Octavio Paz, it is possible to conclude that the vision of modernization during the 18^th century was absolutely different from how we perceive modernization now, however, it was modernization (Paz 37).

Max Weber said that modernity is the process of disenchantment of the world. I definitely disagree with this statement as making such statement, Max Weber assures the whole humanity that the previous population is worse than the previous one as from one century to another one the disenchantment of the world makes it worse and worse. Looking at the modern tomes and comparing those with the previous ones many advantages and disadvantages may be found.

The world is changing, the time is passing. There are always people who are unable to accept the changes and they consider all the development as the steps back. However, there are people who always look positively in the future and they consider present times better than the previous ones. However, it is important to measure modern, modernism, and modernization as various notions while arguing Max Weber’s statement.

Being a cultural response to the artistic movements, modernism cannot be perceived as disappointment, it may be misunderstood. Social processes are the natural developments which may not disenchant the world.

These processes also reflect human life and their vision of the modern world. Modernity cannot be the disenchantment of the world as it is the state of affairs, it just characterizes the state of affairs without being able to make any judgments. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that Max Weber’s statement is inappropriate and cannot be agreed on.

The issue of modern, modernism, and modernization is rather contestable as there is no one specific definition of the issue, nor cultural, time and space frames which may be used as the basis for making a definition. Therefore, the differences in vision of modern, modernism, and modernization are going to be present until there is a strict definition of these items.

At the same time, it is impossible to define these notions as modern, modernism, and modernization are absolutely different during different periods of time, with various perceptions in the past and in the future. It is possible to understand modern, modernism, and modernization only from one perspective, living at the present time and being able to judge about one modernism movement.

Works Cited

Paz, Octavio. Essays on Mexican Art. London: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1993. Print.