This idea of time, closely related with the view of art as both pay and display, are among the prime factors that constitute the artistic style called ‘Kitsch’, which in turn is one of the most typical products of modernism, because it is in this type of art that this conflict of modernity is openly confronted. Whilst representing the triumph of the principle of immediacy (instant access, immediate effect, ‘instant-beauty’), it appears as designed both to ‘save’ and to ‘kill’ time. To save time, in the sense that it’s enjoyment is effortless and instantaneous; to kill time, in the sense that, like a drug, it frees man temporarily from his disturbed time consciousness, making bearable an otherwise empty, meaningless present.
As society became more and more caught up in this sense of ‘human time’, the development of science and technology, and the emphasis on instant enjoyment, religion was pushed out of focus, giving rise to a new secularization. This is where the structure of the grid comes in. Seen in the work of Mondrian, Stijl, and Jasper Johns, amongst others, the grid works to declare the thinking of modernity. With it’s flat , geometric and ordered composition it rejects everything that art had formerly stood for; nature and beauty. The grid is antinatural, it’s composition being the epitome of aesthetic decree, and in this way appears to be closely linked to what we believe to be the more concrete and “real” world of science. Having never been seen before in earlier forms of art, the grid became the emblem of the Modernist movement, declaring everything else the past.
The work of Mondrian, Composition IA (1930) is a good example of the way in which the grid is both contained and endless. Whilst the black square is cut at the edges by the diamond-shaped canvas, giving it a feeling of being centrifugal and enclosed, at the same time the image seems not to be completed, as if it belonging to a larger structure, of which only a small section is revealed. This is also the case with Jasper John’s “Grey Numbers” (1958). Because the random numbers have no order, no beginning and no end, and because the grid is perfectly calculated mathematically in its vertical and horizontal linear composition, it acts both as an eternally growing and carefully controlled piece of work. On the one hand we know that the lines could run for ever into infinity, as could the numbers (in a limitless amount of variations), but on the other the grid acts like a net trapping all that appears between its lines in a sort of cage. Perhaps this is why the grid so appealed to the public. Firstly it appeared to forget all the sentimentality and wipe out any links with religion, tradition or culture, concentrating on the now, on mathematical calculations, that appeared not to waste our time, but reveal a sense of truth in it’s scientific rigidity and numerical planning. The grid also sympathised with us in our complex technological surroundings, while at the same time pointing out our feeling of being trapped in the middle of a growing world, where the individual counts as nothing more than a number on the grid.
Although the grid was a fantastic discovery and plays an important role in modernism, it left the artist little room for development or experimentation. While this lack of variety didn’t worry the artist Mondrian, who dedicated most of his career to this type of art, other artists evolved further by creating a new style; Cubism. Though Cubism showed it’s modernity through it’s rejection of the natural world and its affinity for geometrical shapes, distorted colouring, and later on the use of collage, it still had some connection to the visual world and most works give the viewer a number of clues in order for them to work out what they are looking at. The fact that portraiture is a strong theme in cubism is an obvious pointer that after the grid, artists wanted to go back a few steps towards naturalism and the individual himself, as opposed to a completely impersonalized form of art.
It was Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque that primarily developed Cubism around 1906. Their main objective was to depict an object, not from a single fixed viewpoint, but by exploring all the various facets and angles of the object simultaneously. Again, the rules of linear and aerial perspective were deliberately ignored, and painting an object with a single consistent source of light was also rejected. Naturalistic colour was given up in favour of a more muted palette, which emphasised form. The impeccable handling of paint and academic technique was replaced by a more direct, flat application of paint, with no attempt to hide expressive brushstroke.
But here again in cubism, we see another contradiction, on one side we have the artist breaking down aethetics, taking something from the natural world and converting it into a set of planes, grids and shapes which strongly suggest that the artist does not want the viewer to make out what he is looking at, almost as if he were ashamed of having picked a naturalistic theme and were struggling to hide it as well as possible by making it illegible and pretending it were a set of vertical, horizontal and diagonal set of slides.
On the other hand one could say that cubists depicted traditional subjects but in a new way. “Still Life with a Chair Caning” by Picasso (1911-12) marked a new phase in the development of cubism. Up until 1911, Picasso and Braque had taken Cubism as far as it could go. They had deliberately moved almost totally towards abstraction. This work (like the development from the grid towards cubism) marks a move back to more obvious reminders of the real world. Here, Picasso introduces the new technique of collage. He includes a piece of oilcloth, printed to look like chair caning. He also introduces as a frame, a piece of real rope. This literally ties the composition together, whilst replacing the decorative plaster frame. This work, therefore, cannot be defined as an imitation or representation of reality, as Picasso is using definite objects, so the piece is embedded with reality within its severe abstraction. This class of art was completely unexplored and marked another step forward for modernity. The word ‘Jou’ is written, which is French for game, and clearly implies that Picasso is presenting us with a mind puzzle for the viewer to solve. But he is not only playing with the viewer but also with reality; it is a visual joke. The lettering is taken from a typeface used in a newspaper print, as these are the first few letters in the word journal. It is also significantly important to mention that by including pieces of waste, probably from his own paper basket, Picasso was symbolically as well as visually, rejecting the notion of high art.
I think the best way of understanding Modernism is to think of it as a social and cultural change, which encompasses all the artistic styles that emerged in reaction to it. Obviously the grid and cubism were styles that did not reject the new modern attitude, but worked along side it, both leaning towards the impersonal and the calculated. But other styles emerged as a reaction against the social changes, the best example of which could be said to be primitivism. Paul Gauguin is a good example of an artist who realizing the new developments of social modernity and excessive numerical planning, decided to go on strike, as it were, and escape to a completely contrasting side of the spectrum. He abandoned the ‘modern life’ scenery in order to go back to the rural roots of mankind. He found the perfect material to work on in Brittany and later on, in Tahiti.
In these places he was free to obtain a child like, more powerfully decorative use of colour and shape. His “Vairaumati” (1897) for example, shows the labour of a man free from any organisational duties. The body of a young exotic girl is simplified and filled with bold warm colour. It is clear that like many artists at the time, Gauguin aimed at achieving the mood of childish innocence, but it is impossible to ignore the alluring glances of his sitters, and many times the sign of corruption behind their charmingly sweet facades. In this painting, decoratively filled with a swirling wooden bed frame and the sun-kissed body of the leaning figure, stands a bird on the left hand side exposing his freshly killed prey (a black lizard). It is inevitable not to think that the girl has the same idea in mind.
Apart from primitivism, other styles like Dadaism surfaced into the focus of the general public. In a similar way to Picasso’s ‘Jou’, artist’s like Duchamp have taken a frivolous, sarcastic view on Modernism’s society and beliefs. His ‘Fountain’ is definitely a joke played on the masses as spectators, which voices; “How can you take any of this seriously? To what extent can we fool you?”
Other styles in art up to the end of the first half of the twentieth century include Fauvism, Expressionism, Cubism, Futurism, Constructivism, Abstraction, Surrealism, and Pop Art. It is impossible to go into each of these avenues in detail in this essay, so I shall finish with a passage written by the great intellectual, John of Salisbury;
“We frequently know more, not because we have moved ahead by our own natural ability, but because we are supported by the mental strength of others, and possess riches that we have inherited from our forefathers. Bernard and Chartres used to compare us to dwarves perched on the shoulders of giants. He pointed out that we see more and farther than the predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature.”
I think I am justified to say that the Modernists no longer wanted to be the ‘Dwarves on the shoulders of giants’. Quite the opposite. These were a new breed, anxious to stand on their own two feet, not afraid to start from naught, in order to concentrate on the now and create pure and unrestricted Modern art.
Bibliography
- ‘Modernism’, by Charles Harrison, Tate Gallery, Millbank London, 1997
- ‘Theories of Modern Art’, by Herschel B. Chipp, California, 1968
- ‘Five Faces of Modernity’, by Matei Calinescu, Durham1987
- ‘The Story of Art’, Professor H. W. Janson, New York University, 1950
- ‘Modernism’s History’, by Bernard Smith, New Haven and London, 1998
- ‘The Originality of the Avant-Garde and other Modernist Myths’, by Rosalind
Word count: 2383 words
“Five Faces of Modernity”, by Matei Calinescu, Durham, 1987
“Histoire de la Peinture en Italie”, Stendhal, 1817
“The Metalogicon”, trans. By John of Salisbury, Gloucester, 1971