Talk:Modernism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Transition to postmodernism

Im interested to read what people's opinions are on the transition from modernism to postmodernism. It Clearly, there is no defining moment when modernism changed into PM, but it might be useful to look at the ideologies of PMism and how they were shaped of influenced by modernism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.104.123 (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Modernism and Postmodernism

This article reads like it was written without regard for any difference between modernism and the theory of postmodernism. For example, words like "norms" are used which are lingo for postmodernism. In fact, this article reads like it has very little understanding of what modernism actually is, never mind the theory of postmodernism! It certainly doesn't meet my understanding of modernism. Either that or this article has a very biased viewpoint which is understandable since it suits capitalism.

The theory of postmodernism was proposed at the end of World War II by European intellectuals in response to the totalitarian Nazi regime. Germany lost the war not only on the battlefield but intellectually. Of course, the world had evolved through the modern meaning it was more openminded by the end of World War II, but it's the theory of postmodernism that brings reality into disrepute. Whilst modernism strives to explain and categorise, postmodernism questions the legitamacy of explanation and has no boundaries. Modernism believes truth can be found through scientific explanation or the intellect whilst postmodernism claims there is no truth what-so-ever! Lastly, modernism is exlusive whether for progress or otherwise. On the other hand, postmodernism is inclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.163.68 (talk • contribs) (18:30, 24 Feburary 2008)

So, do you intend to make any kind of helpful contribution or just complain? This is a wiki, so if you see errors or missing information, you can make improvements yourself. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

POV?

The POV template has been sitting at the top of this article for quite some time---it is not dated, so I know not how long it has been---yet, there is no discussion of the matter on this talk page. If no one makes a comment here in the next day or two as to why it should remain, I intend to remove it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it absolutely should remain, I was reading a very small section of the article a moment ago thinking, 'Wow, this really is not NPOV', only to look up and see it was already, and rightfully, tagged. There ought to be discussion and significant changes made. -JNF Tveit (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As the alleged POV has not been identified, and the talk page has been pretty quiet lately, and the article has been relatively stable all year, I'm removing the template. Ewulp (talk)

the page may have been quiet for a while, but the dispute doesn't seem to have been resolved ; I think the continual objection is from those starting from a literary standpoint and those (whether they admit or not) often starting from a background in the visual arts and theatre, and seems to focus continually on the second paragraph.

This striking discrepancy of view might be worth recording in the article itself.

The POV problem centres on the second paragraph, yes, though I don't think the dispute arises from a distinction between "those starting from a literary standpoint and those (whether they admit or not) often starting from a background in the visual arts and theatre". BTW, why would those with an art or theatre background be uinwilling to "admit it" and why is theatre not literature? The dispute arises from those who are from a broadly Marxist background and those who are not. Frankly I am totally opposed to the assertion that Modernism "is a trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology or practical experimentation". It cannot be said of The Waste Land, Erwartung, or Blue Poles. This cuts across all the arts. Paul B (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Template:POV documentation starts off with a stern warning: "Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute". Is there an ongoing dispute here? Paul B's last edit in this article was more than 10 months ago; restoration of the NPOV template is Global56's first & only edit here. The template should not remain in place forever as a substitute for editing the article. Please find a reliable source that supports a definition you can live with, place it in the article to supplement the definition supported (imperfectly? then revise it) by the Berman quote, and remove the tag. If there's no action by 2010, the template goes. Ewulp (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the template again per Ewulp (talk) - either leave referenced new material here for consensus or add the referenced new material to the disputed section. The tag is pointless at this stage of events..either provide a better edit or drop it....Modernist (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Does this page need an info box. Bam123456789 (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is one at the bottom.--Flammingo^Hey 13:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:OtternessSculpture.JPG

The image Image:OtternessSculpture.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image removed per above...Modernist (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Commitment to Ugliness

Should it be mentioned in the "controversy" section that most refined people abore modernism as ugly and blame it for the decline of High Culture in Europe during the 20th century onwards? Perhaps we should mention high profile critics of it such as Prince Charles? I feel this section should be named "opposition" rather than "controversy", since it plays up to modernists induglencies to call it controverisal. - Victory's Spear (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And how do you propose we identify who "most refined people" are and what exactly they all believe? Controversy is the appropriate word here. And remember, this isn't a forum. freshacconci talktalk 21:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Victory's Spear, criticism of modernism can be included in the article if based on WP:reliable sources. You should be cautious not to interject your personal views, or to introduce any original research. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement "most refined people abore modernism as ugly and blame it for the decline of High Culture in Europe during the 20th century onwards" is an extreme agenda. Please conform to WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. Ty 13:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Modernism and art

Why is there so much focus on visual art in the After WWII section? I see Modernism as a broad cultural movement, of which visual art is one aspect. Shouldn't the subcategories (Pollock and Abstract influences etc.) be included in Modern art instead?--Ducio1234 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please add to those sections what you feel would be appropriate in other fields..music, philosophy, literature, dance etc...Modernist (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead Image

The work of Hans Hofmann is appropriate as the lead because he was an important and seminal figure as both a teacher and as an artist during most of the 20th century especially as a teacher of modernism to the generation of American artists that came of age in the 1930s and 1940s...Modernist (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit of introduction: Definition of Modernism

Hi. I edited the introduction as the definition was too narrow. One problem is that "Modernism" means different but overlapping things. Especially: 1) Modernism as an aesthetic re-evaluation. 2) Modernism as social re-evaluation and reform. 3) Modernism as Modernism+Postmodernism.

So I tried to incorporate all the existing definitions and preface them with a more encompassing definition. I believe that definition covers all the proper use of it, and anything narrower defines a subset. Without such a definition the article is biased.

I have read just such a definition in several books on Modernism. Unfortunately, I don't have one with me to cite right now, but if someone else doesn't add a suitable citation for the encompassing definition, I should be able to add one in the next few days.

The problem with defining Modernism is that a "positive" definition as per (2) leads to inherent contradictions and exclusions, since the term is applied, by respected writers, to a wide range of cultural icons who do not fit that definition. Not least because definition (3) is also widely accepted. That is, Postmodernism is regarded by some as a subclass of Modernism.

I think "rejection of certainty" is applicable - "examination of certainty" doesn't make sense. If you "examine certainty", you de facto have already rejected it.

I will find direct citations (from the works of Modernists) for "Particularly, the lingering certainty of Enlightenment thinking, and also that of the existence of a benignly intervening Creator.", as I am aware that a citation is needed there. It is no doubt true: Social progress cannot be taken to be a Modernist "given", and the questioning of religious certitude could even be an encompassing definition in itself.

Perhaps someone might rewrite those lines so that it is yet more clear that it is the rejection of the certainty of those things rather than the flat rejection of the things themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Two sources added for "Creator" line. Ddawkins73 (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Modernism after WWII

I have removed this as a subheading, since the term Modernism is not applicable to literature after 1945 (after 1930, really) and I *think* it is almost exclusively used after WWII in the context of the visual and performing arts. The existing content certainly backs this up. So "Modernism after World War II (The visual and performing arts)" is now a separate category.

Correct me if I am wrong. Certainly all the content exclusively on Modernism in Art after WWII requires a separate category, or to be moved.

Citations may be needed for the introductory paragraph.

--Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of some quotes in the intro/Adding a new category "Interpretations"

"Modernism could be described as the experimentation and fragmentation of the human experience, characterized by deviations from the norms of society."

I think this quote is spurious. The introduction is long enough as it is.

Whether or not the line is true of Modernism across the board, I don't think it should be in the intro. Characterizing Modernism as a rejection of the certainties of the previous age is plenty for the intro imo. Plenty of sources can be provided for that. I think anything beyond that starts to get into particular interpretations.

Talking of which, I want to get rid of the Berman quote from the introduction too. Modernism does not necessarily = progress, or the search for it. I want to move that to a separate category. Hence the need for a new category "Interpretations" or "Interpretations of Modernism"

Any thoughts?

--Ddawkins73 (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The sentence you quote above, which supposedly paraphrases Henry Louis Gates, has always bothered me. It lacks clarity ("Modernism could be described as...the experimentation...of the human experience") and the citation has no page number. It adds nothing to the intro & I agree it should go.

The Berman quote serves a purpose, and it's in a footnote, where it does not bulk up the lede.

I don't think a definition of Modernism as the rejection of old certainties is adequate for the intro. Your recent edits seem to stack the deck a little in favor of Modernism as nihilism. The "positive" view of Modernism is treated with some incredulity: "However, some commentators have attempted to go beyond the negative definition, and define Modernism in terms of the positive outcomes of that questioning. In this spirit, Modernism could then be regarded..." It may be necessary to distinguish between literary Modernism and Modernism in visual art, architecture, dance, and music. Many Modernist movements were Utopian, and commentators correctly describe them as such. The reaction to the slaughter of WWI included introspection but also Constructivism, Bauhaus, Purism, and other movements dedicated to improving human well-being through the integration of Modern art into everyday life. The words of the artists themselves should not be discounted.

Peter Childs, in Modernism (2000), p. 17, sums up the complexity: "On the one hand, Modernist artists kicked against the homogenisation required by mass systems. On the other, they celebrated the new conditions of production, circulation and consumption engendered by technological change (Harvey 1989:23). There were paradoxical if not opposed trends towards revolutionary and reactionary positions, fear of the new and delight at the disappearance of the old, nihilism and fanatical enthusiasm, creativity and despair." Ewulp (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, no, I certainly don't want to favour nihilism. Modernism isn't nihilism at all. I did try to play it down ("nihilistic aspects").

I think that's why it needs a rewrite: I just tried to stitch it together and redress the balance somewhat. The tone was not meant to be one of incredulity - a consequence of having to reconcile different interpretations. I tried not to delete too much.

That Childs quote seems pretty good to me.

Okay, I think the thing to do is to mention the different perspectives problem directly after the first line. Then the Childs quote. Then brief examples of different Modernist perspectives/strands/themes w/e. I've got some sources here now, so I should be able to suggest something a little more concise and less lopsided than what is there now. I'll post a suggested new intro here in talk.

I still think a new category, yes? Perhaps "Perspectives" would be better than "interpretations". "Perspectives" includes the actors as well as the commentators.

Perhaps that category after the intro? Or down after the history? If it's after the intro, then the intro can comfortably fit into four paragraphs.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the lead section. The socially progressive+Berman bit has been moved - it's summarised by "interpretations vary. Some say tomato, others Post-tomato." As far as I can tell it's the drawing of battle-lines, which you can't go into in the lead and make a short summary coherent.

That new section has plenty of scope for expansion. I'll leave that to others.

I'm going to concentrate on tightening the lead and making sure it's thoroughly sourced, and going over "Beginnings".

Ddawkins73 (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

benignly

I'll give an imaginary not actual prize to whoever can come up with a better word than "benignly" in the second paragraph. Bit of an ugly word.

"helpful", "kindly" and "lovingly" - no.

"anthropocentric" is too wordy. Ddawkins73 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Initially I was gonna use benevolently, but instead decided on - a compassionately....Modernist (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

1st prize for compassionately.

... I knew I'd heard of the word it should be :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

disambiguation: "modern+ism" v "The break from tradition, and 'making it new' in art and culture

The article isn't about the first (Modern thought, character, or practice. Or, sympathy with or conformity to modern ideas, practices, or standards). It's about the second, which has a (fuzzy) locus in place and time. So it's The break.

Thoughts on how best to disambiguate? In a sense, the discussion of the word is relevant to the article, but I still think it should be possible to do in a sentence with a disambiguation link at the top of the article. To wiktionary?

I'm thinking something along the lines of:

This article is about a specific, cultural sense of "modern+ism" - A historical "break from tradition" in cultural life. For other senses of the word "modernism", see

modernism

(link to wiktionary)

Ddawkins73 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You've identified a problem that needs fixing, but it might be better not to use a disambiguation link to supply one sentence of bare definition. I'll try incorporating definition 1 into the lede; it should be clear enough to the reader that the balance of the article deals with definition 2. Ewulp (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone clarify a vague point in the History of Modernism section?

The eighth paragraph under "Beginnings" reads:

"The second school was Symbolism, marked by a belief that language is expressly symbolic in its nature and a portrayal of patriotism, and that poetry and writing should follow connections that the sheer sound and texture of the words create. The poet Stéphane Mallarmé would be of particular importance to what would occur afterwards."

As a non-expert, I found the last sentence of that paragraph exceedingly vague, and Mallarmé is apparently not referenced anywhere else in the entire Modernism article. Perhaps an expert in the field could either elaborate on his importance or evaluate whether he merits mention at all? W.stanovsky (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Passive Voice

I know basically nothing about modernism. I read this article to learn more about it, but the sheer number of passive voice sentences in this article is mind-boggling and makes me doubt the value of Wikipedia in general.

Consider the following: :"With the increasing urbanization of populations, it was beginning to be looked to as the source for ideas to deal with the challenges of the day." I erased a bunch of sentences like this today (12/27/09) and they were all replaced by people saying that the sentences should just be reworded. There is no way to reword these sentences in the active voice. The active voice requires a subject. Lazy writers use the passive voice to avoid having to provide a subject. This article would fail an English 101 course!

Instead of defending articles, editors should defend the integrity of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.58.126 (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wot still no re-write?

Where are all the other aspects of modernism other than concerning the visual arts? Two years later the article is still sorely lacking.... Spanglej (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair Spanglej, nobody here is paid, as I am sure you have noticed. Unless these guys are holding out on me.....Ceoil (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting paid quite well, actually. This whole Wikipedia thing has been a goldmine. freshacconci talktalk 15:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing Antonio Gaudi?

In my opinion any reference article about modernism should mention Antonio Gaudi and at least the Holy Temple (Sagrada Familia). Hope to improve wiki with this comment! BR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.18.160 (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Russian translation

Translation of this article for the Russian section I noticed that this article is much more adequate, than the one which exists in Russian Wiki. I am absolutely sure on the importance of the term "Modernism" and the necessity to have a valid article on that subject in Russian. As Russian is my native language and I am a professional translator it seems appropriate to me to translate this article into Russian and post it on Russian Wiki. My concern is the following: although I know Wiki is free and so on, would it be OK just to translate and post, and have reference in the bottom of the page just to this very article? Or is the policy of Wiki rather to create original text for the entry? In fact I plan to add something on modernism in Russia, but the main bulk is sure to be this article, translated in most cases word to word. Xrustalev (talk · contribs)

Translate this article to Russian and place a note on the articles talk page that the article originated here on the English Wikipedia, see this as an example of an article here that was originally translated from the German Wikipedia: [1]...Modernist (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Modernism is not really a movement

Modernism is not really a movement but at best could be said to be a vaguely-defined "tendency" (it's not really at all certain what it means). Oftentimes people use modernism as a euphemism when they cannot bring themselves to say "surrealism" (because surrealism must be dead and modernism is allowed to continue). --Daniel C. Boyer

What utter nonsense. Modernism is a 'movement', in the normal usage of the term in the same way that Romanticism ('the Romantic movement') is a movement. Indeed it is sometimes referred to as 'the modern movement' (especially in architecture). It is not a euphemism for Surrealism - which is just one of many modernist factions (along with Cubism, Futurism, Dadism, Abstract Expressionism...etc etc). Confusing Modernism with modernity (in the historical sense of 'the modern period') does not help. Just because the same word is being used, it does not mean we are dealing with the same phenomenon. That would be like confusing 'classical' culture (in the sense of ancient greco-roman) with classical music (in the sense of post 18th century European art music).

It might be useful to have some disambiguation here - simply because the terms 'modern' and 'modernism' can have different meanings in different contexts (as with the theological useage of the term 'modernism', for example). But this article is about the artistic movenment of the twentieth century. Paul Barlow

That is correct, it is, as you say, a movement. That is one reason why it is incorrect to refer to it as modern culture, etc. That is to conflate the movement, modernism, with the attribute, modern. dpw (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If this is the case, then why are the Beatles and Zappa included? It is hard to argue the case for a Modernist movement that reaches past artists and writers who became active in the 30s. In poetry in the English language, for instance, there are really two waves: those who came to notice in the 1910s (Pound, Williams, Moore, Jones, etc.) and the 30s lot (Oppen, Zukofsky, Niedecker, Bunting and so on). Later writers were or were not influenced by modernism, but were not modernists as such. Filiocht | Blarneyman

The term 'Modernism' was used until the term 'postmodernism' became popular in the late 70s and early 80s. The Beatles and Zappa are included to indicate both the beginning of the process by which Modernism began to generate 'postmodernism' and the way in which this undermined the coherence of 'modernism' itself as a concept. Hence the reference to the 'Mods', a movement which first appropriated the term 'modernist for popular culture.

p.s. some nitwit has added the line 'It's a lie, it's all postmodernism' (or words to that effect. I'm saying bye bye to that. Paul

Not sure what you mean about Modernism generating postmodernism. In fact it seems to me that postmodernism's clorification of the popular and ephemeral could be viewed, at best, as a rejection of modernism's seriousness about the value of art and it's ability to change the world. Filiocht | Blarneyman

Modernism generated Post-modernism in the same way that Impressionism generated Post-impressionism. That's not to say there are not important differences - indeed anatgonisms - but one would be impossible without the other. On your point about Modernism ceasing to be a meaningful term after the 30s, I hope I made it clear in the article that the term has different reaches in different disciplines. Greenberg wrote his essay 'Modernist Painting' in 1960. Modernism in literature was always a more fragile and ambiguous concept. I think we also have to be aware that 'postmodermism' itself is a term with multiple and problematic meanings. There are different usages in different contexts. I accept that PM in general involves a 'demotion' of seriousness, but I think my account of the evolution of PM culture in the 60s (before the term was adopted) addressed that point. Paul

Afraid I cannot agree. Postmodernism seems to me to be an abandonment of the modernist project for a simpler, more comfortable and certainly more self-absorbed one. Modernism was/is an attempt to remake the way we see the world, postmodernism is a retreat into the self and into the notion of art as comodity. Hence its love afair with pop culture. Filiocht | Blarneyman

I think you have a rather monolithic view of both Modernism and Posmodernism. Does a Robert Venturi building 'retreat into the self and into the notion of art as commodity'? Does a Salman Rushdie novel? Both would normally be labelled 'Postmodernist', indeed Venturi was one of the innovators of the term. Anyway, I don't think an encyclopedia should make what amounts to moral judgements of the worthiness of one movement in comparision to another. The 'high radicalism' within Modernism might be thought of as positive, or as positively oppressive. Paul

To put George Antheil along the same lines as Schoenberg, Stravinsky and Poulenc discredits the vastly superior output of works of these composers. George Antheil by comparison is a nobody.

There is some considerable simplification of both modernism and postmodernism occurring here. Modernism wasn't concerned with popular culture?!? Brecht, Mayakovsky, Meyerhold, and many others? Modernism is the 1930? And Waiting for Godot, Molloy, Malone Dies, the Unnameable, Abstract Expressionism? It's the job of an article in a project like this to detail the debates and survey the field, not to simplify and opt for one or the other perspective. DionysosProteus 00:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

At the moment we have in the intro what I consider a hatchet job (I can say that - I did it), reconciling the positivist/ progressive rationalist aspects or interpretations of Modernism with Beckett's nihilism/postmodernism (or however you want to view it), via a series of IFs :

"IF it's that, then..."

What I suggest is to mention these differences but leave as much detail as possible until a new "Interpretations" category. Obviously it needs to be done so as to not leave an encompassing definition as a completely vacuous one. So far, I've largely stitched together whatever is there as best I can, but I think it does need trimming.

See the talk category I've added below re Removing quotes from the intro/adding a new category.

--Ddawkins73 (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, modernism is not a movement and it is absolutely absurd to argue so. Romanticism was not a movement either. Calinescu tends to refer to modernism as a movement, but he is more or less alone. There were movements within modernism, of course.

Also, I'm not sure how to add a new talk item, but it is incorrect to refer to Fluxus especially as modernist. Huyssen makes this argument - erroneously in my opinion - but it is otherwise seen as an early postmodernist movement. There is a lot of ambiguity surrounding this question in regards to Minimalism and the other movements listed in this 'late modernism' section too. I think that in order to keep it here, the idea that these movements were modernist needs to be presented as controversial.

As an academic, I'm surprised that this article was rated as high as a B. I tend to refer students to particular Wikipedia pages to get a feel for certain ideas/movements etc. but this page will not be one of them. A lot of cleaning up is needed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Possum61 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Possum61 -- to add a new section click on "New Section" at the top of the page, give the new section a title, and type your posting in the box below. Also, sign your comments. This is easily accomplished: At the end of your comments, simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.

In response -- if modernism is not a movement, then what is it? Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Modernism

What a succinct, sensible and jargon-free article. A first-time use, and I'm already a believer. I'll cross my fingers and try "post-modernism." J. Spitzer - Peabody Conservatory

Modernism perhaps has roots in industrialism and perhaps very notably the train and it's cognitive collaries. Progressism? Linear history? Perhaps the Medici were modernists, some say W Blake was pomo, having lived in an age where electrical field study informed the minds of the adventurous. Modism seems to exclude the commons, the villiage, glory in force, nation clarity . As a literary movement it mmight have a completely opposite sentic.., We become accustomed to mental forms which leads to social institutions falling into the hands of the mentally lazy, weak, and/or dishonest.,. society becomes ossified. Forms cease generative function and we become inhivetants. ( don juan's enemy ?) . Where's Oscar Wilde fit? Is bush a modernist? or pomo? Is bad jesus one or the other?

the trouble with the commentary above exists in modernism being called what it is. due to the word 'modern" existing in its name another can easly refer to technology and industrialization and such economic entities as part of modernism. However they are not. Modernism exists most highly within the writings of Joyce, Eliot, and Proust, and for one to even begin to fathom modernism one must first master these authors. This is a daunting task to say the least. But bush cannot be compared to a modernist, nor can Oscar Wilde. The school of thoguht and abandoment of all norms and conformity in the constant search of truth and progression were the goals of modernism. This very often led to an abandoment of religion, or ones country, or ones fellow man, due to their inability to fathom esthetic art or the fallicy of the instituitions which exist in this world.

On pretty much all of the aspects you identify there, Wilde qualifies. And to identify these three as the core is a pretty skewed perspective. Literature is not the world. DionysosProteus 00:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am disturbed by several recent reversions of this article to a previous version which included the phrase °in it's broadest definition″ without any citation or justification for believing that the broadest definition. I do not like people referring to some definition of theirs as the broadest one. It is extremely difficult to produce a broad definition at all, let alone something which can be called the broadest. dpw (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Your version does not have a citation either. In any case, there is no need for citation in the lead section if the definitions are discussed and cited in the main text. You clearly have no consensus for your change but are edit warring over it. Modernism in art refers to specific stylistic characteristics, as does Modernism in literature and music. The novel Ulysses is Modernist, but The Finkler Question, which won the 2010 Booker prize, is not. And yet, the latter is clearly much more modern. Modernism cannot mean and does not mean, in all instances, preference for all things modern. In the arts it refers to movements which are themselves now historical. Paul B (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Preference for" is far too vague. "Modernism" as identified in this article, and explained in the article body, is an historical term and should not be confused with modern in the sense of up-to-date or contemporary. "In the broadest sense" does convey the general idea of what modernism is and this is explained in the article. We can make the lede more explicit but I think the general sense of how it reads now should remain. freshacconci talktalk 20:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That Modernism should not be confused with modern is something I have been saying all along, I am glad you agree. Perhaps the definition given may convey the general idea of what modernism is -- I disagree, but for the sake of argument, let us suppose that it does. Even so, to say that this is the broadest definition is to make an uncited claim which should not be made. To say that my definition should have a citation is true, and I will try to give one, or modify my text so I can, but to say that any such definition is the broadest one is just plain wrong dpw (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Read Ewulp's response at the bottom of the page. It pretty much answers all of this. And again, it is not an "uncited" claim. It is explained in the article. The lede does not require citations. It's a overview of what the article is about. freshacconci talktalk 21:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And I suggest you stop the edit war, before you get yourself blocked. We edit through consensus. The onus is on you to convince other editors. freshacconci talktalk 22:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edits

Recently this article began "Modernism, in it's broadest definion ... ". Really? Who gave that definition? Who says that it is the broadest? Cite a source it you have one, Modernist. And to say that Modernism is modern culture, etc., is making the term redundant. Modernism is not just being modern, it is a preference for the modern. I simple rule of thumb is that words ending 'ism' represent an advocacy or preference. Thus capitalism is not capital, it is a positive belief or preference for capital. Please don't revert my edit again, give a reason. -- dpw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.71.184 (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Leave edit summaries before removing or changing information. Ledes are not required to be referenced by the way. If you make an edit - then leave an edit summary to avoid having your addition removed and please sign your name using Four tildes like this: (~~~~), thank you...Modernist (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That criticism of my posting to this discussion is correct, and I will behave myself in the future -- but my point remains. I do believe the article begins with an uncited definition claimed to be the broadest one, a claim which, I think, should never be made. dpw (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations are not required in the lede. The definition is expanded in the article. This is discussion is continuing above under Modernism. We should keep it in one place. freshacconci talktalk 20:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Dictionaries are considered reliable sources for definitions of terms in WP, as explained here. Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (2nd edition) provides two definitions of modernism: "1. (a) modern usage, practice, or thought; sympathy with modern ideas; (b) an instance of this; modern idiom, practice, or usage. 2. [M-] In Christianity, any of various movements attempting to redefine Biblical and Christian dogma and teachings in the light of modern science: condemned in the Roman Catholic Church by Pope Pius X in 1907 as a negation of faith." The broader of the two definitions is paraphrased in our lede; the second, more specialized definition is linked by a hatnote.

Merriam-Webster online dictionary here is a bit more expansive; again, the broadest definition given is very close to the first definition in our lede.

The "Modernism" article at Oxford Art Online has this:

Some early usages of the term ‘modernism’ occur in the context of the recurrent battle between the new and the old. In 1737 Jonathan Swift complained to Alexander Pope about ‘the corruption of English by those Scribblers, who send us over their trash in Prose and Verse, with abominable curtailings and quaint modernisms’ (Published Works, 1757, ix: 218b). Yet such disputes were usually local ones, occurring within broader frameworks of cultural continuity, except at periods of epochal change. During the 19th century in Europe, however, modernizing forces became hegemonic, and by the mid-20th century modernity had become the norm in many parts of the world, its effects being felt everywhere.

Words ending in -ism do not always indicate advocacy or preference (e.g., pauperism, spoonerism, provincialism, astigmatism). Modernism has multiple meanings. Unless a reliable source can be found that supports a definition even less specific than the one given in our lede, it would seem consistent with this policy to characterize this for our readers as the broadest definition. Ewulp (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As you will see from examination of the examples given in dictionaries which do give examples, one use of the term ″modernism″, usually lower-case, is to refer to some thought, thing or practice which is modern. A typical usage is to say that some word or object is ″a modernism″. That is clearly not what this article is about, nor is it even remotely a broad definition, certainly not the broadest. This article is not about some attribute, approximately a synonym for ′modern′, it is about the movement called Modernism. Approximately this definition occurs first in WordNet, which calls it a self-conscious break with previous genres, and with that of Professor Catherine of CUNY, who says ″Modernism is a cultural movement which rebelled against Victorian mores.″ That is too specific, WordNet is better. Both approximate the purposes of this article, which is about the movement, not the attribute. I used the term preference instead of rebellion or self-conscious break because it seemed broader. dpw (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this is a collaborative project, currently there are four experienced editors who disagree with your interpretations; consensus is an important part of this project, and also keep in mind the 3rr violation rule...Modernist (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Replaced image Ronnie Landfield with image by Brice Marden

The image [2] appears in 4 other articles: [3]; [4] in the paragraph: Shaped canvas, Washington Color School, Abstract Illusionism, Lyrical Abstraction; [5] and [6] in the paragraph: Shaped canvas, Washington Color School, Abstract Illusionism, Lyrical Abstraction. Brice Marden is a major artists with high recognition by major museums. Please see: [7], Collections, retrospective, honors. (Salmon1 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Definition of Modernism

(not just media category, also involves philosophy)

Should the Modernism page say that modernism ″in its broadest definition, is modern thought, character, or practice" or that Modernism is "a preference for modern thought, character or practice". Some experts have used the terms ′movement′, ′rebellion′, or ′consensus′. I suggest the broader ′preference′. I object to ″in it's broadest definition″ for only one of at least two definitions. Of the two best known ones, as given in WordNet, I believe the consensus has chosen the wrong one. dpw (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanation: dpw (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

From examples given in dictionaries, one use of the term ″modernism″, usually lower-case, is to refer to some thought, thing or practice which is modern. A typical usage is to say that some word or object is ″a modernism″. That is clearly not what this article is about,it is not about some attribute, roughly a synonym for ′modern′, it is about the movement called Modernism. Discussion and references on my talk page. dpw (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you seeking comment on? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

dpw keeps trying to change the first sentence of the article contrary to consensus. He wants it to say that modernism is "a preference for modern thought, character, or practice". Here is the difference between his version and the consensus version. As you can see from the history he is edit-warring over the matter. I don't actually like the consensus version myself, but his version makes no sense to me, nor is it supported by sources. He also seems to believe that consensus version is disqualified because it is not cited, but his version does not need to be cited. Paul B (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

On this talk page the same Paul Barlow who made the above comment said that Modernism is a movement. I could be happy a definiition which described it as a movement, preference, rebellion against (WordNet) or self-conscious break with (Prof. Catherine Lavender of CUNY) -- I would add these as citations if my version remained in place long enough to do so. Other definitions given by other sources are for lower-case modernism, in the sense of a modernism, such as to say that an expression is a modernism. The consensus definition is for the later, which is not the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPardoeWilson (talk • contribs) 20:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Modernism is a theology. It says so right there in Wikipedia. But I didn't really see that in the article. Quoting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
"Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific theological doctrines typically in reaction against the theology of Modernism.[1][2][3] The term "fundamentalism" was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time [in the 1920s and 30s]."
--71.137.156.229 (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Disambiguation is needed. "Modernism" used in the context of theology is a completely different thing to the subject of this article. The problem is that no one has yet added some decent sources for an adequate definition in the lead. Here are a few cut&pasted from other articles (MLA author-date format) - feel free to take a look at them and work out a better definition from there. The article needs more mainstream sources that reflect the most common use. ... I just pasted these in, having looked at the references used in the article. I hadn't noticed the Further Reading section, which reproduces many here. The article needs to actually draw on those books as sources and define the term from them, rather than the sources currently used.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 00:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Weak on historical context

Doesn't modernism as a philosophy emphasize science and reason and go back to the French radicals of the early 18th century such as Voltaire? Didn't it come to a head in Kant's defense of rationalism? See Ray Linn's "A Teacher's Introduction to Postmodernism" for putting modernism in a different historical context.Bdubay (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible sources for a better definition

• Berman, Marshall. 1982. All That Is Solid Melts Into Air: The Experience of Modernity. London: Penguin, 1988. ISBN 978-0140109627.
• Bradbury, Malcolm, and James McFarlane, eds. 1976. Modernism: 1890-1930. Harmondsworth: Penguin. ISBN 978-0140138320.
• Bürger, Peter. 1984. Theory of the Avant-Garde. Trans. of Theorie der Avantgarde (2nd ed., 1980). Theory and History of Literature Ser. 4. Trans. Michael Shaw. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-1068-1.
• Butler, Christopher. 2010. Modernism: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions ser. Oxford: Oxford UP. ISBN 978-0192804419.
• Childs, Peter. 2007. Modernism. 2nd ed. New Critical Idiom ser. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415415460.
• Gay, Peter. 2009. Modernism: The Lure of Heresy - From Baudelaire to Beckett and Beyond. Vintage. ISBN 978-0099441960.
• Harrison, Charles. 1997. Modernism. Movements in Modern Art ser. London: Tate. ISBN 978-1854371843.
• Kolocotroni, Vassiliki, Jane Goldman and Olga Taxidou, eds. 1998. Modernism: An Anthology of Sources and Documents. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0748609733.
• Levenson, Michael, ed. 1999. The Cambridge Companion to Modernism. Cambridge Companions to Literature ser. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. ISBN 978-0521498661.
• Lewis, Pericles. 2007. The Cambridge Introduction to Modernism. Cambridge Introductions to Literature ser. Cambrdige: Cambridge UP. ISBN 978-0521535274.
• Moi, Toril. 2006. Henrik Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism: Art, Theater, Philosophy. Oxford and New York: Oxford UP. ISBN 9780199202591.
• Taxidou, Olga. 2007. Modernism and Performance: Jarry to Brecht. Baisingstoke and New York: Palgrave. ISBN 9781403941015.
• Williams, Raymond. 1989. The Politics of Modernism: Against the New Conformists. Ed. Tony Pinkney. London and New York: Verso. ISBN 0860919552.

Inclusion/Exclusion of Hart Crane

It has been asserted that Crane cannot be included in the compendium of Modernists alongside Brecht, Hemingway, Faulkner, Bunting -- indeed even Wallace Stevens, Éluard, and MacDiarmid -- because he allegedly came "later." Crane lived 1899-1932, dying well before any of those just mentioned. However, more to the point is the fact that his major publications (White Buildings, 1926; and The Bridge, 1930) were released contemporaneously with or in advance of the bulk of the oeuvres of those aforementioned writers, and his first publication, C33, appeared in 1916. Brecht's first canonical work (Threepenny Opera) was written and performed in 1928; Hemingway's first novel appeared in 1926, and his first short story collection in '23; Faulkner's first novel was published in the same year as White Buildings, and his first short story was published in '19. Basil Bunting wasn't born until a year after Crane, and "Villon" wasn't written until 1925. A separate (though equally incorrect) claim about Hart Crane not being sufficiently influential to merit a place on this list was not made -- the claim referred specifically and exclusively to when he lived. To forward this claim consistently, one would need to remove Faulkner, Brecht, Stevens -- Woolf, as well -- from the list of Modernists, which would be absurd, as indeed denying Crane's Modernist status is. I will provisionally replace Crane to the list. Maximilian Caldwell (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your argument supports the removal of those other names, and moving them further down in the article, but it does not support adding Crane to the list, which only compounds the error. That list has needed editing for quite some time, and now would be a good time to do it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now edited this list to remove writers whose careers began after the first decade of the 20th century. In the case of many of them---Faulkner and Hemingway, for example---their careers began after World War One. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about some of these deletions. If you keep in Pound, then H.D., Richard Aldington, Wyndham Lewis, T.S. Eliot should be included. I think it's very hard to argue that Hemingway was not a a modernist. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with arguing about who is or is not a Modernist. This is only relevant to whether they started their writing careers in the last decade of the 19th or first decade of the 20th centuries. None of the writers I removed did so, and that is why I removed them. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, we are better off with a discussion of the authors, in the appropriate section, of course, rather than a list. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OIt is not up to us to decide this. Have youi references from accepted scholarly works that consider him as a modernist? DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

He's included in an anthology of modernism [8] which would seem to point to him as being a modernist. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

19th to early 20th century

I removed the following from the end of the 2nd subsection and bring it here for discussion.

Composers such as Schoenberg, Stravinsky, and George Antheil represent modernism in music. Artists such as Gustav Klimt, Henri Rousseau, Wassily Kandinsky, Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Georges Braque, Marcel Duchamp, Giorgio De Chirico, Juan Gris, Piet Mondrian, and the movements Les Fauves, Cubism, Dada and Surrealism represent various strains of Modernism in the visual arts, while architects and designers such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, and Mies van der Rohe brought Modernist ideas into everyday urban life. Artistic modernism also influenced figures outside the movement; for example, John Maynard Keynes was friends with Woolf and other writers of the Bloomsbury group.

Most of the individuals discussed here are not appropriate for this time period, and are discussed later. I see no reason to keep this vague, and repetitive, information. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Brice Marden Vine.jpg

The image File:Brice Marden Vine.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Done...Modernist (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Ulysees" isn't modernist?

"Arguably the most paradigmatic motive of modernism is the rejection of the obsolescence of tradition and its reprise, incorporation, rewriting, recapitulation, revision and parody in new forms.[5][6]"

This definition arguably excludes James Joyce's "Ulysees" -- which, of course, was an extended pastiche of Homer's "Odyssey" -- in addition to being the quintessential work of modernist fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.131.58 (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate Page Title (Modernism)?

Isn't the page title inaccurate? Surely much of this article, for the period after 1945, belongs on separate pages -- and it looks like these in fact already exist. Could the pages for Post-Modernism, etc. be removed and replaced by a coda, "For subsequent developments see Post-Modernism, ...", and so forth? Otherwise these pages should be titled something like: "Various Twentieth Century Avant Garde Movements in the Arts: Modernism to Post-Modernism". Rwood128 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no agreement when Modernism begins and when it ends (or even if it has ended). Likewise, you'll be hard-pressed to find two academics who agree on when post-modernism begins or if there is even such as thing as post-modernism. The title, for good or bad, is a catch-all. In a better world, this article would clearly indicate that the term itself is fluid and open to interpretation and that this article covers a general period at best. Citing post-1945 as the end of modernism is as arbitrary as any other year and I'm afraid your suggested title would be pretty unwieldy. That we need an article on modernism is clear. That it should be perhaps an overview that points to umpteen other articles is open to discussion. freshacconci talktalk 13:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply: I'm limited in my knowledge mainly to literature, and even there probably out of date. But I certainly agree with the argument about the uncertainty (artificiality) of boundaries between historical period, as well as the particular problems with the term post-modern. But do "many ... scholars" really "contend that late modernism continues," or should many be amended to some? And doesn't the argument that modernism includes later movements, such as post-modernism, need documenting; and isn't a full discussion required of the reasons why some sources give the cut-off date for modernism as the mid-1920s, others World War II, and some the 1960s, or later? A title that more accurately reflects the content of these web pages might be: "Modernism: From 1880 to the 21st Century". But if this isn't acceptable, there should at least be a preamble at the very beginning, something like:

"There has been much debate, both as to when modernism began and when it ended, or even if it has ended. Some scholars date it as begining in 1910 and ending in 1930. But others see it beginning in the nineteenth century and ending in the early 1940s, or as late as 1965. This article, however, takes a more controversial view that modernism has continued, and that late twentieth century avant garde movements, such as post-modernism, abstract expressionism, minimalism, and so forth, are in fact examples of late modernism."

But a more serious problem is with the structure and content of the second half of the article, beginning with: 3. After World War II (The visual and performing arts). But enough for now. Hope this is helpful/useful? Rwood128 (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Your premise is wrong there is no consensus as to the end of modernism and the existance and/or start of post-modernism. There are templates, and articles dealing with this issue...Modernist (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please achieve consensus before making any further major changes to this article, thank you...Modernist (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

With so many books on postmodernism, I think you would be hard pressed to assume that there isn't a thing called postmodernism... True, there is no hard beginning and end to the periods, and they surely overlap, but there is a pretty clear idea about what kind of art is modernist and what kind of art that is postmodernist because these two isms both have very distinct ideas behind them, thus separating them isn't as hard as you might think

Pop-art, for instance, is widely known to be a postmodern art form, not a modernist one. It's easy to say why: Because it subdues originality, because it promotes copies, clones and cut-outs, and not least because pop-art is so highly referential (referring to all kinds of modern forms of prolific and automated forms of expressions ranging from tin cans to cartoons). All these things are part of postmodernity, and not modernity, thus having it in an article about modernism only serve to promote confusion. --148.83.132.38 (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What follows the heading, "Goals of the movement" [The Goals of Modernism?], is fairly incoherent: that is undigested facts, with no, or little attempt at organization. Furthermore much of this final section reads more like a repeat of the earlier discussions of modernism, than argument about the relationship of modernism to postmodernism. I had planned to delete the irrelevant duplication, unless anyone had plans to re-write it. The opening pages are unfocussed and also badly need re-writing. Too little attention has been paid generally to the transitions between pararagraphs and sections throughout these web pages, and it badly needs a warning to users that it is below standard. I've already altered the main headings, in attempt to better reveal the underlying structure -- but I understand that there is an editing war going on!!! Rwood128 (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your changes resemble edit warring and vandalism. Your premises are inaccurate and there are disagreements. You apparently dislike the headings, and others disagree; you seem to misunderstand Postmodernism, <- late modernism, modernism and otherwise related subjects; and others disagree. There is clearly overlap in the distinctions between what is considered late modernism and what was defined as contemporary art between 1945 and the late 20th century; and how it is perceived today in the 21st century. Earlier you botched this simple inclusion - Robert Walser (writer) changing it to [[Robert Walser] with no explanation and no correction after removing some references attached to James Joyce. Because you don't like something is not enough to make major changes here, when others disagree. This project is a collegiate enterprise in which we WP:AGF and editors work in concert, if you wish to redo the Goals of the movement section then work in the sandbox or here first and try to achieve consensus...Modernist (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. My dabbling was wrong headed. I was not engaging in anything ideological, but just attempting (clumsily) minor editing. No botching -- re Walser and Joyce I innocently thought that I was tidying errors. The article looks abandoned/neglected. I'm happy now to learn that there are people working on improving this article. My intention was/is to try and be helpful. But, leaving questions of ideology aside, shouldn't there be in the meantime warnings attached to the article, both re the warring, and the sub-standard quality of the writing and organization?

But does the consensus agree about the poor quality? I'm puzzled that you don't mention it. Has all the ideological warring led to blindness about this, or do you/the consensus find the article good and coherent? Don't lets beat around the bush, if what I say comes across as insulting there can, unfortunately, be no dialogue, just misunderstanding/misinterpretation!!! Please clarify.

Regrettably I've a suspicion that my intentions may well continue to be misunderstood, because of what I was/am unaware of. Please note that I am happy to accept the consenus re modernism/postmodernism, despite my first entry. Though perhaps a little more needs to be said about alternate views? I'll check out your helpful suggestion re the Sand Box, as I don't like mine fields. Rwood128 (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Heading: "After World War II"

• 1. The heading is ambiguous. Literally after WW II might mean the decade after 1945. I presume that this isn't meant, nor 1945-2011. Is the use of precise dates acceptable? 1945-1980? Suggestion?

Leave it alone its fine, countless art history books use after WWII as a well known art historical demarkation point...Modernist (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I found it confusing and maybe others will/have? The article Modernism, at least the first half, is about modernism, not art history. Rwood128 (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• (2) Why just "visual and performing arts"? While there may have been more non-modernists symphonies, poems, novels, films, etc in the decades after 1945, there were also significant modernist works.

This article focuses on visual art, if you don't like it - WP:IDON'TLIKEIT - then make another article - this one is about what its about; do another one if you have another plan...Modernist (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not true for the first part of the article, or the erroneous sentences re literature (see 3 below). Maybe the article's title, Modernism, should be changed to indicate that its really about modernism in the visual and performing arts, rather than the far broader topic of modernism?

Rwood128 (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• (3) The opening comments that follower the heading are erroneous, at least re literature and music in the 1930s and 1940s -- but presumably this is also true of the other arts. Anyhow there shouldn't be a discussion of 1930-45 in this section.

That is your opinion, others do not agree with you. If you have to write about literature and music then perhaps you should start in a different article...Modernist (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

But this article does discuss music and literature, so that this comment is very odd. Furthermore my comments about modernism in the 1930s and 1940s are facts, not opinions. Will the obvious factual errors be amended? Rwood128 (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• I can post a revised opening for others to comment on, edit, and add to, if acceptable? Rwood128 (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to work on another article...Modernist (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

True -- at last agreement. But, out of curiosity, I'd like to hear the opinions of the others mentioned above first --but I didn't visit the WP insert and will do so. Rwood128 (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a few months late to this discussion, but I find Modernist's comments really surprising, especially the suggestion that this article is (and should be) about the visual arts, primarily, and that if one wants to improve its coverage, one should just start a new article. That's nonsense, against wikipedia policy, and smacks of goaltending. Nothing in Rwood128's comments can be interpreted as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and it's an unfair and unproductive charge to make.

Modernism was not primarily a visual movement any more than it was primarily a literary movement or a musical one - it was so complex and interesting because of the sustained dialogue among all the arts, among other reasons. The solution to the rather large problems of this article is not to badger other obviously well-meaning editors away to their own pigeon-holes, but to make an earnest attempt to fix a very obvious misbalance in the article. It may be that we need one main article called "modernism" and other articles focusing on modernism in visual arts, literary modernism, modernism in music, architecture, etc., but there's no good reason that the article on "Modernism" as such should focus primarily on the visual arts. Sindinero (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I agree that this article needs a lot of work...Modernist (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on that score, but that makes it all the more baffling that you seem to be discouraging well-meaning, apparently knowledgeable editors from working on this article, as evinced in the comments of this thread. The solution is not to shoo people away to work on other articles, but to see how, collectively, we can improve this one. I think that one of Rwood128's concerns, for example - the confusion that results in competing periodizations between the various arts - might best be addressed explicitly, either in the lead section or at the top of the history section. Sindinero (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The disagreement that resulted in that thread had more to do with the definition of postmodernism than anything else; eventually that editor worked on and added input to the article, as you should as well if you can improve it...Modernist (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Beginnings: the 19th century

The relevance of the first half of this section, with regard to Romanticism, etc., isn't clear. Shouldn't it be deleted? Rwood128 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The paragraphs in question describe very briefly the context in which modernism emerged. Context is always useful. Ewulp (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, perhaps my problem is that the first three short paragraphs of this section don't make sufficiently explicit any connection between Modernism and both Romanticism and the Victorians? I still believe that they should be deleted, unless (or until) someone can improve them. That is they have a negative contribution at the moment. Rwood128 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• On further thought, another problem is that the article tends, later, to over-emphasize the idea of a revolutionary break with the past and the slogan "make it new". There are possible links between Modernism and Romanticism (as well as the Victorians), especially with regard to Expressionism, the further development of the psychological novel, stream of consciousness, the music of Arnold Schoenberg and art of J. M. W. Turner, etc, but I'm still looking for good citable sources. Any suggestions? Rwood128 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

modernism is like, you know, modern! and 100 years old

The opening statement is a circular definition.

Modernism, in its broadest definition, is modern thought, character, or practice.

this is clear if we replace the word modernism with the word fish

fish, in its broadest definition, is fishy thought, character, or practice.

Please change to prevent circularity in definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.43.217 (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I partially agree with you. Modernism is not a good term to describe things diachronically. Renaissance was the Modernism of the XVI century, Romanticism was the Modernism of the beginning of the XVI century, and so on. It is just nonsensical to call a trend that is already obsolete for Modernism. It could at best be called "early XX century "Modernism"". Today we have a new modernism, as new trends replace the old ones. Applying this term to a fixed epoch is a contradiction in its self.

--Jidu Boite (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

However, that is the term that is used. We don't invent terms on Wikipedia. We use what is out there. freshacconci talktalk 12:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy? Modernism and Late modernism?

Is there a need for these two articles? As far as I can see there is a considerable overlap. If Late modernism was a radically different article from Modernism I would not be suggesting this, but it isn't. Why not combine these two articles by sub-dividing the current Modernism and naming the later part Late Modernism? Rwood128 (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• They address different issues and are both important, Late modernism is visited approximately 1500 times per month; respectable...Modernist (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Modernism is a wide rubric that is historical and its scope includes literature, religion, dance, theater, philosophy as well as the visual arts, Late modernism addresses the visual arts in the latter part of the 20th century and the early decades of the 21st century and is in direct contrast to Postmodern art, and other forms of conceptualism. It does not belong to this article...Modernist (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

As the article Late modernism is only concerned with the visual arts, shouldn't it be so labelled: that is re-named Late modernism in the visual arts? Otherwise it can be confusing, because the term Late modernism can be applied more widely (my background is in literature). I remember being initially confused by the Modernism article, because of a similar bias, especially for the period after 1945. I have added a brief entries to Modernism, relating to literature after 1945, including recently on the Theatre of the Absurd, to further indicate that modernism in literature continued after 1945. Actually words like minimalist, late modernist and even postmodernist have been applied to Samuel Beckett.

On another matter, isn't there a need for more comment on the subject of late modernism in the Modernism article, even a new heading, 'late modernism'? Rwood128 (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with two of your points - Late modernism should encompass the arts beyond just the visual arts; and can be expanded to reflect that; additionally late modernism probably should be discussed here however briefly. I simply cannot devote the time required right now due to my own RL issues; perhaps down the road...Modernist (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If I get the chance I'll try and do something. In particular I'll try and add a brief addition to the opening preamble to late modernism that indicates that late modernism covers more than just the visual arts.Rwood128 (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I now realize that for literature late modernism is usually the period 1930-45, though there are late modernist works in the 1950s and 1960s, and maybe later. Are, for example, the later works of Samuel Beckett (1970s and 1980s) late modernist or postmodernist? There is a need for someone who knows more about modernism, late modernism and postmodernism in literature to intervene. However, I'll try and add something to the preamble to Late modernism for the sake of clarification, after a little more research. I'm also beginning to wonder if there may be at times a confusion in the use of late, so that some writers, who are described as late modernists, might simply be a modernist who are writing later in the 20th-century! Rwood128 (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem sentences in the preamble to this article

(1) The following sentences, from the opening preamble, do not make clear sense:

(a) Modernism tried to “disconnect Romanticism from its roots in idealism in order to transport it inside empiricism” (Art Berman (1994). Preface to Modernism, University of Illinois Press).

(b) Another paradigmatic exhortation was articulated by philosopher and composer Theodor Adorno, who, in the 1940s, challenged [the?] conventional surface coherence, and appearance of harmony[,] typical of the rationality of Enlightenment thinking.

Part of the problem may well be that these sentences lack the framework provided by their original context. I suggest that they be deleted, unless someone can produce new sentences that make better sense.

(2) On another matter from the same preamble, surely it isn't true that all modernists reject an "all-powerful Creator"? There are major religious modernists like T. S. Eliot, Rainer Maria Rilke, Olivier Messiaen, Frank Martin, and Stanley Spencer, to take a few figures. Beyond the question of religion, isn't the attitude of modernists to the past more complex than this article tends to suggest? Is it heretical to suggest that Ezra Pound's "Make it new!" is too glib a slogan? Rwood128 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Adorno sentence is discussed further in the section 'Goals of the movement: 4.2 Challenge to false harmony and coherence'. But this equally unclear. 4.1 is an unsatisfactory attempt to deal with modernisms relationship to the past.

Rwood128 (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not only should the preamble be revised, but there is a duplicate preamble in the section that follows, 'Present-day perspectives'. This, therefore, needs to be merged with the main preamble, unless anyone objects. Rwood128 (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Section 4: Goals of the movement

This is an odd heading so late in the article, and first two sections 4.1 and 4.2 deal with introductory material, which is appropriate to the beginning of the article. I suggest that the content should be incorporated, if it is possible, at the beginning, and that these two section be deleted. There is no problem with 4.3 and 4.4, which can be moved into section 3. Rwood128 (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read 4.3 and 4.4 carefully enough: they too are introductory. They are, however, well written, unlike 4. and 4.2. Rwood128 (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that the material in this section really belong in the section that deal with modernism the early 20th-century (1.3). Is there any objection to them being moved and section 4 deleted? Rwood128 (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Explosion, 1910–1930 -- guidance needed

Is the following statement, from the above section, true?

Young painters such as Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse were causing a shock with their rejection of traditional perspective as the means of structuring paintings—a step that none of the impressionists, not even Cézanne, had taken.

I know nothing about art, but found the following reference, which suggested that Monet had already moved in this direction.

His quest to capture nature more accurately also prompted him to reject European conventions governing composition, color, and perspective. Influenced by Japanese woodblock prints, Monet's asymmetrical arrangements of forms emphasized their two-dimensional surfaces by eliminating linear perspective and abandoning three-dimensional modelling (Metropolitan Museum of Art: <http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/cmon/hd_cmon.htm>)

Any help on this, and any other possibly problematic statements in this section, especially on art, would be helpful. Rwood128 (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Section: Late 19th to early 20th centuries

I have doubts about the inclusion of the long list of modernist writers -- which I added at some point! -- it disrupts the flow of the article. Should it be deleted and in its place a link provided to Modernist literature? The alternative would be to place it at the very end of the article. At the same time there is a need for more discussion of modernist literature, but in the following section, 'Explosion, 1910–1930'. There is also, surprisingly, no discussion of the film, or sculpture. Rwood128 (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Beginnings -- combine first two sections?

Is there any objection to combining the following sections?

1.1 Beginnings: the 19th century

1.2 Late 19th to early 20th centuries

Rwood128 (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend keeping them separate. The first seems intended to deal mainly with context and precursors, and defining when modernism is thought to have begun; the second with the early flourishing of modernism. It makes sense to treat this material in two sections, although at present the two are not well differentiated. Ewulp (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I experimented with removing the division, and was rather surprised to find that it already reads like it might be one document. 1.1 in fact does deal with the late 19th century in more than one place. 1.2 needs serious pruning, and not only where it covers material more appropriate to the next section, and this could reduce it to half its current length. 1.1 would also be improved by judicious cutting. However, for now I'm focussing on providing more citations. Rwood128 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Further thoughts:

• (1) The cut-off date between section 1.1 and 1.2 is roughly 1880, but the major turning point in the 19th century for modernism was in the 1850s and 1860s, with the development of impressionism and symbolism in France,.
• {2) Section 1.2 focusses on background history, philosophers, physicists, etc, and most of its discussion of modernist art and literature is also covered in 1.3.

Is the idea of one section for the 19th century, with a sub-heading, say 'Impressionism and Symbolism in the 1850s and 1860s', or 'The beginnings of modernism in France', acceptable?

There is a need, in the article as a whole, to draw attention to the idea that modernism in the English-speaking world came later than in France.Rwood128 (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Rwood128 (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Your ideas sound good to me. 'The beginnings of modernism in France' is the better subheading; we don't want to imply that Impressionism began in the 1850s. Ewulp (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

My raw take regarding modernist painting is it roughly starts with Manet in the 1860s in France. I've sometimes thought of both Goya and Courbet as modernist antecedents; but Manet in the mid 1860s brings it on...Modernist (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Modernism: 1930–1945 -- no real discussion of art

Given the strong focus on art in this article, it is surprisingly there is hardly any mention of it -- or music, architecture, sculpture, for that matter -- in the above section. Even Picasso's Guernica (1937) is ignored. Is there any expert out there who can fix this serious gap?

Also British art seems to be mostly ignored before WWII, but is this because there were no significant modernist artists in the UK until the second half of the 20th-century? Rwood128 (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I added text - ...Modernist (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

British art takes off after WWII; Henry Moore and The "London School" including Francis Bacon, Lucian Freud, Frank Auerbach, Leon Kossoff, and Michael Andrews as well as David Hockney, Anthony Caro, and many others; see: Art of the United Kingdom...Modernist (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Great job -- that was certainly fast! Perversely, (and ungratefully) I now wonder if there's now a little too much detail for this context? This is certainly true with regard to Guernica. Is there any objection to some cautious pruning? Rwood128 (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I want you to prune - feel free...Modernist (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Abstruse jargon

The following makes use of too much abstruse jargon: "of reprise, incorporation, rewriting, recapitulation, revision and parody in new forms." Are there any good synonyms? Rwood128 (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution would be to provide concrete examples of these various techniques? Rwood128 (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In fact the citations provide quotations that explain the technical terms, though because most readers won't realise this, these quotations needed to be paraphrased and incorporated into the text. Rwood128 (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Poor lead

I find the current lead paragraph vague and poorly worded. I copy edited it and replaced the definition (sourced to the OED) but it was reverted without specific reasons. Bhny (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bhny. I was the one that reverted your good faith edits. Here is why: You wrote

"Modernism is a movement in the arts that aims to break with classical and traditional forms."

And your source writes

"[Modernism is a] movement in the arts that aims to break with classical and traditional forms."

The text prior to your copy-and-paste intervention seemed better. See source: Pericles Lewis, Modernism, Nationalism, and the Novel (Cambridge University Press, 2000). pp 38–39. Coldcreation (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok I'll try a compromise. Bhny (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. What I have attempted to fix is the lack of a meaningful definition (a movement about what?), and also remove the redundant "term that describes" wordiness. Bhny (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Take the sentence from your source: 'Modernism is a movement in the arts that aims to break with classical and traditional forms'. Just as Modernism was not restricted to the arts, it was comprised of many movements, and it was not categorically a "break", but a continuation in many cases. Also, classical and traditional forms of what? Forms and shapes? Forms of expression? That source needs to be overhauled. Coldcreation (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Both of our versions say that it is a movement in the arts. Bhny (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, true, I was in the process of modifying my answer above when you posted. I was thinking of architecture and so on, then I saw the disambiguation page. Nevertheless, the sentence from your source is too vague and inaccurate. Coldcreation (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Forms as in "forms of art". Just saying it is a movement isn't helpful. The second paragraph says that it favors the new over the traditional. Why can't we say something meaningful like that in the first sentence. Bhny (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the lead remains poor. "Modernism" is a post-rationalisation and lumping together of many disparate things believed by some to have a common cause of some sort. The article has dispensed with the dictionary definition, which seems to say this more or less and what such common cause might be, in favour of something more concrete, detailed and I find more misleading. Most of the introduction seems to therefore to be POV. Though it is referenced it provides a particular view because that is what it seems to set out to do. LookingGlass (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Modernism vs Modern Art

Neither this nor Modern art article describe what constitutes the difference between the two concepts. What's more, the two terms seem to be used interchangeably on both pages. In fact, it's hard to find the difference between the two concepts anywhere in the internet. Do you think these articles should be merged? Konryd (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to comment on the question posed re modern art vs. modernist art, but this article deals with literature and music, etc, as well as the visual arts. Also I don't believe modern is always a synonym for modernism, even with regard to 20th-century painters and sculptors, as there are Neo-Romantic painters. And I was already wondering about the inclusion of following in this article: "Social Realism and American Scene Painting, in the work of Grant Wood, Edward Hopper, Ben Shahn, Thomas Hart Benton". Rwood128 (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Modernism is a philosophy which impacted and influenced religion, literature, music, visual art, culture and attitudes toward the past, present and future. Modern art refers to painting and sculpture and other forms of visual art. Grant Wood, Edward Hopper, Ben Shahn, and Thomas Hart Benton all reflect modernist attitudes in their work. Hopper clearly expresses alienation; loneliness, and isolation through his work; Shahn uses caricature and irony to reflect political insight; while Benton exaggerates and simplifies his dissection of social mores; while Grant Wood also used satire and irony to portray his version of contemporaneous isolation and alienation. I think all of those artists are reflections of modernist thought albeit taking different form and using more conventional imagery than Pollock, Picasso, Matisse and Duchamp...Modernist (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Would the following emendation to the opening preamble be acceptable?

The term Modernism describes the modernist, innovative, avant-garde movement in the arts, its set of cultural tendencies and associated cultural movements, originally arising from wide-scale and far-reaching changes to Western society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Because some modern painters, sculptors, composers, writers, etc. have not radically broken with past traditions, the term modernism is not used here as synonymous with modern, or contemporary. Modernism rejects the lingering certainty of Enlightenment thinking, and many modernists rejected religious belief.

Please, please elaborate on something like that above. The lack of differentiation from both Modern Art and "modernity" is quite disturbing. I have the feeling that nobody really knows what they are talking about (Modernism is philosophical? Really? AND it originated around the turn to the 20th century??? Seriously? "Modernism rejects the lingering certainty of Enlightenment thinking, and many modernists rejected religious belief." THAT is pretty much a great definition of the Enlightenment story itself, all of which being at times called "Moderne" in German. If this article is exclusively about American terminology, then please confine the article to exactly that and make that explicit.) This is serious considering what Wikipedia wants to be! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.159.73 (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Modernism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130511102828/http://www.bartleby.com/66/82/15682.html to http://www.bartleby.com/66/82/15682.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hans Hofmann ??

What's the point to match a painting of Hans Hofmann at the very beginning of this master article ? This is nonsense. Uncomprehensible. Sorry, -- Spiessens 17:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization

I've gone and made the (non)capitalization of modernism consistent (save for quotes, references, and of course at the beginning of a sentence). According to MOS:CAPS and the rather confusing MOS section on the capitalization of art movements, one may use "lower case when sources are inconsistent". There were also incidences of lowercase inside the article before I mucked about with it. If anyone knowledgeable in art or capitalization would like to challenge this, please do. Me, Myself & I (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Misleading Implication

In the introduction, this line seems to imply Nietzsche was a nihilist or supported nihilism, this is not true.

"This facilitates consideration of specific reactions to the use of technology in the First World War, and anti-technological and nihilistic aspects of the works of diverse thinkers and artists spanning the period from Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) to Samuel Beckett (1906–1989).[13]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.205.44 (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Questions about the Wiki article.

More often than not, I find the terms Postmodern vs Modern to be highly dubious and nebulous in the manner in which they are defined and described. This article in particular is mind boggling.

As an example - Should we indeed associate Modernity of the Enlightenment with Modernism? Yes I think so. More to the point - this article ignores the Enlightenment altogether in discussing Modernism...

I also pose this question. Is Romanticism (which essentially challenges many Enlightenment ideas) truly a good example of modernist thinking? I am not so sure.

What say you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.221.100 (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)