Jump to content

Talk:Modernism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Modernism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modernism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Modernism in Asia and Afica

I have just noticed that there is no discussion of Modernism in Asia or Africa (and that it did exist)–see, for examples, [1] and [2]. Rwood128 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Modernism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Problerms with the Gate as the lead image.

The Gate is full of problems as the lead image for:

  1. It was made almost a decade after the "bloom" of modernism"
  2. It is less representative than a skyscraper, which poeplecould connect to
  3. Skyscrapers are far more important and were more influential and impactful

Your thoughts?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Response

An image from a much earlier date would be more appropriate, given the opening sentence of the article: "Modernism is a philosophical movement that, along with cultural trends and changes, arose from wide-scale and far-reaching transformations in Western society during the late 19th and early 20th centuries." Interestingly this all began when the current lead image was replaced with an image of 21st century skyscraper. Rwood128 (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I placed an important early Matisse painting there...Modernist (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay thanks guys. I still don't think it to be as good as a modernist skyscraper, but it still good. However, I will argue that architecture is still better because it is the example of modernism most people are familiar witg and is better at helping them understand modernism. I no longer support the Empire State Building as the lead picture and prefer something more tech-related.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
ScepticismOfPopularisation does have a good point about using an architectural example. However, I thought that the use of the Empire State Building was fine. I had earlier considered adding the Flatiron Building. It is from 1902 and also makes a striking image. Rwood128 (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with the premise that works of art do not adequately express the modernist revolution. The lede is fine as is. However any change toward industrial architecture should reflect the work of leading modernist architects or the teaching of the Bauhaus...Modernist (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
On a related matter, does the lede adequately address the fact that modernism seems to have continued into this century? See, especially, the first and last sentence. Terms like late modernism and postmodernism are also not addressed in the lede. Rwood128 (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Relation to Postmodernism

What is the relevance of William Lane Craig here? His criticism of postmodernism seems out of place in the opening section. Moreover, he is not widely known as a critic of postmodernism but as a Christian philosopher. Wouldn't a cultural theorist like Terry Eagleton, author of The Illusions of postmodernism, be more apt here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F34E:8A00:54AA:1941:A93:C86E (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a good point. Can you provide a quotation from Eagleton to replace this one? Rwood128 (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

" Modernism explicitly rejected the ideology of realism"

Would it be more neutral to remove the term "ideology" from the line above? Bsharvy (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Frank Lloyd Wright

Re recent edits, Wright's relationship with modernism needs to be discussed in the article, rather than removing his name. Rwood128 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It's unsourced and it was tagged as such, when restoring you should have provided source, not just do partial restore where you omit the tag. If you can provide sources please do, I wasn't able to so I removed it accordingly.Sourcerery (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Sourcerery, but you are the one that raised the question and thought that you might like to deal with this–more than a citation is needed. From my research the question as to whether Wright is or isn't a modernist is open to debate–not cut and dried. If you haven't time I'll look into it. Rwood128 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Where did you look. I found some information by googling.Rwood128 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
In book about him published by Taschen, found that he rejected modernist label. If you have found reliable source saying he is modernist, great, put it in article.Sourcerery (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Sourcerery the Wikipedia article Modern architecture has this "Frank Lloyd Wright was eighty years old in 1947; he had been present at the beginning of American modernism, and though he refused to accept that he belonged to any movement, continued to play a leading role almost to its end" (no citation) There are differing opinions re Wright as far as I can see. You started this discussion by deleting Wright's name, rather than addressing the differing views. Rwood128 (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Unsourced sadly, I saw that. Add those sources you found on google.Sourcerery (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche

Is Nietzsche really part of modernism? He is quoted as major force behind post-modernism. "Heidegger shares an affinity with the late Romantic philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, another principal forerunner of post-structuralist and postmodernist thought." Good read on why he is postmodern https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

Søren Kierkegaard had strong critique of modernity in "Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age" and isn't modernist but important precursor for postmodernism.

Concept of "will to power" needs to be looked at, think it's too simplified in this article, article should probably note of other "wills" as well. Especially "will to live" since it's first but also Freud's "will to pleasure" and Frankl's "will to meaning"Sourcerery (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Modernism in philosophy

I have been exploring about modernism and postmodernism in philosophy and it appears that modernism in philosophy begins 300,400 or even 500 years ago. Copernicus, Bacon, Descarteres are cited. Basic of modernism is that world is rationally intelligible to each individual rather than to a chosen elite, institution or some individuals that have special insight into mysteries of Universe. This is obviously mainly in relation to social and religious elites that had power over people and modernism rejects that and says that with proper education and training people are rational and should make decisions for themselves. Modernism is developing of scientific methods etc. Modernism is very sceptical and rejects notion of meta narratives, something that is one of defining features of postmodernism. So while postmodernism in art is kinda related if not offspring of modernism, in philosophy that is not the case. Here is a Stephen Hicks on modernism and postmodernism, major differences [3]. I also noted that a lot of sources cited in this article are old when it comes to modernist philosophy, don't know is this just wrong or has there been an evolution, different understanding. This article is mainly focused on art and while 19th century was the start of modernism in art, philosophers of time are seen as precursors to postmodernism already. I would suggest writing article Modernist philosophy and leaving this article focused on art, for reasons given. He notes that with Duchamp and his urinal modernist art becomes philosophical: "I threw the bottle rack and the urinal into their faces as a challenge, and now they admire them for their aesthetic beauty." The urinal is not art—it is a device used as part of an intellectual exercise in figuring out why it is not art." [4] Of note is that he never considers modernist art to be same as modernist philosophy, on the opposite it appears modernist art is actually closely related to postmodernist philosophy. This article is in this state at big contradictions with itself since it writes in "Difference between modernism and postmodernism": "In a narrower sense, what was Modernist was not necessarily also postmodern. Those elements of Modernism which accentuated the benefits of rationality and socio-technological progress were only Modernist." But philosophers it quotes were point blank opposed to it and even article acknowledges that: "Rationalism has also had opponents in the philosophers Søren Kierkegaard (1813–55)[26] and later Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)"Sourcerery (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Further, on Basic philosophy they say next: "Modernism refers to a reforming movement in art, architecture, music, literature and the applied arts during the late 19th Century and early 20th Century. There is no specifically Modernist movement in Philosophy, but rather Modernism refers to a movement within the arts which had some influence over later philosophical thought. The later reaction against Modernism gave rise to the Post-Modernist movement both in the arts and in philosophy." [5]

Definition

What does this verbiage mean?

"Others focus on modernism as an aesthetic introspection. 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)."

So let's try to parse it:

Focusing on modernism as an "aesthetic introspection" makes it possible (or easier) to consider "specific reactions" to tanks, machine guns, and heavy artillery; opposition to technology; and nihilism; in the works of thinkers and artists, between 1844 and 1989.

I've never studied Beckett, so I don't know if he was an anti-technology nihilist. So let's look at Nietsche. First of all, he died 14 years before the outbreak of WW1. I've read most of Nietsche's works; I don't recall him railing against technology. The term "nihilism" has been used to refer to his philosophy, but it's trite and dismissive. Nietsche's work is life-affirming. So perhaps it's Beckett to whom the description "nihilist" is being attributed.

So what's this "aesthetic introspection"? The only work of Nietsche that I'm aware of that touches on aesthetics is The Birth Of Tragedy, an early work that purports to deal with the contrast between the epic and lyric styles in ancient Greek drama; but it's really more about human nature, and contrasting ways of seeing the world. I have no idea what that has to do with modernism.

These "specific reactions" that are "facilitated": I have no idea what that means. If they're specific, might it help if they were specified? Of the two named writers, only one lived through WW1. So the reactions being referred to can't be Nietsche's. Perhaps we could specify what, in Beckett's work, is anti-technology? Or maybe we could identify some other writers and thinkers that exemplify this claim more obviously?

Which "diverse" thinkers in the specified period are we talking about? All of them? "Diverse" just means "different kinds of them", so the only clue we get about which kinds of artists and thinkers are meant is the two names that we are given. There is very little in common, as far as I can see, between the works of Nietsche and Beckett.

This "anti-technology" business bothers me too. Is modernism really anti-technology? Isn't Futurism a flavour of modernism? Unfortunately, the paragraph is so evasive and obfuscated that it's not clear whether that's what's being said or not. There are many words here, but not much meaning.

The turgidity of this piece of prose suggests to me nothing so much as the postmodernist writing of someone like Derrida.

I hesitate to rewrite something that I can't even parse, so maybe someone who knows what it means could suggest an alternative phrasing, or perhaps work with me to improve this section. BTW, I've not studied Art; I think I have a "feel" for French and German painting in the period that's referenced, but only for appreciating it - not for writing about it. I know there are intellectual underpinnings for the modernist project, but I can't articulate them - which is why I was reading this article.

I haven't visited the numerous citations; I'm too terrified of finding more prose like that. Perhaps I will try in a bit. I suppose that I should, if I want to make this section more readable.

MrDemeanour (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The lede does a much better job of defining modernism. Rwood128 (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing it. I guess I should have been WP:BOLD, instead of composing a critical talk-page essay. But I felt like having a rant.
MrDemeanour (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
It's word soup, and begins with the classic weasely 'others'. The cites are just broad references to a cluster of books, with no specific attributions. Cull the whole mess. Anastrophe (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Origins

I understand the point in the first section that the movement developed gradually and that its origins are therefore hard to pinpoint, but is it possible to pin down when the term came into use? Furius (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

An interesting question. But a difficult one to answer, Furius, given that what is modern, or new is constantly changing, and that there will be a different date for each discipline. However, Google Books Ngram Viewer indicates an increased use of the word after 1901, and then a very steep upward curve after 1917. Here are a couple of articles which supply dates of early use: Modernism in the Catholic Church; Oath against modernism. Rwood128 (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
See, Furius, Thomas Hardy's use of the phrase "the ache of modernism" in Tess of the d'Urbervilles in 1891. Rwood128 (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"Modernist art movements" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Modernist art movements and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 18#Modernist art movements until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Footnotes section

I'm puzzled by the entire Footnotes section of the article. First, with footnote "a", it appears that much of this text may be direct quotes from an article by Graff (without distinguishing between two different articles referenced), but are not so indicated with quotation marks. Then footnote "c" is either an entire mini-essay written by an unattributed editor, or an editor's précis of two referenced pages from a book by "Steiner (1998)" with no first name or book title provided. Are people just writing their own stuff here? Milkunderwood (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Anything about philosophy

... in the article, excepting the lede? Or is "modernism" in philosophy actually a straw man thrown out there by postmodernists to decapitate? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Rursus, I find your comment interesting. I have been thinking about the relationship between modernism as a religious movement and the how the word is used in relation to art, music, literature, etc. That is how the word "modernism" has been used in recent times. Is modernism an ideology or a philosophy? I certainly think that there is room to improve this article. Rwood128 (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I note that I commented on this, under "Origins", earlier this year. I have been gathering stuff, but I haven't found the time yet to shape the research into anything. Rwood128 (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in the matter. I'm not qualified to write about it, but I think there is actually a fuzzy but somewhat coherent image out there about a "modernism". This link is effectively unusable, but gives some hints to me: What is modernist philosophy? Some of the commentors have credentials that are acceptable to me. This site MODERNISM AND POSTMODERNISM gives the impression that modernism is about scrutinizing statements of old by a "critical mind" and "empirical observations" in order to get an updated understanding of something, but I don't know if that is part of modernism. For me the notion is termed "natural philosophy" as regards to maths, physics, astronomy and perhaps chemistry, and I don't quite get the connection of that to Catholic Modernism, since that occurred much later. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent (2/5/24) edits to lede.

Thanks for all the responses. I realized that my revisions lacked citations and were done too hastily, by a tired (old) brain. However, I was reacting to the poor (vague) quality of the lede. Maybe I should have done more work on the body of the text first? This is an important, and interesting topic, so I hope some younger editors can work on this. I will work on restoring my "subjective" lede, with proper documentation, as well as well as developing further, in the body of the article, the subjects mentioned there. Rwood128 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I have restored some deleted sentences, which as fat as I can tell are supported by the body of the article/citations. The term "radical break" was deemed too subjective but it is used to describe modernism. Are quotation marks and a citation really required? Rwood128 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Religion; Sexology

1. The term "modernism" is initially used in the nineteenth century to describe a reformist movement in the Catholic Church and later adopted by others. The article, until recently, has ignored this.

2.There is also no discussion of the relationship between ideas about sexuality and modernism, especially in relation to literature and the struggle of modernist writers with censorship. Rwood128 (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Marisauna re the recent revert: the opening sentence reads: "Modernism is a philosophical, religious, and arts movement that arose from broad transformations in Western society during the late 19th and early 20th centuries." Maybe the article needs to make the connection between these associated usages more explicit? There were similar objection to modernism in the arts as there was in the Catholic church. Science was an important factor in the conflict between those who advocated for modernism in religion, and in the arts, and those who opposed them. --Rwood128 (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs to discuss these usages more explicitly. The standard and Catholic usages of the term are different, but do have similarities, especially that both leverage science in some capacity and are trying to respond to rapidly changing times. I do not think it would be wise, though, to conflate the two without sufficient evidence. As a practicing Catholic with a moderate interest in theology, I've only ever seen this conflation called out and corrected when it is brought up. In my opinion, conflation might follow a radical-traditionalist point of view, but not a more normative Catholic one. Marisauna (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Science

The is little discussion of the role science played in cultural changed and artistic innovation. Rwood128 (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Modernism/Archive_3&oldid=1253890667"