What's the verdict on modernism? A good idea that turned into a tragedy?

proves my point. people clung to the last period where we considered ourselves alive

Your point was that the world ended, my comment does not relate to that at all.

Tragedy sounds a bit too drastic.
Modernism had too high expectations on itself that it just couldn't live up to

What a wealth of knowledge you are

What were its expectations, O imparter of wisdom?

This desu

>Literature
Ulysses by James Joyce

>Film
Hiroshima, Mon Amour

>Painting
Guernica by Pablo Picasso

>Architecture
The Seagram Building by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

>Sculpture
The Walking Man by Auguste Rodin

Not that guy, but didn't Modernism expect to find truth by reducing coherent art to constituent pieces and examining them indivdually and by analysing how they fit together?

And then nobody could actually figure it out in time to avert post-modernism, where people just see the superficial nature of the deconstruction without realizing its underlying purpose and think that taking things apart == art now.

the world ended meaning we are stuck in a modernist loop as a grasp at regaining our lost artistic measure. so yea repackaged modernism

only contrarian pseuds denigrate entire movements

Congratulations, you're wrong about modernism, proto-wrong about proto-modernism and probably post-wrong about post-modernism as well, trully a monad free from 4th dimensional wrongness.

>National Socialists weren't all bad!

Not really, but close. Modernism's (main) project was to either integrate or overcome art and life so they could develop a new society and man after the failure of traditional illuminist reason and WWI.

Of course, there's more, I once saw a vanguard art researcher say he had found something like 1200 modernist groups so far, and he wasn't even close to finishing a first draft of a list, so there were a lot of different ideas being thrown around, but still.

>integrate art and life
Okay i think i get this
>overcome art and life
Not sure what this means, though.

Stop denigrating contrarian pseuds.

how do you go about finding those? do they have like a secret archive or something

They're pretty similar things, tbqh

Think of De Stijl, Bauhaus and most russian vanguards:
They want to make art that will liberate mankind from it's shackles, open up for new possibilities of perception and so on.

Now think about Dada, New Objectivism, Fluxus or Nouveau Realisme:
They think "art" is part of the sociedy they want to destroy (when a integrator would want to "change"), and therefore, must "destroy" art with anti-art / non-art and so on.

The difference lies mostly in the concept and posturing of the movements.

I study the second group, and if you want a nice (albeit tendentious as FUCK) quick introduction to these groups thought and praxis, look for Stewart Home's Assault on Culture (but be aware: he's not impartial at all, and everything should be read with a bit of a grain of salt).

I did some research on my state capital's vanguardist groups and here's how you do it: Take a whole fucking week off and autistically read every art related paper and magazine you can find in the public archive.

But there are lots of anthologies and "localized" art history books. For a good overlook on some of the more politically radical vanguard books, for example, the one I recommend here But yeah, a lot of it is about reading old critiques and interviews awaiting for a good namedrop or two.

This is a meme, American and European modernism was far away from this type of ideological posturing and "breaking with the old" (see Tradition and Individual Talent)

>implying you are literal enough and culturally learned enough to understand if modernism is the peak or not

name 20 books about modernism that you have read, you lying shit

What the fuck are you talking about? You repeated what I'm saying while also throwing "tradition" and "individual value" as if just those two words could make something mean anything. I'm speaking almost specifically about european modernism since the US were busy doing whatever it is the CIA told them to, but I can actually give you some bibliographical sources to my claims, while all you can do is post a sentence that's more devoid of meaning than "abstract expressionism".

>being this butthurt
I can smell the insecurity

You are not intelligent.

Pleb here, is there a simple way for me to understand modernism, and postmodernism?

I might not be intelligent but I'm pretty well versed when it comes to 20th century art.

Modernism: Life is shit, it is our duty as artists and thinkers to make a new world that's less shit

Post-modernism: Lol even the stuff we came up with was shit, let's just get relly high and maybe die idk

>Modernism: Life is shit, it is our duty as artists and thinkers to make a new world that's less shit
>Post-modernism: Lol even the stuff we came up with was shit, let's just get relly high and maybe die idk
Extraordinarily shallow assessment, delete your life

in infinite supply?

>
>Extraordinarily shallow assessment
Extraordinarily shallow assessment of his assessment, delete your art

Modernism is all about the progression of art to match industrialism.
Post-modernism denies the importance of 'progressing' and also the importance of anything.

Although for purely literature, pomo is almost impossible to define.

This assessment is deep in demonstrating how post-modernism works.

Congratulations user, you get a gold star on your monography about Lyotard and Baudrillard coke-and-sex fueled holiday at a cabin near Lille in 1978. Your parents will be proud.

idk what you all are doing, you can't really define "modernism" and "postmodernism" in the same way you could define for example "baroque" art

modernism in the west arose at the same time individualism did so really if you're looking at art movements post-turn-of-the-century you're going to have to take individuals and maybe small groups on a case-by-case basis

see: Bauhaus and Abstract Expressionism are both "modernist" schools but radically different in philosophy

The only sure thing about post-modernism is that it maybe probably started after the second world war.

You have to be somewhat daft if you can't realize all of modernism has very clear similarities in their differences.

Break from traditional representation, metacommentary on art, the vanguardist, manifesto-ist format, the influence of the urban boom (as inspiration and enemy), the quasi-occultist aspect of a lot of groups - even ones seen as traditionally "political" like arte povera or situationism - and so on.

Of course you can't compare Fluxus and expressionism, but you can't deny there's a somewhat clear line from romantism to impressionism to post-impressionism to expressionism to abstract art / abstractionism to abstract expressionism.

Were any bad?

>Post-modernism denies the importance of 'progressing' and also the importance of anything.
No, many works of modernism do those things also. Post-modernism is an ongoing commentary on modernism and not necessarily a nihilistic negation of it

I wasn't saying you can't define it at all, just that the previous posters' definitions are waaay to exclusive to encompass such a broad term. yeah there are common trends in modernist art but its not on the level of homogeneity that previous periods of western art have been

therefore much of the "but did it work?" discussion is almost useless to because so many people and groups were moving in opposite directions with varying goals and varying degrees of success.
everyone loves mondriaan but everyone hates le corbu.

I'm actually sympathetic to purism and hate Mondrian (not that he's bad, just his texts are awful and there's always some LE INTELLECTUAL QUIRKY mondrian furniture which make me wanna puke)

Read modernist and post-modernist works duh