The New Criterion
America’s leading review of the arts and intellectual life
- Harry Mount, the London Telegraph
FeaturesModernism is one of those key terms which everyone uses in talking about the arts, but which most of us would prefer not to have to define. It can mean so many different things in different contexts; far from embodying a unified set of doctrines, it represents an unsystematic and complicated skein of affinities between individual artists—a vast tangle of partial links and piecemeal influences. If anything, its meaning is even harder to pin down than those of such comparably wide-ranging concepts as realism or romanticism, since unlike them it assigns a primary role to the idea of progress. That, after all, is where the use of “modernism” as a label puts the emphasis—not on a particular set of aesthetic or intellectual values, but on the virtue of change itself, and the desirability of moving ahead. “Behold, I make all things new.” But nothing stays modern forever, and what happens to such a movemen ... This article is available to subscribers and for individual purchaseSubscribe to TNC (Print and Online editions) Subscribe to TNC (Online only) This article originally appeared in The New Criterion, Volume 26 November 2007, on page 30 Copyright © 2012 The New Criterion | www.newcriterion.com http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Modernism-then---now-3677
rate this article for your user profile
E-mail to friend
|
by John Gross On Great Victorian Lives: An Era in Obituaries, edited by Ian Brunskill. Christopher, for better & for worse On the critic, polemicist & raconteur Christopher Hitchens (1949–2011).
Webcasts
Anthony Daniels on the Euro Crisis
Andrew C. McCarthy: The Muslim Threat
Roger Kimball: The Grim Future of Statism Weblog 
|
add a comment
you must have an account to post a comment. {register now}