This post is a continuation of the discussion here.
This is where we could start getting into an argument about modern vs. contemporary. I disagree that the term "modern" is empty when separated from the modernist movement. Not every age is modern in the scope of history, nor does modernist doctrine make this claim. (Although according to the Cult of Postmodernism, it is possible that every era since the beginning of time has been postmodern.) Classicism, for example, was in no way modern. It was a reversion to a previous artistic period, and the fact that it came to be in a revolutionary climate does not make it any more avant-garde than the technique merits. However, classicism at the time of its conception was contemporary--momentarily modern. Of course, in the scope of history, such contemporaneity is cast aside, and the more enduring traits of an era become its defining points, traits that determine the objective modernity of a time.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment