Modernism

In Elkins's article he makes the point that the history of modernism is constructed differently than other periods, such as the Renaissance, and presents five theories of the possible origins of modernism. Elkins writes, "The historiographic issues for Renaissance painting are settled in a way that those for modernism are not." (39) I think it is interesting that he is comparing Renaissance painting to modernism. He does not say modern art, but modernism. Renaissance painting, to me, refers to the formal characteristics of painting it exhibits, allowing it to be placed or categorized into a certain historical time or movement because it encompasses the typical physical traits of the time or movement. However, "modernism" is not a grouping of art, like Renaissance or Modern Art. Modernism refers to a movement and set of ideas, including but not limited to art. Modernism can be seen in many art movements because at the time they were produced, they were in fact modern. Modernism implies a general term that can be associated with more than just Modern or Renaissance art, and I think that is one of the points that Elkins tries to make. However, it is difficult to categorize an ideology like modernism when it could technically be linked to any time in historywhen people, artists included, "broke with established traditions and sought new modes of expression." (Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition)

I had a difficult time reading T.J. Clark, and it took several readings of some "defenses" to understand. What I ended up taking away from the essay was that in order to understand a certain type of art, one must also understand the social contexts under which they were produced. It does not do any good to simply understand the formal characteristics, as it only deals with the obvious physical characteristics of the piece. One needs to take into account the artists and circumstances of when they were creating it, as it helps to understand the ideology of the times and the artist's response to it.

I was also interested in T.J. Clark's constant use of the word "vulgar" to describe Abstract Expressionism. I read the following quote by Mr. Brett in Ruskin's "On Vulgarity" a few times as I did not understand it at first. In response to Ruskin's question, "What is vulgarity?", Mr. Brett says, "It is merely one of the forms of death." I think vulgarity is like death because it is shocking and gripping, and an invasion or takeover of innocence and life, or perhaps in terms of Abstract Expressionism, a blank canvas. You're eyes are drawn to it because you know that there is just something different, "not right," vulgar about it, and you cannot help but be drawn in and curious because of it.