Here are some general questions about modernism I plan to use in two interviews I am performing later - enjoy!
Interview #1
How do we recognize a “modernist” work? Are there any characteristics all (or the majority of) modernist works share in common?
Modernism in art is sometimes seen as a change from “capturing” reality to “constructing” reality. How accurate do you think this is?
Advertising (especially in the USA) transformed during this time into an industry in its own. With this industry came what could be called an ‘art’ in its own right – and indeed, advertisers used several modern techniques (particularly those of psychoanalysis) in their “products”. Can we call this modernism as well, or is there a key difference?
Somewhat ironically, modernism has flourished the most in “traditional” capitalist, consumerist societies, even though the creators of modernist works (and modernism itself) often reject these societies/philosophies. Why do you think this is the case?
Sigfried Gideon argues that the new forms of art were especially influenced by new forms of transportation, like the automobile. (To support this, he notes that many early films are train films, made by cameras fixed to a train rushing through the landscape). He argues that these new forms of transportation changed the population’s perspective on space and time and encouraged a more “dynamic” type of art. What are your opinions on this?
How important were new technologies, especially the invention of photography, to the change in art around this time? Is it possible that the introduction of the camera made traditional painting partially obsolete?
Has modernism ended?
Interview #2
How do we recognize a “modernist” work? Are there any characteristics all (or the majority of) modernist works share in common?
In Marshall Berman’s book on modernism, All That Is Solid Melts Into Air, he suggests that all the key founders of modernism were located in the 19th century: like Goethe, Marx, Nietzche, Baudelaire, and Dostoevsky. Do you agree?
Modernism (or, the precursors to modernism) was originally limited to small elite groups of “avant-garde” throughout the world. But over the course of a few decades, it rapidly spread throughout the rest of the world and effectively pervaded popular culture. What are the reasons for the speed of modernism’s success?
Somewhat ironically, modernism has flourished the most in “traditional” capitalist, consumerist societies, even though the creators of modernist works (and modernism itself) often reject these societies/philosophies. Why do you think this is the case?
Advertising (especially in the USA) transformed during this time into an industry in its own. With this industry came what could be called an ‘art’ in its own right – and indeed, advertisers used several modern techniques (particularly those of psychoanalysis) in their “products”. Can we call this modernism as well, or is there a key difference?
How important was the Ford-like “assembly line” mentality (i.e., treating people as ‘laboring units’, dividing time into blocks, the increased precision of management) in influencing modernism?
Has modernism ended?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Modernism at the AGO (Henry Moore exhibit)
Last Friday, I visited the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO). The AGO has quite an extensive collection of modernist and contemporary art, so I'll list some of the things that caught my interest the most.
Earlier I posted a bit about Henry Moore's sculpture "The Archer". Surprisingly, the AGO has an entire Henry Moore exhibit that contains the plaster originals of his famous bronze works. As one of the tour guides explained to me, Henry Moore has a special significance for both the AGO and the city of Toronto. When the Toronto City Hall was being built, the architect in charge of the construction of the AGO, Viljo Revell, was to select a sculpture (or some piece) to put in front of the building. $100,000 was set aside for this purpose, and Revell commissioned Henry Moore to create and design a suitable bronze sculpture. Moore's "The Archer" was finally proposed, but it was so abstract that City Council initially did not accept it. However, the citizens of Toronto appreciated Henry Moore's sculpture to such an extent that they raised $100,000 by themselves and purchased the sculpture (in truth, however, this was actually just a few large private donations). Moore was so impressed by this that he came to Toronto for the unveiling and donated all his plaster originals to the AGO. Moore later designed many other bronze sculptures for other buildings in Toronto - there's one just outside the AGO as well.
Onto the actual exhibit. Photography is prohibited in the AGO, so I have no pictures to accompany my comments, but many similar works can be found here.
For starters, a broad overview of the exhibit. Henry Moore is a British sculptor who is famous for his bronze statues. He did most of his major work during the 1950s and 1960s. His work generally focuses on curves and flowing figures, often reclining females. Many of his pieces also have strong influences from nature (one of his most famous pieces, "The Warrior", was based off of the shape of a pebble he found on a beach). Overall, his work is definitely modernist - there is no real attempt to capture reality anywhere.
That being said, there is definitely a range of realism among the pieces. There are some that are quite realistic, almost Greek (with the exception that there's almost no detail in the face), like "Draped Reclining Figure" and "Draped Seated Woman". There are some which are more bizarre, like "Reclining Figure (1951)", which contains several sharp angles which look very out-of-place compared to the curves of the body, and "UNESCO Reclining Figure", which contains several gaping holes. Some of them are completely unrealistic, in that you might not be able to actually make out the reclining figure for a while. These include the multi-piece figures, namely ones like "Three Piece Reclining Figure No. 2: Bridge Prop", "Three Piece Reclining Figure No. 1", and "Two Piece Reclining Figure No. 9".
You might be wondering what a multi-piece reclining figure is - how one could even exist. Personally, I found these figures to be some of the most interesting there. Like indicated, something like "Two Piece Reclining Figure No. 9" is actually two pieces. Now, viewed head-on (so, along the length of the reclining body), it looks nothing like human at all. However, rotate 90 degrees and view it so that you're right in front of the statue's feet, and it suddenly looks as realistic as any of the other figures. This "illusion" comes from the fact that when we're looking at the feet of the reclining figure, we can only see the knees and the very upper part of the torso and head. The other parts of the torso and body are often distorted (or removed, hence the multiple pieces), and thus when you look at it head on, what you see is two arbitrary rocks.
In addition to reclining figures, there are also two totem-like or pillar-like structures in the exhibit, titled "Upright Motive No. 1: Glenkiln Cross", and "Upright Motive No. 8". These 'upright motives' definitely have traces of natural and Aboriginal influences. Like his other pieces, the upright motives have plenty of curves, holes, and random sharp protrusions.
However, the two that caught my attention the most were neither reclining figures nor multi-piece statues nor pillars, but rather, "Locking Piece" and "Oval with Points". Just like toy building pieces lock with each other, where although you can attach them easily, they can't be removed from each other, so does Locking Piece - except it locks with itself. It's spherical (or perhaps, cyclical) in shape, and has grooves and edges that run along its body. As Moore comments on this piece,
"Anyhow, I was playing with a couple of pebbles and I found that . . . they got locked together and I couldn't get them undone and I wondered how they got in that position and it was like a clenched fist. . . . this gave me the idea of making two forms which would do that and later I called it Locking Piece because they lock together."
"Oval with Points", on the other hand, is much more stylistically simpler - this makes it perhaps my favorite piece in the exhibit. I can't explain it very well (aside from saying that it's an oval with two sharp protrusions in the middle), so it will have to suffice to look at the picture here. I was surprised when I learned it was actually influenced by an elephant skull - it seemed more elementary and fundamental the first time I saw it. Regardless, it has a certain aesthetic quality that just seems to "work".
That summarizes the Henry Moore exhibit at the AGO. Of course, there's tons of more contemporary and modernist stuff - I'll cover that in another post, though.
Earlier I posted a bit about Henry Moore's sculpture "The Archer". Surprisingly, the AGO has an entire Henry Moore exhibit that contains the plaster originals of his famous bronze works. As one of the tour guides explained to me, Henry Moore has a special significance for both the AGO and the city of Toronto. When the Toronto City Hall was being built, the architect in charge of the construction of the AGO, Viljo Revell, was to select a sculpture (or some piece) to put in front of the building. $100,000 was set aside for this purpose, and Revell commissioned Henry Moore to create and design a suitable bronze sculpture. Moore's "The Archer" was finally proposed, but it was so abstract that City Council initially did not accept it. However, the citizens of Toronto appreciated Henry Moore's sculpture to such an extent that they raised $100,000 by themselves and purchased the sculpture (in truth, however, this was actually just a few large private donations). Moore was so impressed by this that he came to Toronto for the unveiling and donated all his plaster originals to the AGO. Moore later designed many other bronze sculptures for other buildings in Toronto - there's one just outside the AGO as well.
Onto the actual exhibit. Photography is prohibited in the AGO, so I have no pictures to accompany my comments, but many similar works can be found here.
For starters, a broad overview of the exhibit. Henry Moore is a British sculptor who is famous for his bronze statues. He did most of his major work during the 1950s and 1960s. His work generally focuses on curves and flowing figures, often reclining females. Many of his pieces also have strong influences from nature (one of his most famous pieces, "The Warrior", was based off of the shape of a pebble he found on a beach). Overall, his work is definitely modernist - there is no real attempt to capture reality anywhere.
That being said, there is definitely a range of realism among the pieces. There are some that are quite realistic, almost Greek (with the exception that there's almost no detail in the face), like "Draped Reclining Figure" and "Draped Seated Woman". There are some which are more bizarre, like "Reclining Figure (1951)", which contains several sharp angles which look very out-of-place compared to the curves of the body, and "UNESCO Reclining Figure", which contains several gaping holes. Some of them are completely unrealistic, in that you might not be able to actually make out the reclining figure for a while. These include the multi-piece figures, namely ones like "Three Piece Reclining Figure No. 2: Bridge Prop", "Three Piece Reclining Figure No. 1", and "Two Piece Reclining Figure No. 9".
You might be wondering what a multi-piece reclining figure is - how one could even exist. Personally, I found these figures to be some of the most interesting there. Like indicated, something like "Two Piece Reclining Figure No. 9" is actually two pieces. Now, viewed head-on (so, along the length of the reclining body), it looks nothing like human at all. However, rotate 90 degrees and view it so that you're right in front of the statue's feet, and it suddenly looks as realistic as any of the other figures. This "illusion" comes from the fact that when we're looking at the feet of the reclining figure, we can only see the knees and the very upper part of the torso and head. The other parts of the torso and body are often distorted (or removed, hence the multiple pieces), and thus when you look at it head on, what you see is two arbitrary rocks.
In addition to reclining figures, there are also two totem-like or pillar-like structures in the exhibit, titled "Upright Motive No. 1: Glenkiln Cross", and "Upright Motive No. 8". These 'upright motives' definitely have traces of natural and Aboriginal influences. Like his other pieces, the upright motives have plenty of curves, holes, and random sharp protrusions.
However, the two that caught my attention the most were neither reclining figures nor multi-piece statues nor pillars, but rather, "Locking Piece" and "Oval with Points". Just like toy building pieces lock with each other, where although you can attach them easily, they can't be removed from each other, so does Locking Piece - except it locks with itself. It's spherical (or perhaps, cyclical) in shape, and has grooves and edges that run along its body. As Moore comments on this piece,
"Anyhow, I was playing with a couple of pebbles and I found that . . . they got locked together and I couldn't get them undone and I wondered how they got in that position and it was like a clenched fist. . . . this gave me the idea of making two forms which would do that and later I called it Locking Piece because they lock together."
"Oval with Points", on the other hand, is much more stylistically simpler - this makes it perhaps my favorite piece in the exhibit. I can't explain it very well (aside from saying that it's an oval with two sharp protrusions in the middle), so it will have to suffice to look at the picture here. I was surprised when I learned it was actually influenced by an elephant skull - it seemed more elementary and fundamental the first time I saw it. Regardless, it has a certain aesthetic quality that just seems to "work".
That summarizes the Henry Moore exhibit at the AGO. Of course, there's tons of more contemporary and modernist stuff - I'll cover that in another post, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)