FREE ESSAY ON MODERNISM VS. POSTMODERNISM

MODERNISM VS. POSTMODERNISM

This question highlights one of the themes central to the account of modem art offered in
this course: the tension between the theoretical perspectives of, on the one hand,
Modernist criticism and, on the other, an approach focused on the relationship of the art
of any given period to its social, political and historical context. The two quotations
given above may be interpreted as representing these polarities. It would be an
oversimplification to suggest that to accept a Modernist account of modem art must imply
rejection of a socio-historical view, or vice-versa (the discussion between TJ Clark and
Michael Fried about Pollock (TV21) suggests that there is room for negotiation, if not
for compromise). It is, however, arguable that a definition of postmodernism should take
into consideration both the close interrelationship between Modernist criticism and
mid-twentieth century abstract art, which together constituted the dominant hegemony in
art from the late 1940s to the early 1960s (and hence the artistic context against which
postmodernism in the visual arts evolved), and the social, historical and political
context within which art characterised as postmodern has developed. 
It seems reasonable, therefore, to start by attempting to clarify the critical positions
represented by Greenberg and Burgin. Greenberg, in 'Modernist Painting' (1961) and other
writings, sets the development of modem art, specifically painting, in the context of the
ideas of the Enlightenment philosopher Kant, who 'used logic to establish the limits of
logic' (Art in Theory p.755.) Kant thereby established a precedent for using the
techniques of a particular medium to define and refine that medium, a process referred to
by Greenberg as 'self-criticism'. This implies that painting, rather than 'using art to
conceal art' (ibid) by creating illusionistic space and depth, should rather use art 'to
call attention to art' (ibid), that is, to emphasise the unique characteristics of the
medium; 'the flat surface, the shape of the support, the properties of pigment' (ibid).
Greenberg states that such a process would render art 'pure', that is, autonomous, free
of any extraneous elements deriving from other arts, such as theatricality or narrative.
The impact of a painting should thus derive from those technical aspects characteristic
of painting, such as colour, form and composition. An example of the sort of painting
Greenberg was advocating at the time may clarify this. Morris Louis's painting Alpha-Phi
(pl.D10) is exactly contemporary with the publication of 'Modernist Painting'. It
consists of bold, ragged, diagonal streaks of pure colour against an off-white ground;
Louis's use of acrylic paints, which soak into the canvas, means that the colours appear
integrated with the ground and hence do not disrupt the flatness of the picture plane.
Its effect depends upon the arrangement of colours and the large scale of the painting
which makes it occupy 'so much of one's visual field that it loses its character as a
discrete tactile object and thereby become that much more purely a picture, a strictly
visual entity' (Greenberg, 'Louis and Noland', p.28). It is apparently devoid of
references to anything other than the intrinsic qualities of forms and colours. Louis's
painting, and the contemporary work of Kenneth Noland (e.g. Bloom, pl 141) and Jules
Olitski (e.g. (Twice) Disarmed pl.D11) were seen by Greenberg as being how paintings
should look if they are to continue 'the intelligible continuity of taste and tradition'
(Art in Theory p.760) and offer the viewer 'a sufficient degree of aesthetic power'
(Modernism in Dispute p. 173) in the 1960s. 
Burgin, however, sees Greenberg's approach and hence, by implication, paintings such as
Alpha-Phi, as 'the terminal point of [an] historical trajectory'. It is arguable that
paintings such as those of Louis represent a point beyond which art could not be further
refined, and must therefore be reassessed or stagnate. Furthermore, in the context of the
major social and political upheavals of the late 1960s and thereafter, such work might
appear increasingly irrelevant. From Burgin's viewpoint, Greenberg's privileging of
aesthetic and technical issues marginalises those types of art which can be validated by
reference to their relationship with their historical context, to the way in which they
represent their times. Thus Dada would be of little importance in a Greenbergian art
history, but significant in the context of 'a history [i.e. an art history] which opens
onto history' and which deals with representations. Following from this, if the most
important thing about art is that it should connect with the conceptual framework of its
socio-historical context, then technical issues can be subordinated to ideas, and new
means of representation, such as photography and installation, which do not fit easily
within a Modernist aesthetic, are legitimated. Burgin's statement expands the concept of
art beyond the relatively narrow bounds set by Greenbergian Modernism, and thereby allows
the consideration as art of a range of new conceptual works such as Mel Ramsden's Secret
Painting (pl. 175) which 'plays upon the irony that language is both a medium supposedly
distinct from art and the source of information about art's content and meaning'
(Modernism in Dispute, p.205). Burgin provides a basis for identifying work as
postmodernist rather than Modernist, and also sets postmodernism in the context of its
antecedents in, for instance, Heartfield's photomontages and Duchamp's readymades. 
The concept of postmodernism seems to have become current from the early 1980s onwards,
when it began to appear in the work of writers such as Lyotard and Jameson. These writers
were not specifically discussing art but more general cultural tendencies. However,
Burgin's challenge to the dominance of Greenbergian criticism can be connected with
Lyotard's definition of postmodernism as 'incredulity towards metanarratives', in this
case the metanarrative of technical development in painting. Early attempts to define
postmodernism in the visual arts by writers such as Krauss and Owens, 'started from an
assumption that the stylistic diversity of art after Modernism ... conceals from view
some underlying unifying principle:' (Modernism in Dispute, p.237). However, it is
arguably easier to say that a specific work, or the work of a specific artist, is
postmodernist than to define what, precisely, constitutes postmodernism. The range of
concepts associated with postmodernism are, as Harrison and Wood admit, complex and prone
to a degree of vagueness and instability. There are, however, a number of recurrent
issues associated with postmodernism which can be related to Burgin's views on the
importance of representations, historical context and signifying practice. These include
critiques of: gender and ethnic difference; the supposed importance of originality,
authorial status and allied issues; and historical narratives. 
Cindy Sherman's work provides relevant examples of these critiques. Her series of
self-portraits showing her in different roles use photography rather than the more
'artisanal' medium of painting. Some of her pictures take their images from cinema,
pointing to the stereotyped representation of women in that medium (e.g. No.13, pl.74).
Others use images from 'old master' paintings: No.228 (pl.72) shows her in the role of
Judith with the head of Holofernes, and draws attention to a complex series of ideas,
including feminist interest in masquerade and the exploitation of male desire, and (by
means of the obviously fake, humorously grotesque severed head) the constructed
artificiality of representation. Her use of numbers rather than titles may be an ironic
reference to the similar practice of canonically Modernist painters such as Pollock.
Sherman 'wanted to imitate something out of the culture, and also make fun of the culture
as I was doing it' (Modernism in Dispute, p,82) Her work thus connects with and critiques
the 'history of representations' of women, the nature of art as a medium and, by using a
replicable method, photography, together with a reworking of existing images, ideas about
originality. It can be seen as an example of art 'centred on a medium but certainly not
bounded by it'. 
A similar range of issues is raised by artists whose work, by its use of consumer
durables, spans the boundaries between avant garde art and kitsch, thereby transgressing
one of the fundamental tenets of Greenbergian modernism, the clear distinction between
'high art' and 'mass culture'. Although the work of Jeff Koons, which includes displaying
vacuum cleaners in a perspex showcase (pl.202) can be seen as postmodernist, it could be
connected both with the work of pop artists such as Richard Hamilton (e.g. $he, pl. 149)
and the 'readymades' of Duchamp. Koons' work, however, fits with Burgin's view of art as
'a set of operations in a field of signifying practices'. His use of consumer durables as
art relates to Baudrillard's ideas about living in 'a world of representations, of
consumption, of media images, of shifting surfaces and styles' (Modernism in Dispute,
p,241) (where individuals are defined by the types of commodities they possess). By
appropriating objects and displaying them as art, Koons critiques the Modernist idea of
art as essentially original. His use of commodities as art is also interesting in
relation to the commodification of Abstract Expressionist paintings, which were advocated
as a sound financial investment in the early 1950s. The variety of work produced by Koons
raises an issue not explicitly mentioned by Burgin, the eclecticism often associated with
postmodernism. This, and its occasionally ephemeral nature (as in the case of Puppy, made
of flowers) relates more closely to Jameson's sense of the postmodern as involving
'superficiality' and 'deathlessness' (Art in Theory, p.1077). There are other issues
relevant to postmodernism to which Burgin does not directly refer, such as: a critical
approach to the exhibitions and museums system, which has lead to alternative ways of
presenting works of art; a tendency to pastiche or parody of earlier works of art; and,
in some instances, the necessity of active involvement by the viewer. 
While Burgin's statement does not emphasise these points, they are illustrated by his own
work. What does Possession mean to you (pl. 189) uses a glossy advertising-style
photograph which is placed in the context of a caption about the ownership of wealth to
put a different, socio-political perspective on the image, calling into question issues
of gender dominance and property ownership and thus critiquing social norms. It was
exhibited not as a single 'artwork' in a gallery, but in a set of '500 copies posted in
the streets of the centre of Newcastle-upon-Tyne'. The replication of the image and its
display on the streets can be seen as critical both of the idea of the importance of
orginality and of the exhibitions and museums system. A decoupling of art from the
established methods of presenting it to the public seems to be characteristic of
postmodernism, and is also exemplified by developments such as the Land Art of Richard
Long and Robert Smithson, and the public projections of Krystof Wodiczko. These images,
for instance his projection of hands holding prison bars onto a courthouse (pl.D71),
function, like Burgin's poster, as socio-political commentary and also share with it the
ephemeral quality mentioned in relation to Koons. Work by Burgin such as 'Any moment
previous to the present moment' (pl.169), which consists of text from which the
viewer/reader has to construct his/her own image, highlights both Burgin's view of the
importance of concepts in postmodernist art, and the tendency within postmodernist art to
invite the viewer to sustained active participation in the work of art. This is in direct
opposition to the passive contemplation advocated by Modernist critics such as Fried who,
in Art and Objecthood, claims that good art should be 'instantaneously present'. This
idea of the importance of 'presentness' is contradicted by the title of Burgin's article,
'The absence of presence'. 
Taking Burgin's statement as a point of departure, it is possible to connect postmodern
ideas to a diverse range of works of art, which are in turn associated with a series of
contemporary concepts and concerns. While Burgin provides a means of distinguishing
postmodernism from Modernism in art, there remains the problem of how to, or indeed
whether, one ought to distinguish qualitatively between different postmodernist works. If
social relevance is a characteristic of postmodernism, then degree or accuracy of social
relevance may be used as an evaluative tool; however, as Harrison and Wood have pointed
out (see Modernism in Dispute, p.240) radically critical work may become marginalised and
lose its ability to challenge. Furthermore, if the main impact of a work depends on its
contemporary relevance, it is likely to lose conceptual value with the passage of time;
Haacke's The Safety Net (pl.D24) borrows its meaning from contemporary politics rather
than conforming with Greenberg's idea of art as self-defining, and is hence now arguably
of historic rather than artistic interest. The aesthetic of Greenbergian Modernism may
never recover a dominant position within art history but, as Harrison and Wood have
suggested, 'the contingency of the historical is only half the point of art'.