Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism

 

Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism by Hal Foster
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Two years and three months, with frequent interruptions and long stretches of lassitude; this is what it took to finish this tome.

I cannot begin to impart the knowledge contained herein. This could easily fill a two-semester university course, especially if one were to read the ancillary readings in the suggested reading lists contained at the end of each chapter. I was a humanities major as an undergrad, and would have loved to have had this book as a reference. Modernism and post-modernism got short-shrift in my studies. Yes, we touched on some of the major movements (Cubism, Expressionism, The Vienna School, Bauhaus, Futurism, etc.), but this volume delves much deeper, especially on the level of academic analysis, than we were ever able to get in my undergraduate years.

But that doesn't mean the work is without problems. Au contraire, I found that the biases toward one school or another sometimes overwhelmed the analysis and even overshadowed and occluded the art itself. This was especially true in the essays where Freudian analysis was given so much emphasis that the essays turned into pastiches of their own intellectual position. The Marxist analysis came in a close second place in its ability to obfuscate the works themselves. Yes, both are useful, and there are some good insights gained from both, but the writers' confidence in their respective schools turned into over-confidence, at times, and undercut their overall theoretical arguments.

One thing that is presented successfully is the scattered nature of modernism and post-modernism. Influences cannot be seen in a strictly linear fashion, as have might have been the case in earlier artistic eras. The introduction of new media (photography, film), as well as the intentional anachronisms introduced into modern art (Primitivist art, Art Brut, Outsider Art) muddle the picture. Also, the intentional subversion of art itself and its presentation, especially from the 1970s onward, served to tie any linearity up in Gordian knots.

Keep in mind that this is a textbook, not an art book, per se. Yes, there are some beautiful and compelling plates throughout, but you'll note very quickly that there is a relative weakness of visual presentation vis-a-vis the written presentation: i.e., for every piece of art shown, another four or five are referenced that are not in the book, and sometimes those referents are critical to making sense of the words that refer to the pieces that are in the book.

Am I glad I read it? Absolutely. Will I ever read it again? Absolutely not. And if I read another paragraph of Freudian analysis like some of those found herein, I am going to need therapy. So, approach the book, but do so with caution. You will be better for having read it, and you will gain insights into art that you otherwise would not have found. In other words, this book could make you smarter (or at least sound smarter), but at the cost of developing a strong (or even stronger) aversion to academic blathering.

View all my reviews

__________

If you like my writing and want to help out, ko-fi me at https://ko-fi.com/forrestaguirre. Every little bit is seen and appreciated! Thank you!