Talk:Modernism

Religion; Sexology
1. The term "modernism" is initially used in the nineteenth century to describe a reformist movement in the Catholic Church and later adopted by others. The article, until recently, has ignored this.

2.There is also no discussion of the relationship between ideas about sexuality and modernism, especially in relation to literature and the struggle of modernist writers with censorship. Rwood128 (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Marisauna re the recent revert: the opening sentence reads: "Modernism is a philosophical, religious, and arts movement that arose from broad transformations in Western society during the late 19th and early 20th centuries." Maybe the article needs to make the connection between these associated usages more explicit? There were similar objection to modernism in the arts as there was in the Catholic church. Science was an important factor in the conflict between those who advocated for modernism in religion, and in the arts, and those who opposed them. --Rwood128 (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, the article needs to discuss these usages more explicitly. The standard and Catholic usages of the term are different, but do have similarities, especially that both leverage science in some capacity and are trying to respond to rapidly changing times. I do not think it would be wise, though, to conflate the two without sufficient evidence. As a practicing Catholic with a moderate interest in theology, I've only ever seen this conflation called out and corrected when it is brought up. In my opinion, conflation might follow a radical-traditionalist point of view, but not a more normative Catholic one. Marisauna (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Science
The is little discussion of the role science played in cultural changed and artistic innovation. Rwood128 (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent (2/5/24) edits to lede.
Thanks for all the responses. I realized that my revisions lacked citations and were done too hastily, by a tired (old) brain. However, I was reacting to the poor (vague) quality of the lede. Maybe I should have done more work on the body of the text first? This is an important, and interesting topic, so I hope some younger editors can work on this. I will work on restoring my "subjective" lede, with proper documentation, as well as well as developing further, in the body of the article, the subjects mentioned there. Rwood128 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have restored some deleted sentences, which as fat as I can tell are supported by the body of the article/citations. The term "radical break" was deemed too subjective but it is used to describe modernism. Are quotation marks and a citation really required? Rwood128 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Organization
Maybe it's just me but I find the structure of this article confusing/incoherent/illogical. So I have moved the sections "Definition" and "Modernism, Romanticism, Philosophy and Symbol" to the very end for now into an "Appendix". They may contain useful ideas that can be incorporated later into other sections. rwood128 142.167.29.248 (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

"Both revolutionary and traditional"
"An example of how modernist art can be both revolutionary and traditional is the music of the composer Arnold Schoenberg. On the one hand Schoenberg rejected traditional tonal harmony, the hierarchical system of organizing works of music that had guided music making for at least a century and a half..."

Does the source for this part specifically describe modernism as "traditional", as opposed to merely describing certain ideas used by a given artist or another?

From my knowledge the postmodernists are usually the ones staking claim to this sort of recombination of old and new, as seen in their use of the terms bricolage and remixing, this type of wording could be pretty controversial if not supported with a specific quote. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Move "Romanticism and Realism" header into its own section
Rather than combining the early history of modernism with a discussion on its relationship to romanticism, let's move it to its own section. It's important for understanding modernism, but right now the section is too long, and kind of confusing because it's talking about two different things at once. We can then rename the existing heading to "Early 19th century", and refocus it on historical information. Any strong objections?

My [| recent edit] probably makes this worse, but I think a clear comparison between Romanticism and modernism is key to the whole article, and figured it was a net positive contribution, if a little clumsy.

Absent-annotator (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean and have started to address the issue by moving an entire paragraph about modernism's literary impact back into the overview section, where it was already being discussed (after merging the two paragraphs, they go so well together it almost seems like another editor split them for an unknown reason.
 * Another change that I'm considering is to just change the sub-section's name to "Early 19th century" rather than "Romanticism and realism". I'm not certain there's enough content there to justify creating an entire new sub-section, especially after taking out that paragraph about literary modernism. Mr. UnderhiIl (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * After further edits I have in fact gone ahead and split off the discussion of Romanticism and realism and made a new section for "Early 19th century". Hopefully this resolves the issue to everyone's satisfaction. Mr. UnderhiIl (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

short description
I was going to change the hatnote at the top of the article to say what it was about before For other uses of the word... (see WP:HNS), when I noticed that the short description currently reads Philosophical and art movement.

First, modernism is not a philosophical movement per se. Second, shouldn't it be artistic movement?

Would the following be better: Cultural and artistic movement?

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be better. Newimpartial (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. (And philosophy is still mentioned in the lead.) Patrick (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)