Talk:Modernism/Archive 1

Nietzsche
this is moronic; modernism is huge and encompasses all kinds of things, including Nietzsche...

perhaps the way to deal with it would be to post a number of different "modernisms"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.252.143 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Section 1, subsection 2, paragraph 3, first sentence. Nietzsche was NOT a part of the modern movement. Whoever placed this in the article clearly misunderstood the will to power. Modernism is defined by a continued will to truth and a faith in science as the only god left after the industrial revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.115 (talk • contribs) 01:08, December 13, 2007 (UTC) Also, Section 1, subsection 1, paragraph 3, fourth sentence. Existentialism did not contribute to modernism, and shouldn't even be mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.115 (talk • contribs) 01:12, December 13, 2007 (UTC)

I agree, those sections need major clean-up and pruning. An example:

"Against the current ran a series of ideas, some of them direct continuations of Romantic schools of thought. Notable were the agrarian and revivalist movements in plastic arts and poetry (e.g. the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and the philosopher John Ruskin). Rationalism also drew responses from the anti-rationalists in philosophy. In particular, Hegel's dialectic view of civilization and history drew responses from Friedrich Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard, who were major influences on Existentialism. All of these separate reactions together began to be seen as offering a challenge to any comfortable ideas of certainty derived by civilization, history, or pure reason."

This is intellectual masturbation! How does this paragraph add to the issue? This article is about Modernism, not about tangents into Hegel, Nietzsche and their differences which have nothing to do with Modernism. I understand the need for context but this section needlessly muddles up the issue, it makes it especially difficult for someone not versed in intellectual history to keep track of what exactly Modernism is. My grasp on this subject (Modernism) is very limited but I'd encourage someone more knowledgeable to tighten up article. Citing sources would also help as it would make it sound less speculative and more convincing. As it is right now, there's so much extra fat it needs a liposuction. Philosopher2king (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)philosopher2king 5/10/08


 * I believe it is relevant, as the section is "beginnings". These are indeed factors in the evolution of Modernism. Modernism does not necessarily imply a faith in science. If you hold to this definition then you have the absurd situation where Modernist literature isn't Modernist.


 * A limited definition of Modernism would not be encyclopedic. The article should cover all uses of the term in academic contexts :(i.e reliable sources in this case, or the case for any discussion of "isms", I would say).


 * The introduction does now provide the context for how it is relevant.


 * However, I agree the section could be trimmed of fat a little. I'm reluctant to take up the task myself, as if I am an expert :in anything it is Modernism in Literature (1880s onwards) and, to a lesser extent, the appropriation of the term thereafter.


 * To write a concise but relevant precis for such a wide topic really requires an expert in cultural history 1750-1900.


 * Although I must say the section seems a pretty good effort to me, and philosophy certainly should be represented in the article. I :have some reading in Nietzche and I certainly think there are elements of his thought that are very relevant. He is an important :thinker in the development of Modernism, for at least four reasons: his commitment to examining 19th Century social values, his :rejection of Wagner (and all he represented),  his focus on the experience of the individual, and the implications of his :critiques of late-19th Century Christianity.


 * Kierkegaard is probably not so relevant, if the two books of his I have read are anything to go by. The influence of "Fear and Trembling" on Existentialism in the modern sense (Sartre et al) is indirect at best imo, let alone Modernism itself.


 * Hegel - dunno.


 * In general, how modern Philosophy and Modernism fit together needs looking at in this article.

--Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

8 Conditions of Modernism
I'm in high school in MA and am taking a course in modernism. they are teaching us that there are 8 characteristics present in many modernist works or art and culture. they are 1) Rejection of traditional morals and values after WW1 2) The subconcious as a primary source of information 3) New artistic styles which reflect a broken and disharmonious reality 4) The internal world of the [syche seen as just as "real" the the external world 5) the influence of primitivism 6) a pessimistic view of the universe as chaotic, fragmented, and wiothout transcendent meaning 7) A sense of alienation and estrangement 8) a pervasive skepticism now i have no idea how to integrate this into the article, and i'd like to see someone better at wikipedia formatting to work on this a little. I feel that these 8 points help adress other issues in the discussion page. Also,i know that these a from a textbook on the subject but i don't know which one. i'll make an effort to find out.


 * All this inner-directed defining grasps only one aspect. There's a significant outer-directed tendency too. DionysosProteus 00:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The current article covers 1, 3, 6 (e.g citation re fragmented experience), 8. 7 is an interpretive judgement imo (Not that it is false, but can be implied from material re rejection of contemporary social values). 2 & 4 perhaps need expanding in the article. 5 - not sure how directly relevant that is.

--Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Should there be more info about aspects of modernism other than art?
I don't know much about modernism, that's why I came to read the article. There seems to me to be a predominant emphasis on modernism in the arts, but isn't/ wasn't modernism also important in philosophy and politics etc.? I know there are little bits about philosophy and politics here, but maybe there needs to be more? The info on modernist art is great, and very well written. I wonder if eventually there might be enough material to make seperate articles like "modernist art", "modernist philosophy", "modernist politics" and an overview page which explains the basic tendencies in modernism?--Bhikkhu Santi 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't tend to see the word used to refer to the political movements... I think the politics associated with modernism tend to be referred to by name (e.g. Marxism, etc.) Perhaps this article should discuss the associated politics a little more? - Rainwarrior 22:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

modernism is a whole trend of thought, particularily emphasizing progress. scientific, social, artistic and individual progress.--ExplicitImplicity 00:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the article is if not all about, then entirely centered on art. If anything, there ought to be some kind of change in the title to distinguish this article from others like "Modernity", etc. I might venture further to say that this article appears to be written from a "art represents society" perspective. I'd say its a good thing the neutrality is contested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxuniv (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Modernism" as a term normally refers to precisely the domains this article invokes: "art, architecture, music, literature, and the applied arts." As Rainwarrior suggests, it does not usually describe early-twentieth-century politics, so it wouldn't make sense to add a discussion of "modernist politics," except in the sense that the artists defined by modernism embraced some (often right-wing) political movements more than others. The article is not at all promoting an "art represents society" perspective; the emphasis on art and literature is entirely traditional, given this terminology. The term "modernity" has some relevance to politics, but "modernism" does not cover the same terrain as "modernity." Despite the Berman quote (which comes from a book on modernity but not modernism), modernism is not all about scientific progress. The whole second paragraph makes modernism sound like a boosterish movement hardly different from the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. It completely misleads readers new to modernism and doesn't fit well with the (more accurate) descriptions of actual modernists later in the article. Noting, as paragraph two does, that modernists wanted to make things new is true but banal. The same could be said of almost any cultural movement from any period.Atom48 (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)atom48


 * I believe this has been addressed now. 15:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC) ddawkins73

The Dnieper Hydroelectric Station
the Dnieper Hydroelectric Station is an icon of modernism, not because of its form (architecture) but of its function (electrification), yet i cannot find a good place in the article to add it. there is something missing. in the whole precursors to modernism science should play a much larger role. where is edison, where is tesla, where is einstein, et cetera ? --83.189.57.115 15:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is it's aesthetic qualities that would have to be considered modernism. The modernistic aspects of it are those visual cues that relate to it's use. I think it is not an example of modernism solely because it produces electricity. It can be said that it bears the hallmarks of modernism if there are visual cues, indicating a hopeful future, based on science, for instance. Bus stop 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In what sense is it a"progressive" movement.
Section one, sentence 2, word 7. In what sense is it a"progressive" movement. There are like a hundred definitions of progressive. That's like saying an object is moving in a direvtion, and also has a vector, its too general to mean anything.


 * You're right that the word is general, but it's not useless. Take the word "progressive' out of the sentence & replace it with 'conservative' and the sentence refers to a whole different tendency-- proof that the word has a function here. It's relative; by most people's reckoning Arnold Schoenberg is more progressive than Arnold Bax, because more innovative & less respectful of tradition. In painting, Grant Wood or Sir Gerald Kelly broke little new ground, are seldom called progressive. The neoclassicism of the 20s is seen as a (relatively) conservative step back from the prewar experimentation. Committees To Restore Sanity To Art recognized progressiveness as a menace and awarded grants to backward-looking artists. Ewulp 05:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Modernism outside the West
I'm not knowledgeable enough to add to that section, but I hope someone will do so. Right now it is embarassingly meager (two sentences!), giving people the impression that modernism was a strictly Euro-American phenomenon. Japan, for example, took in a lot of Western modernist culture in early 20C.

Indeed so, definitely something that needs adding. Along with much else. Stirling Newberry 21:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

// Indeed, it is much too Anglo-Centric in general. Brahms cannot be called a Victorian, for instance, since he was not from the British Empire. I have changed that to "late 19th century artist", but if you want to find another term, feel free. He would not have considered himself Victorian.

Nitangae


 * I would love to see the inclusion of Christopher Okigbo in this article. If only for his poetry, which is just as densely allusive as Eliot, and shows the clear influence of Modernism in Nigeria.  There are allusions to modern art movements, e.g. reference to Guernica in 'Fragments XII' - Okigbo was strongly attached to the collage style (evident in the form of his poetry) and kept a copy of the picture in his wallet.


 * I'm just pulling stuff out of a literature textbook; The remit of the article is pretty narrow as it stands now. The visual arts are over-represented, and many influential Modernist authors and poets are excluded.  I know Okigbo is a 'difficult' poet, but I feel that he, as well as perhaps Chinua Achebe, are critical examples of Modernism's influence outside the developed western world. --86.152.88.234 (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD  Ty  14:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly a new section Modernism outside the West would be welcome as would the inclusions of Chinua Achebe and Christopher Okigbo. While the visual arts are well covered it doesn't preclude additional coverage of the other artforms...Modernist (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Neomodernism
I've written a stub on neomodernism, but it needs contributions (by someone who knows more than me ie anything about the subject). m.e. 10:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Despite the constant claims of "neomodernism" and progression past modernism or high modernism or any of the subjects being discussed, no progression past modernism has been made. In terms of philosophy there is an undeniable arc in which a progression very clearly exists, starting with Plato, and ending now in Modernism. Due to Modernism's goal of departing from scoial norms, a progression past it is hard to realize or fathom, and thus no progression has yet been found, despite its obvious existance. It seems hard to fathom that philosophy has reached its end, and that is not at all the claim, simply that modernism is the last advance that has been made. this can easily be compared to when the world was introduced to existentialism, to think of anything beyond it was unfathomable, until Kierkregard and Neitzche exapnded forth and paved the way for modernism to exist. Such intermediate philosophies are necessary to any progression of thought, and sadly no such transition has yet occured from modernism.


 * All very nice, and no doubt Habermas would concur, yet this is a debate that is far from settled. Personally I like Heiner Müller's comment that the only postmodernist he ever knew was a modernist who lived above a post office, but that's hardly the last word. To compare Deleuze or Negri's philosophy with Adorno's (say) is to mark a pretty significant transition. And then there' the real subsumption of society or the becoming-total of capitalist society in terms of shifts in the mode of production. Something is certainly different. DionysosProteus 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Explicitly to the right"
I think it may be unfair to lump W.B. Yeats in that category, considering his views were much more ambiguous than that. Wikipedia's own article on Yeats even details how he wrote a letter to Pablo Neruda supporting the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War.
 * Indeed, this also begs the wider question was Yeats a modernist? Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:59, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Modernism as a "project" has one aim no matter who, what "ism," when, or where: Modernism is an attempt to rescue a dying present by returning to a living past.


 * Please Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 23:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say he was a modernist. See: William Butler Yeats. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Only one strand looks to the past. Many (erm, Futurism, Constructivism, Bauhaus) are fixated on the future. Burn the libraries. DionysosProteus 00:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of modernism
modernism as a movement in the arts, 1929, from modern (q.v.). The word dates to 1737 in the sense of "deviation from the ancient and classical manner" [Johnson, who calls it "a word invented by Swift"]. It has been used in theology since 1901.

Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=modern

--Jahsonic 08:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge
Put me down as against merging "the modern project" which is a much more specific phrase. Stirling Newberry 02:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

In other languages
Some mention should be done of Catalan Modernisme architecture and Spanish-language Modernismo literature. If they are not related to this sense, a top note should disambiguate.

--Ddawkins73 (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Added a top note linking to them.

Victorian? Anlocentrism
I am very doubtful of this use for "Victorian" as a general term. Is it correct to use the term outside the context of the British empire? Do Germans talk about the mid-late 19th century as "Victorian?" My impression was that French, at least, distinguish according to Republic and Empire and King. I don't know about Germans, but I expect much the same.

What do others think?

Yours,

Nitangae


 * Germans call it (in political contexts) "Kaiserzeit" (1871-1918) (Age of the Emperor) and "Weimarer Republik" (1919-1933 (Weimar Republic). But when referring to Art it is "Gründerzeit", "Jugendstil" and "Bauhaus". So the term may be anglo-centric, but as there is no universal term and this is the english wikipedia, i would use the wording "victorian".--ExplicitImplicity 00:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

the term "modernist project"
The heading itself is a loose and artificial grouping, but that doesn't mean it's a useless or inaccurate one. The idea I think is that if one needs a comprehensive definition of Modernism one has that entry, but if one wants a brief or or succinct list of important figures and movements in contrast to postmodernism, then this entry serves that need. It began as an unexplored link in a phrase from another entry, IIRC.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.127.129 (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

High Modernism
Why does this article claim that "high modernism" is post WWII? From everything I've been taught, it's usually considered to be early 20th century -- 1910 - 1930s or so. Joyce, Rilke, Faulkner, Proust, Woolf, et cetera.


 * It actually says, "high modernism began to merge with consumer culture after World War II"--which sort of implies the death of "high" modernism... It could be a lot more clear, though, and the term "high modernism" didn't even come up before then.  I think 1910-1930 are the dates generally given for it, if you want to make an edit.


 * The term high modernism in the visual arts usually refers to the postwar period. Paul B 13:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It was my understanding that Modernism took place between, say, 1905 and the war, and High Modernism followed after the war. - Rainwarrior 16:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We do have an article on High modernism. It's a term that's mostly used in the visual arts, but it does also apply to other phenomena of extreme systematised modernist ideology, such as Total Serialism, aleatory music etc. Paul B 00:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Which were more or less postwar developments. (This is also how I've seen "High modernism" used in musical context.) I think the relationship between "High modernism" and "High baroque" suggests the same. The principles of modernism took on something like a distilled purity after the war. - Rainwarrior 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous contributors are absolutely right to suggest that the material here is confusing. "High modernism" is every bit as common in describing literature as it is in describing the visual arts, but it doesn't describe the same characteristics and it certainly doesn't evoke the same time period. In literature, "high modernism" means essentially the twenties (Joyce, Proust, Woolf, Faulkner, as the contributor at the top suggests) and possibly the thirties, but not the postwar period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atom48 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Visual media
This page really needs some images, sounds, gallerys, etc. etc. Cacophony 01:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Word. At least a few pictures! Jobjörn 00:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Greenberg quote
Can somebody check the Clem Greenberg quote that starts the Beginnings of Modernism section? It's open-ended. Ewulp 05:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That was quick -- Thanks Jobjörn! Ewulp 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) Modernism is one the pages I continously watch for vandalism and errors. No edit to it goes unnoticed - and not any edit on the talk page either. As my summer vacation recently begun, but the summer life hasn't yet begun, I'm on Wikipedia most of the day, fixing stuff. Long live the Free Encyclopedia! Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 23:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Modernist project here
There's been a tag on Modernist project since January, 2006 suggesting it be merged into this article. So far only one person's commented on it (oppose). Does anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? If no one wants to merge then you can remove the tag. Tocharianne 16:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the merge. I've made Modernist project a separate article again. Bus stop 12:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Literary modernists
Sigrid Hjertén is in the wrong place. She was a painter not a writer. I'll delete her from the list, but she might find a place elsewhere in the article. I know Tyler Kiefner, Zack Sasnow and Kevin Blackey are very notable writers, so I'll be sure to keep them here. In fact, they should get their own article, they're so amazing. Any relevant information about them would be appreciated. --Ethicoaestheticist 14:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Descent of the Modernists" image
This image is perfect for the "reception and controversy" section, which talks about modernism's rejection of tradition, and anti-modernists associating it with a rejection of spirituality. Any thoughts? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2007-05-04 13:00Z


 * The header at the top of this article clearly states that it does not discuss theological modernism, which has a profoundly different meaning from modernism in the arts (that is the arts as a whole, not just visual art). It is obvious that Bryan is not complaining about the effects of avant-garde paintings, imagist poetry and atonal music. Paul B 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Straight from the article: "Modernism encouraged the re-examination of every aspect of existence, from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was "holding back" progress, and replacing it with new, progressive and therefore better, ways of reaching the same end." This article isn't just about art, it's about modernism in general, and its widespread effects. Would you also say that religious folks in the US were opposed to the overall break from tradition that was occurring in the 50s and 60s, but that they never associated it with the art of the time (rock and roll)? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-05-04 17:01Z


 * This article is not about denying the infallibility of the bible; the virgin birth or the Doctrine of Atonement - all listed as aspects of "modernism" by Bryan. It is very clear what he is talking about, and it is not what this article is talking about. Yes, in a very very loose sense modernism in the arts is connected to forms of questioning of tradition in many areas, but that does not justify the inclusion of images that are about specifics of theology unrelated to the actual content of the article. Paul B 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added it to Modernism (Roman Catholicism). &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-05-04 17:24Z

Optimistic?
As a literary critic I find it hard to accept the term "optimistic" connected with modernism. Modernist esthetics are (as mention as one of the 8 Conditions of modernism, above) more than anything deeply negative. Some literary theorist or another has actually stated that modernism defines esthetics in purely negative terms. A Swedish critic wrote (in admiration) that the true modernist poet demonstrate the meaningless of life. Adorno and others explicitly condemn humour: the only valuable art is the art that never let us forget the ultimate terror of a cruel world. One of the most distinguished literary genres of the Modernist epoque is the epiphany, where the indivdual is confronted with the assumpted total lack of meaning. Even in politics and social science, one might argue, the "optimism" is connected to Utopia: Science might solve all problems – but not until tomorrow. Today, the World is always a nasty place. The abovementioned 8 Conditions migh have some relevance – though in my opinion, the very core of modernism is a total dependence on metaphysics: What's real and valuable is always somewhere else. The world and life as we preceive it is but a reflection of a primary world, whether we see this in religion, philosophy or (preferably) in science. Modernist estethics seems to me like a collective death wish... -- Linkomfod 16:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that this is a problematic description to say the least. I am a literature grad student and came to this page because one of my students cited the following passage in her paper:

"It is a trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation, and is thus in its essence both progressive and optimistic."

This not only seems to be inaccurate, it is precisely the opposite of what literary critics and literature teachers will tell you about Modernism. Even worse, it clearly runs counter to the tone and subject matter of most Modernist authors. I hate to sound dictatorial in my readings, but I don't see how you could possibly read most of TS Eliot's, DH Lawrence's, Wyndham Lewis', Joyce's, Faulkner's, or Kafka's work (all cited in the article as sterling examples of Modernism) and think "progressive and optimistic." If anything, as you seem to indicate with the death drive claim, they are morose and apocalyptic.

I think whoever wrote that must be primarily an art scholar and is thinking mostly of movements like Futurism, which is fairly anomalous in terms of the broader range of movements collected under the term "Modernism." Large sections of this article definitely need to be gone over by someone who has a grasp on Modernism in a wide array of the contexts is is used in. 75.54.235.237 23:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)MOB


 * I would suggest that you may be defining modernism too narrowly - that is, according to literary criteria. It is not just with the visual arts that the literary definition conflicts; you'd be hard put to define theatrical and dramatic modernism in purely negative terms - and Adorno never did cope with the most important materialist modernist writer - Brecht, who along with Piscator, Meyerhold, Mayakovsky, and a whole host of others, offer a version of modernism that is not purely 'negative'. It's the English literary modernists who are anomalous in terms of the wider cultural movement. Along with Futurism, you'd have to dismiss Surrealism, Constructivism, Eccentricism, social Expressionism. The literary examples you cite - Eliot, Joyce, Kafka, (you forgot Beckett too) - are only one strand of modernism - precisely, the negative one (and elitist, ivory tower one too). Ibsen, Strindberg, Chekhov all have positive, socially-crusading aspects; the Symbolists want to heal society through a ritual participatory theatre, as does Artaud. Eisenstein, Vertov, Pudovkin in cinema. the Bauhaus (not just art, just design, theatre). To say that Futurism is anomalous is to offer a pretty one-dimensional portrait. There's nothing inaccurate about the statement your student quoted; it describes a major part of modernism (we haven't even mentioned architecture). To align modernism with meaninglessness is to perform a highly politicised operation on the wider cultural history. The comments about the political dimensions of modernism completely ignore the most important political event of the period - the Soviet revolution! The Russian avant-garde thought they were building a new world - not waiting for one in the distant future - paint the streets now. That Stalin murdered most of them doesn't change that. And to identify modernism with metaphysics completely obscures the major materialist dimensions. Of course, a Marxist analysis (in a different strand to Adorno, that is) might suggest that the death wish is experienced by a particular 'class' of artists - Eliot's terror in the face of a soup tin. A few caveats before you start re-writing, at least...
 * DionysosProteus 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't forget Beckett. I could have catalogued a great many more authors generally accepted as modernist, who aren't at all "progressive and optimistic," and who aren't English, just as Beckett and 3 of the 6 authors I originally mentioned aren't. You, on the other hand, appear to have forgotten that you said in another post on this page that "Modernism exists most highly within the writings of Joyce, Eliot, and Proust, and for one to even begin to fathom modernism one must first master these authors" before dismissing those same authors  as "anomalous...elitist [and] ivory tower" when I mentioned them. Seeing that you can't bother to read closely enough to recognize that the post you are writing is in response to entries written by two different people (I said nothing of Adorno or metaphysics), I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that you entirely missed the point. Name dropping was not the point; not mine anyway. The point was that the authors I mentioned by name constitute about half of a bulleted list of authors cited as prime examples of modernism in the article ostensibly under discussion (a citation you appear to either agree or disagree with depending on the moment). Not one of the authors you mentioned in "rebuttal" is on that list. If you think that there are separate literary sub-movements within modernism that are "progressive and optimistic," then add a sub-section, write a list of authors within these movements, and explain how they are such (though I must confess that Ibsen's optimism is lost on me). It is, however, unacceptable to say that Eliot, Lawrence, etc, etc are "progressive and optimistic"--you yourself agreed that they aren't--and that is what this article directly implies by the way that it is written. That means the student who quoted this article while writing a paper about one of the authors I listed in the previous entry was wrong, by your admission as well as mine.

With regard to narrowness, my entire point was that modernism means many different things in many different disciplines. The article as it stands reads as though there is an overarching coherence between modernism in these different fields of study, and our conversation, if nothing else, indicates that that is not the case. I can tell you that this article does not reflect the views toward modernist literature that are almost universally presented in an undergraduate English survey class. That is the level of neutrality and complexity of information that ought to be appearing in an encyclopedia; complication of the matter by arguing for the differing interpretations of literary modernism floating around the field at a graduate or professional level constitutes original research and is not appropriate. Read the "Modernism" entry in the Bedford or Oxford glossaries of critical terms, or any of the major literature anthologies in use; "progressive and optimistic" is nowhere near the overriding demeanor discussed within them. Since I am not an expert in as vast an array of disciplines as you clearly seem to think you are, I will not re-write sections about painting, sculpture, or architecture. If the majority of scholars in those fields agree that they feel modernism in their discipline is "progressive and optimistic" (though I doubt this), then let it stand for those sections. This article does, however, need to clearly point out that modernism means many things in different disciplines, and that some definitions even contradict each other, offering each definition section by section.63.145.177.101 22:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)MOB


 * You are confused about what I have written here, though understandably, since the post way up above wasn't signed by whoever wrote it and I added only the last sentence to which my name is attached (and forgot to indent it). If you read them closely, that should be clear. I certainly wouldn't say that you can't understand modernism without reading Proust etc. That those mentioned are elitist is a pretty standard observation, not a dismissal. I like them very much, but the relationship their work establishes between art and society is only one within modernism, and within literary modernism at that. My post wasn't just responding to yours but to all of those in the discussion - hence Adorno. That the artists I mention aren't 'on the list' is a problem with the list, since Piscator, Meyerhold, Mayakovsky etc. are major figures in c20th theatre. And you don't see Ibsen's optimism?!? The major prose works and their relation to social movements also lost on you? And your suggestion to make it a 'sub-category' misses the point that you are trying to define the field in literary terms, and narrow ones at that, given that many of the theatre people I've mentioned would have to be included (the dramatists, that is). Of course Eliot isn't progressive. That doesn't mean modernism isn't. Your attempt to draw a distinction between undergrad and postgrad is misleading; an undergrad drama class wouldn't define it in your terms, and by most definitions drama is part of the literary field. Consequently, the confusion that arises from the complexity of modernism can't be solved by your suggestion to observe differences between media. Look at the way modernism is defined in Modernism: An Anthology of Sources, for example, which arises from a literature department. The differences aren't tidied by the discipline boundaries. DionysosProteus 16:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my confusion; a knee-jerk reaction against condescension tends to make me hasty, and the first few lines of that post before yours were rubbish enough that I didn't read through the rest carefully. I would maintain that, if you are responding to several posts, you should make that more clear.  Interspersing sentences responding to me with responses to others makes it seem like you either thought the posts were written by the same person or are holding me accountable for the philosophical and political beliefs of others who I happen to agree with on an unrelated point.  Either is irksome.  With regard to elitism, I am well aware that the charge is frequently made, and I may agree.  However, I do not see how bringing this up is relevant to the question at hand: those authors are significant in the movement and are misrepresented.  Whether or not either of us thinks they are elitist or either of us personally likes them is a pointless discussion.  With regard to Ibsen, I really shouldn't have indulged in that aside (I thought about editing it out after writing, but for integrity's sake, didn't) as my interest in my original post is not critical or theoretical debate.  I will say that outlining a program of social reform and a belief in the possibility of improvement do not strike me as necessarily progressive or optimistic.  A social reformer can just as easily be a reactionary in a progressive society, and because one wants to see a greater society forged doesn't mean that one thinks that it will be.  I offer this only as a gesture toward explanation of my statement.  The ensuing conversation would likely focus on either the semantics of the terms "progressive" and "optimistic" or differing critical interpretations of Ibsen's writing.  My concerns are much more utilitarian.  Therefore, I'll concede the point if I must do so for my concerns to be addressed.


 * My point, which you have still avoided addressing directly, is that the article implies an incorrect understanding of the authors on that list. You seem to agree that many of the aspects of modernism discussed in the article do not apply to those authors, so I do not understand the purpose of your posts.  I am a Literature instructor, so I do not want to see authors in the article misrepresented  to beginning students.  That is all.  I haven't discussed other fields at length because I have not studied them in depth.  This does not mean I privilege literature, only that I speak from where my knowledge and interest lie.  I agree that the list is incomplete, and since I will freely admit that you seem to know more of 20th century European theater than I do, I encourage you to rectify that.  But the authors I mentioned must be represented appropriately as well.  I am also puzzled by your continued claim that I am privileging a literary perspective, and a narrow one at that.  I have repeatedly acknowledged that modernism means many things in many mouths, and nowhere have I said that a literary understanding is superior to others. I only wish to see the authors on that list represented correctly.  If we agree that modernism has multiple valences within the field of literature itself, then how else should this be addressed other than sub-sections under the modernist literature category, one addressing the dismayed, interior, and apocalyptic, and the other addressing the progressive, exterior, and optimistic?


 * If all we're quibbling over is how to make the division (since you seem to agree that the authors I mention are not represented appropriately), then why not have that conversation? I cannot abide by your claim that it is national, since, as I have pointed out, many of those both of us have mentioned are not English or even British (speaking of politically charged assertions, how about lumping in 20th century Irish authors with the English?).  There are too many Latin-American, US, Canadian, and even Continental European literary modernists of the variety I am speaking of to uphold the nationalist claim.  You say that the difference is not disciplinary, but the counter examples you provide are for the most part known primarily as dramatists, filmmakers, or visual artists.  How are we to make the distinction?  Eye-color?  All "isms" are inadequate to fully explain all of the thinkers sometimes associated with them; there will always be "yes, but..." attached.  Divisions in such broad strokes are almost necessarily the domain of a basic understanding.  Hence, my undergradtuate/postgraduate distinction.  Undergrads and laymen laboriously struggle to understand the precise definition of an "ism."  Postgrads know that there is no precise definition and that "modernism" means little without significant qualification attached.  I suspect you would prefer to divide different strains of modernism by philosophical/aesthetic criteria.  We could all argue on this page over the positions of Adorno, Brecht, Kojeve, Lukacs, and whoever else, but we would miss the forest for the trees.  The student who comes here simply wanting to understand the term for an article they must read in class, or the laymen who is curious after seeing the term in a book/art/film review would be lost in the critical infighting over theorists they have never heard of and walk away without a basic concept of "modernism."  An "ism" is always a basic concept, so that is what they want and need.  If this particular "ism" means different basic things in different contexts, then the article should discuss the basic meaning in different contexts.  Your objection of Modernism: An Anthology of Sources is strange indeed.  So, a book devoted solely to explaining modernism explores the concept more in depth than an entry in a broader compendium of concepts does?  I'm shocked.  This is, however, an online encyclopedia--not a website devoted to modernism--and literary modernism should be explored the way it is in the major glossaries and anthologies within that field.75.54.235.237 03:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)MOB


 * I think you misunderstand my point about the anthology of sources; it's a major anthology that portrays 'modernism'--and modernist literature specifically--with the kind of breadth and appreciation of differences and contradictions that I'm suggesting ought to be found in this article; that is, a movement that includes significant 'optimistic' as well as 'progressive' strands. I was recommending the anthology as a good example of an appropriate version of literary modernism that this article would do well to follow. You say "literary modernism should be explored the way it is in the major glossaries and anthologies within that field"; well, that depends on which major anthology etc. you read. That anthology is fairly recent, and differs from the much older, 'traditional' (Anglo-American) portraits of literary modernism; it recognises, within literature, those elements or qualities to which both Linkomfod and you objected in the original posts. It's not alone in this; just off the top of my head, there's also Raymond Williams's two tendencies of modernism: the subjective and retreating (often) and the social and progressive/optimistic (to simplify his argument greatly).


 * My posts weren't specifically addressed to you but were made in a public forum in which I expressed my understanding. No accountability for the views of others is implied.


 * The original posts here complained that modernism is "deeply" or "purely" negative, orientated philosophically towards 'meaninglessness', a non-comic view of the world, only 'optimistic' in relation to an imagined future 'utopia', dependent on metaphysics, and expressing a "collective death wish"; you continued by objecting to the statement: "It is a trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation, and is thus in its essence both progressive and optimistic"; and argued that this "clearly runs counter to the tone and subject matter of most Modernist authors"; My post objects to all of this! "Most" modernist authors!?! Only if defined narrowly. "Metaphysical"? What about all those materialists? Only utopia? Yet the Soviets actively remake their world through modernism here and now in the wake of the revolution, as do the Bauhaus etc. Even if you take an author like Beckett, who is unambiguously 'negative', to argue that his work expresses a collective death wish or is metaphysically-founded is highly contentious and, in my view, does his work a great disservice (both the drama and the prose). The same goes for Kafka; compare Deleuze & Guattari's 'Kafka' to Adorno's, for example, and Kafka emerges as a joyful writer.


 * Yes, I did cite dramatists to substantiate my argument about literature, but if one attempts to define literary modernism, they have to be included; same goes for Mayakovsky's poetry, Auden's, Brecht's too. So the disciplinary boundaries will not make these conflicting definitions disappear; what is required is a description of the field that includes the contradictions; both of the original posts argued against this, suggesting that the 'optimistic' description should be replaced with a 'negative' one. The frustration that appears to lie behind your 'do it on the basis of eye colour'? is a frustration with the contradictory nature of literary modernism; it does include 'optimistic' and/or 'progressive' dimensions, despite Eliot, Pound and the rest.


 * My 'national' argument wasn't specific, it's true, but rather was an attempt to recognise that the purely 'negative' definition is in line with a dated Anglo-American academic attitude, which depends for its coherence on, broadly speaking, the exclusion of many 'continental' versions of modernism, as well as an exclusive focus on a certain literary versions instead of recognising their place in a cultural field that includes the cinema, performance, drama, music, architecture, etc.


 * Even the lowly undergraduates are capable of appreciating the complexity of this cultural field and of locating Eliot or Brecht (as examples of a contradictory pair of literary modernists) within that field. Pitching a definition to undergraduates does not require the simplification and distortions that the two original posts proposed. It's not merely that it means different things to different disciplines, nor is an appreciation of the conflictual nature of literary modernism beyond the grasp of your average undergraduate. The evidence, albeit it a little anecdotal, is to be found in the Anthology of Sources that I cited (which is why I cited it); that comes out of the University of Edinburgh, where they manage to teach modernist literature to undergraduates with an appreciation of the kind of complexity and diversity for which I'm arguing. Your original post argued that Futurism is marginal to that understanding, yet that its manifesto on the front page of Le Monde (if i remember correctly) suggests otherwise. With regards to the example of your student, there's nothing wrong with their use of that sentence; the problem comes when they're unable to relate Eliot or whoever to that dimension appropriately, given that his aesthetic runs counter to that progressive trend.


 * You don't need to be an expert in cinema or architecture or whatever; go watch an Eisenstein film and then try to make the arguments about modernism in the two original posts; read an essay by Brecht and repeat. Recognising the diversity and complexity of modernism doesn't require the intellectual specialisation nor sophistication that you suggest it does. My undergraduate training managed to take in a broad array of disciplines as a context to the dramatists and theatre-makers that we studied, and many literature students get a similar experience. Your later post does indeed recognise something of all this ("If we agree that modernism has multiple valences within the field of literature itself, then how else should this be addressed other than sub-sections under the modernist literature category, one addressing the dismayed, interior, and apocalyptic, and the other addressing the progressive, exterior, and optimistic?"); that position is quite different from the one presented in the original post, which is what I objected to.


 * Distinguishing the different and often conflicting social relations and aesthetic approaches within 'modernism' is a necessity even for the casual browser looking to contextualise the book they've just read or painting observed; this doesn't require heavy philosophical or theoretical commentary or a familiarity with Adorno or whoever (I only mentioned him in the first place because the original post did). The -ism of modernism of course requires a concise reduction of sorts; all of my posts have been motivated by the recognition that the reduction proposed in the original posts would be inappropriate. If I look at a Diego Rivera mural or watch Brecht's Saint Joan or Ibsen's A Doll's House or read a poem by Mayakovsky and then turn to the definitions that the original posts proposed, I would be confused indeed. DionysosProteus 11:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From my original post: "Large sections of this article definitely need to be gone over by someone who has a grasp on Modernism in a wide array of the contexts is is used in." Wide array of contexts.  This is neither exclusionary nor totalizing; it is an acknowledgement that the term means many things and an assertion that the article should reflect that, which it does not.  From you: "Yes, I did cite dramatists to substantiate my argument about literature, but if one attempts to define literary modernism, they have to be included; same goes for Mayakovsky's poetry, Auden's, Brecht's too. So the disciplinary boundaries will not make these conflicting definitions disappear; what is required is a description of the field that includes the contradictions."  I have not, at any point, argued for the exclusion of these authors, or the strain of modernism you argue for. I have said, in fact, in my original response to you, the post after that, and will continue to say in this one, that the grouping of authors you speak of has every right to be mentioned in the article and differentiated from the dated, ethnocentric, culturally chauvinist, proto-fascist, [insert ad-hominem here] strain of "anglo-american" modernism.  Your entire objection at this point seems to be swinging on the fact that I said "most modernist authors" as opposed to "a great many" or "several significant."  Which is more appropriate would, I suppose, require enumeration of every vaguely modernist author either of us could think of until one of us ran out of steam and then seeing which list was numerically superior.  Such a pissing contest is, of course, utterly beside the point.


 * Let's return to the original quote that brought me here:""It is a trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation, and is thus in its essence both progressive and optimistic." Does this statement, in the introduction to the article, acknowledge that there are other significant sub-movements within modernism that are contradictory to this trend?  No.  It, in fact, says that "progressive and optimistic" is the essence of modernism.  This strictly implies, I would think, that an author who expresses opposite sentiments can't be modernist.  However, we both agree that this is not the case.  So, my liberatory friend, this article is exclusionary as it is now written.  That.  Is.  My.  Point.  One that you, a few thousand words later, have still not directly addressed.  I want the article to accurately explain the authors I have mentioned; that it, in fact, mentions as the primary examples of modernism.  This has nothing, nada, zilch, ZERO to do with how the article explains Brecht, Meyerhold, Piscator, and whichever Leninists you want to bring up.  By all means, explain their utopian optimism, as long as the pessimists get their description too.  So.  A few points that I'll re-iterate so that we can see the thrust of what I've been trying to say for far too long now.  Because I'm growing tired of repeating myself, I'll boldface them so they stand out.
 * '''1. I am not--repeat, NOT--saying that the authors you mention should be ignored in the article.
 * 2. I AM saying that the article does not accurately describe the authors I have mentioned, along with many others. You seem to have agreed with this.
 * 3. Those authors, ivory tower elitists though they may be, are historically significant figures associated with modernism.
 * 4. Therefore, the article should include a section (all I have argued for from the beginning) that accurately describes them'''.
 * Is this controversial??


 * So, it remains, that the only point of contention I can see is how to categorize the distinction. That is a productive conversation, and worth having.  Your projections of elitism against undergrads and laymen is disingenuous in the extreme.  My point was never that they coudln't understand the discourse, only that the discourse would not be serving the purposes of an encyclopedic reference.  Your statements regarding Kafka are a prime example.  Yes, I am familiar with Delueze and Guattari's book.  I am also familiar with Benjamin's essay, which they shamelessly crib without citation for the first several chapters of the book before coming to a conclusion very much at odds with his.  Those French post-strucs never did like giving credit where it was due, especially when giving it might weaken their argument; at least Bensmaia had the integrity to acknowledge the connection in her introduction.  Only Delueze would have the audactity or genius (depending on your theoretical affiliations) to argue that a man whose personal writings are wracked with self-doubt, neurosis, and existential despair, and whose creative works are filled with protagonists who are murdered, mutilated, hideously transfigured, and/or utterly broken in spirit, is a joyful author.  And here we are, again, arguing for different critical interpretations based upon differing theoretical texts that only professional academics read.  This is the crux of the undergrad/postgrad distinction.  To call Kafka a joyous author is a politicized, esoteric, and contentious reading (something you accuse others of frequently).  This does not make it invalid, but it does put it beyond the scope of encyclopedic neutrality.  Professionals don't read encyclopedias of critical terms, or, at least, that is only the starting point, followed up by a great deal of primary source research.  Encyclopedic entries are basic summaries of a concept that may suggest further reading on the subject if one wishes to deepen their knowledge (i.e. to enter the level of discourse you seem to expect in the article itself).  Thus, encyclopedic entries are by their nature exclusive to some degree as far as someone well versed in the primary source research is concerned.  This is the purpose of a distinction between undergrad/postgrad (or laymen/expert, if you like). To support a reading of Kafka, Svevo, Borges, Arlt, or any of the Latin-American authors who straddle modernism and the post-WWII period in both style and chronology--which you must do in order to isolate the strand I have spoken of as "Anglo-American"--you would have to do a great deal of in-depth critical legwork. An undergrad/laymen who went around saying that Kafka wore rose-colored glasses without being aware that the assertion is dependent on a controversial reading by actuely political theorists would never be taken seriously.  This is a disservice.  An undergrad/laymen who described Kafka as morose and pessimistic, on the other hand, would at most be accused of not having read the secondary Kafka literature to the extent that a professional has.


 * I am arguing a few very utilitarian things. 1) That a great many (not "most!") significant authors are misrepresented in this article. 2)That said authors are significant enough to be represented appropriately.  Please do be so kind as to state whether or not you agree with these first two claims in your next post, as they are the only impetus to my even having this discussion with you.  Finally, 3)The article thus requires revision.  I would think that last follows clearly from the first two.  If we are in agreement there, then obviously a discussion with regard to how to make the revision is in order.  I will reiterate, for the umpteenth time, that this does not mean that either the authors you are discussing, or any directors, artists, and architects need to be excluded or misrepresented.  I have said from the beginning that we need separate discussions of separate strands of modernism.  Yes?  You argue for a national, or "Anglo-American" distinction, and my comments with regard to anthologies and undergrad/postgrad distinction have been meant as steps towards saying that is inadequate.  We cannot have that conversation, however, until there is acknowledgement of the very simple points in boldface and repeated in this paragraph.  If you are that wholly incapable of acknowledging that someone you don't care for has made a valid point, I suppose I'll have to leave you to your misrepresentative article, and simply continue handing out "rewrites" to students who struggle to explain how Eliot is progressive and optimistic because Wikipedia told them he is, and they assume the article must be right.  That's the kind of outdated, reactionary instructor I am.75.54.235.237 23:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)MOB


 * Calm down, dear, and re-read the original postings, to which I was responding. They quite unambiguously propose to re-write the definition of modernism exclusively in 'negative' terms. You said: (1) that statement about the progressive tendencies was inaccurate, (2) the opposite of what literature teachers will tell you about modernism, and (3) "even worse" counter to most authors. You claimed that (4) Futurism is "anomalous in terms of the broader range of movements collected under the term 'Modernism.'" None of that is accurate. Now re-read my original posting... it ends by saying that I was offering some caveats before you re-wrote. You see? No denial of negativity - see my descriptions of Beckett. No denial that Eliot is a reactionary old plagarist or that Pound marched to Mussolini's tune. You've created a straw opponent to get all het-up over. You say "I have not, at any point, argued for the exclusion of these authors, or the strain of modernism you argue for", yet points (1)-(4) certainly seem to be doing just that and the first post states it explicitly. It's hardly hanging on your use of 'most' authors alone... How can futurism be marginal to 'modernism' for heaven's sake!?! It's archetypal! There's no need to construct a balance-sheet of trends; a simple description of the field is all I'm suggesting.


 * I don't argue for an Anglo-American distinction - read my posts more carefully. I say that the exclusively-negative description is a symptom of a dated Anglo-American academic trend; the original nationality thing was vague and general, but a useful starting point; I wasn't proposing its use in the article!


 * You say "this article is exclusionary as it is now written. That. Is. My. Point." Why didn't you make that point in your first post then? You didn't say 'exclusionary', "this description needs to be qualified / supplemented with the other, more negative trends", did you? At no point have I defended a bias in the article for an exclusive focus on progressive tendencies. That's your projection. You say "the article should include a section (all I have argued for from the beginning)", etc. But that's not what you argued for and not what I responded to. See above!


 * I assume by 'Leninists' you mean 'modernists'; a rookie mistake. As far as the portrait of D&G goes, that is disingenuous; the old 'your politics make you political, mine are not' switcher-roo. All of the 'readings' you describe are positioned in one way or another; none is merely 'factual' or 'objective'. This doesn't mean that any of them are "beyond the scope of encyclopedic neutrality" - rather, they all need to be located. That your argument about Kafka wouldn't hold water with Beckett demonstrates my original point. If our imaginary layman were to go around describing Beckett's work as indicative of a morose, apocalyptic, metaphysically-founded collective death wish, s/he'd deserve to be made to stand in the corner in shame; if you can read the trilogy without laughing out loud on every other page, you shouldn't be reading it.


 * The final paragraph of your response gets very strange indeed; you demand an acknowledgment of your emboldened points, yet at no point have I made any argument that disputes them in any way! I offered caveats to the original proposals. You say "I have said from the beginning that we need separate discussions of separate strands of modernism", but if you re-read the original postings, you'll see that that simply is not that case, nor have I said anything that would contradict such a proposal. What I have said is that those strands are not delineated by disciplinary boundaries. Your postings have argued that they are (once you acknowledged the existence of the others). I don't and haven't argued for an Anglo-American distinction. As you yourself have described elsewhere, something along the lines of social and aesthetic approaches makes most sense. The pessimistic, inner-directed, elitist tendencies appear on the continent too. That final sentence is almost operatic in its false dramatization. If you had made the points you now make in the first post, I would have acknowledged them, but you didn't! See points (1)-(4)! I said "The literary examples you cite - Eliot, Joyce, Kafka, (you forgot Beckett too) - are only one strand of modernism - precisely, the negative one (and elitist, ivory tower one too)"; sounds like an acknowledgment of the appropriateness of a negative description for them to me! You're projecting my criticisms of the original posts back onto me, quite inappropriately. I didn't argue for an exclusive focus on optimism or progressiveness, merely that an exclusively negative version is inaccurate. You said "the differing interpretations of literary modernism floating around the field at a graduate or professional level constitutes original research and is not appropriate"; that is simply inaccurate. The kind of description I have encouraged is to be found at undergraduate-level teaching and is far from constituting 'original research'. At no point did I argue against the idea that the "article implies an incorrect understanding of the authors on that list"; but that wasn't your argument. You spoke of the definition of "modernism."  You say "I have not, at any point, argued for the exclusion of these authors, or the strain of modernism you argue for", yet "futurism is anomalous", etc. It has nothing to do with whether I 'care for' you or not; I've responded to the arguments presented, that's all. When you've expressed a valid point, I have not argued with it, but attempted to clarify my position (which has been subject to considerable confusion during the course of the exchanges, if you review them). Perhaps rather than punishing your students ignorance, you might include an appreciation of the conflicts within literature or, heaven forfend, culture more generally, in your own instruction? A Leninist a day keeps the apocalyptic metaphysics away. DionysosProteus 02:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I will quote my original post for the second time, making it the third time this text has appeared: "Large sections of this article definitely need to be gone over by someone who has a grasp on Modernism in a wide array of the contexts i[t] is used in."  [Corrected the typographical error this time].  I really don't see how I could have been more explicit in stating that modernism has a wide variety of meanings, ALL of which should be included.  Believe it or not, this has been my point from the get-go.  You clearly did not understand this from what you read, and that may be because of my poor rhetorical choices at the outset, or it may be because of your misreading.  I have my opinions on that matter, but rather than continue the current trend of picking apart each other's posts in a forum inappropriate for such things--and I do have responses to your latest interpretations of my posts--I'd rather dismiss the intellectual grandstanding and focus on the task at hand.  The misunderstanding arose from somewhere, but we seem to have found a common ground regardless, which is what is most relevant to editing this article.  I will confine myself to two responses, then.  One, I must admit, is still pride, the other, I suspect, will become relevant to the conversation I hope ensues.
 * 1) This is pride. You said: "Perhaps rather than punishing your students ignorance, you might include an appreciation of the conflicts within literature or, heaven forfend, culture more generally, in your own instruction?"  Not only is your casting aspersions on my teaching a vituperative personal attack on one of the activities I hold most dear, it is also, once again, completely disingenuous.  I did not punish her.  Punishing would have been a "fail."  I instead gave a "re-write," which I said I would not give, because I could see how she made the mistake, based upon the fact that the reference source she used--one that is trusted by students of her generation--was clearly inaccurate (which you agree with).  I could see why she would make the mistake in her position.  I wanted to prevent such mishaps for myself and others, and that is why I came here in the first place.  As far as "including appreciation of conflicts within literature" goes, you are far outside your element, not having seen the syllabus or attended lectures.  She tried to explain in good faith, based upon what this article told her, that Eliot was "progressive and optimistic."  You yourself agreed that this is quite inaccurate.  Whether or not other discussion and reading within the class I taught emphasized more optimistic assessments of human progress or society (which it did) is beside the point.  The paper made wholly untenable assertions about Eliot, largely because of the way this article is written (her capacity for close-reading itself was not unskilled), and you agree with the unacceptable nature of the assertions as much as I do: Eliot being "a reactionary old plagarist," and all.
 * 2) This is the one with more substance as far as the task at hand is concerned. You said: "I assume by 'Leninists' you mean 'modernists'; a rookie mistake." Well, that's a bad assumption.  You also said: "Yet the Soviets actively remake their world through modernism here and now in the wake of the revolution."  This was merely the first place I ran across such a statement in re-reading the posts (which I have done several times).  You've claimed Brecht, etc as well as Soviet authors who believed they were building utopia are being excluded on more than one occasion.  "Leninists" was meant to refer to Soviets of the 1920s who supported the utopian ideals of the Russian Revolution: a fairly specific designation. Calling supporters of Lenin's revolution Leninist seems rather apt, especially when you seem to insist upon delineating supporters of Benjamin's or the Frankfurt School's Marxism as an entirely different political animal than other strains.  I'm not even saying such a delineation shouldn't be made in some cases, since there were plenty of Marxists and Anarchists who began expressing doubts about the Soviet Revolution quite early, I'm only referring to the Marxist authors who supported the revolution by a term that distinguishes them from other strains of Marxism.


 * So. The article needs revision.  The interior and pessimistic authors need more adequate representation, as do the optimistic social reformers you mention.  Neither of us thinks the national, or even cultural (meaning "Anglo-American"), delineation is adequate.  Yes?  I ask again: how is the division made?  You said: "As you yourself have described elsewhere, something along the lines of social and aesthetic approaches makes most sense."  I actually didn't say this.  I said: "I suspect you [emphasis added] would prefer to divide different strains of modernism by philosophical/aesthetic criteria," before going on to say why I thought this was ill-advised. See! This lowly rookie understood your point before you made it explicitly!  The social and aesthetic criteria you mention, I assume from your posts, would be a support for the Russian Revolution.  Problem: This lumps in any Leftist thinkers who had misgivings about the revolution by the late 20s or early 30s (well within the period of modernism by most defintions) with reactionaries like Pound and Eliot.  You have also claimed the Futurists as part of the movement you are talking about, as well as tacitly acknowledging folks such as Deleuze as the succesors.  What do we make of many Futurists' support of Mussolini or of that movement's influence on Nazi propaganda techniques?  What do we make of French post-structuralism's reliance upon a philosopher who was a card-carrying member of the Nazi party?  On the other hand, you have yet to mention a single author primarily known for their prose fiction, much less enough to consitute a movement, who fits in with the trend you are proposing.  Let me put that more pointedly than I generally would, since you seem to like cherry-picking other people's posts for rebuttals: you did mention Kafka, which I responded to, which you ignored except to say that the same argument wouldn't hold up for Beckett, primarily known as a dramatist.  You have yet to acknowledge my mention of Latin-American modernists, as well as acknowledging only two poets, both of whom can be problematized in the context of the discussion we are having.  The case for a disciplinary division, so far, seems stronger than that for a philosophical one.  Your original claim that "you'd be hard put to define theatrical and dramatic modernism in purely negative terms" seems to be tenable, given a certain defintion of positivity (a politically charged one at that), but I don't understand your objections to disciplinary grounds.  Your claim that I am politically disingenuous is hardly surprising; those that politicize everything they read are wont to assign politics to anyone who states an opinion about anything.  This does not, however, in itself constitute an argument for the political boundary over the disciplinary one.  Please do explain what prose fiction authors generally accepted as modernist fall in line with the politics you speak of, or again, more pointedly, quite a few authors closely associated enough to constitute a movement rather than an anomaly.  Come up with that, and then we can propose political divisions for the article as opposed to disciplinary.  Until such time, my neophyte ass is going to assert that the division is disciplinary.75.54.235.237 09:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)MOB


 * So it's prose writers now? It was "literature" before. The dramatists and poets not included in that category? (Then stop teaching Shakespeare in the department). Your claims about the final sentence of the original post is quite a stretch given the ideas proposed--not merely the rhetorical shaping--in the rest of it; Futurism is anomalous vis-a-vis movements collected under 'mod' and the other points cited above. I didn't understand that you were not agreeing with the original post's proposals because you did not say that you disagreed. Everything you said supported that proposal and framed the Eliot-tendency as 'modernism' per se. My 'casting aspersions' responded to that self-dramatizing at the end of the last post--you described yourself as an outdated, reactionary instructor! I think describing my final sentences as a "vituperative personal attack" is just a touch hysterical, no?


 * The genealogy of Marxism within modernist artists and thinkers is far more complex that you suggest. My apologies, but I assumed you were being rhetorical and not entirely serious in labelling them 'Leninists'; that's an odd description, to say the least. Brecht wasn’t a Leninist. Piscator supported the German Communist party, but that’s not the same thing. Meyerhold supported Bolshevism, but it's weird to call him a Leninist: he was an important part of MAT's realism and he was largely responsible for the major experiments in Russian symbolism in the theatre; these are just as important within the context of a discussion of 'modernism' and very far from a Marxist, let alone 'Leninist' position. Lenin himself wasn't a fan of the modernist avant-garde. Meyerhold became a Bolshevik (once the Revolution had happened, that is), but Leninist means something very specific. Benjamin, too, supported the Revolution.


 * You misunderstand the suggestion about social and aesthetic criteria. Political affiliation doesn't get us very far at all. Artaud was a revolutionary in many ways, but parted ways with the Surrealists over their oath-swearing to communism. By 'social' I assumed we were talking about the social relations within the works of art; the relationship between 'art' and 'society' that the work establishes/presupposes/seeks; Pound wants most of us to feel dumb staring at his hieroglyphics, etc. I certainly wouldn't claim the futurists were progressive, but they were optimistic, seeking to remake the world, and also, in fact, 'apocalyptic', since the remaking was to follow in the wake of war. The Russian futurists were both progressive and optimistic. You only mentioned the Latin-Americans because you misunderstood my use of 'Anglo-American'. And as for Beckett only as a dramatist, for shame! Since when has the trilogy not been a seminal work in literary modernism? And it was the trilogy I referred to. And it was you who wanted to characterise D&G's reading of Kafka as partial and "political"; erm, where, exactly? The literature--people argument?!? I certainly wouldn't trace a Futurism--modernism--D&G genealogy. D&G clearly are not modernists; constructivists, perhaps, but postmodernist ones for sure (assuming such a thing exists at all). But they offer a reading of modernist authors that does not follow the morose and negative-orientated version of modernism offered in the original posts. Your suggestion that these readings are esoteric and post-graduate-only strikes me as odd; I read AO/Kafka/1000Ps as an undergraduate, and I'm sure I'm not alone on that.


 * The general point about disciplines: You can only make that argument by defining literature narrowly, which is what I said. Prose-only? Well, it's not my field but, erm, surrealist literature, John Dos Passos, Alfred Döblin's epic work, The Good Soldier Švejk; I'm sure research would reveal more. The main point being you can't say "modernist literature is like this..." and fail to include the many, many dramatists and poets who don't conform to the portrait offered in the original two posts. You can't make that 'Futurism as anomalous' argument either, in light of Eisenstein, Brecht, Artaud, the Bauhaus, Surrealism, Eccentricism, aspects of Russian symbolism, blah, blah; these are hardly 'minor' modernists! Bradbury & McFarlane seem to think in their Pelican Guide to European Literature book on Modernism that Modernist Drama and Poetry are part of the discipline. You disagree?


 * With regard to the article, rather than the posts on this page: yes, of course its partial, incomplete and in need of much revision. Where are the citations, for a start! It doesn't distinguish clearly enough between Marshall's old modernism-modernity-modernization triad, either. The sentence about optimism you originally objected to is framed as 'modernist thought'; that remains a fair characterisation, certainly to the extent that it's acting as a synonym for 'the thought of modernity', as it were. Notice, too, that its part of a leader for an article on 'Modernism' in the arts in general; within that context, the strand you point to is not pre-dominant; compare to theatre, drama, cinema, painting, poetry, architecture, etc. Modernism is about the New, changing the world, remaking everything from year zero, as it were. In that context, as someone else has argued (I forget who off the top), Eliot fights a rear-guard action, not an avant-garde one. The argument you made about "philosophical/aesthetic criteria" confuses two distinct senses, I think. It's not about playing Adorno off against Brecht and Benjamin, or Deleuze against Adorno, or whoever. It's not about the theorists at all. Rather, we're talking about how to describe the overall tendencies of the works. Yes, of course, to do so is to engage with that theoretical context. But the original two posts described conflicting philosophical, aesthetic and social descriptions. I certainly wouldn't argue all modernist performance and drama as progressive; nor should we describe all modernist literature as morose. There are different tendencies that, I think, are best described in terms of a whole series of relationships that each work or type of work establishes; political allegiance is relevant but not the most relevant. The 'consumer-producer' or whatever less marxisty-sounding version we might prefer is another. the relationship to tradition. the relationship to the future. the relationship of the 'internal' elements of the medium. the relationship to technology. many of these overlap, of course (technology in some cases including elements of medium).


 * As with the post below, I’d suggest that the qualifications you seek (rather than the replacement originally proposed) are already there in the main body of the article. Perhaps the intro might be rewritten to more accurately summarise them? DionysosProteus 04:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of the impetus for wanting to call literary and artistic modernism "optimistic" and "progessive" comes from the desire to link it with philosophical modernism. In philosophical contexts, "modernism" refers to a period that runs from the 1600s to the 1950s, and possibly also to the present (whether we've really entered a "postmodern" age is still a point of contention). In this use, where Descartes, Bacon, Newton, Leibniz etc are modern thinkers, "modernism" is quite clearly an optimistic movement, envisioning itself as the process by which we'll finally gain certainty and make real progress toward knowledge and political harmony through reason. The modern political movements of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries are generally seen as embodiments of this spirit--including the French revolution, Marxism, and possibly also fascism.

All that seems well and good; the problem comes when you try to link philosophical modernism with the much narrower movement that literary and artistic circles refer to as "modernism." It's easy enough to see some parallels: a lot of modern artists and writers like Mondrian, the futurists, and even Faulkner frame their projects as though they're finally getting to the real, final truth of things, through their new methods. But at the same time you get these Kafkas and Beckets going around, who are deeply pessimistic and think we can never get to the bottom of things.

To my mind, the right way to make sense of this is to think of literary and artistic modernism as a very late form of philosophical modernism--at the point where it starts exploding and collapsing, pushing toward postmodernism. If we accept this picture of artistic modernism, we'd expect to find some of the fragments continuing in the optimistic direction of old-school modernism, and some falling down into pessimism--which, I think, is exactly what we do see. Incidentally, my survey modernist literature course didn't touch philosophical modernism at all, but the professor described "pessimism" as the received view on modernist literature, which he didn't entirely disagree with but wanted to complicate a bit. I'd suggest something along those lines would be appropriate for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.115.175 (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What you're describing I'm more familiar with as 'modernity' - that is, the description that takes in Shakespeare et al at 'early modern' through (possibly) to the present. I don't agree, however, that the sense of progress or optimism follows from this. This is the collapse of Enlightenment and modernism categories that Paul objects to below. The chronology you imply doesn't correspond to a comprehensive survey of the cultural field. Why should Eliot carry more weight in defining 'modernism'--and 'modernist literature' specifically--than Ibsen, Brecht, Lorca, Mayakovsky, Auden & Isherwood, not to mention the major -isms? It's also an idealistic model of causality: the culture follows from the philosophy. To reiterate: I don't disagree that there are pessimistic modernists; however, all stress innovation, the New, dealing with social modernization, etc. 'Progress' and 'optimism' in modernism are major elements in a great many of the works by artists etc., not a mere anachronistic remanent of Enlightenment thinking. DionysosProteus 15:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the "optimism" bias has been addressed now. The Berman quote has been put into context --Ddawkins73 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Dates
Modernism continues. Some say postmodernism has replaced modernism, and some say no. Some say the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, the 21st century brought in a new era, some say no, not yet. Modernist 12:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Progress
What is this nonsense about "progress" that informs the introductory section of this article? This is a confused reading of Modernism from the perspective of Postmodernism, which is regularly presented as anti-progressive. To make this claim Modernism has to be spuriously conflated with the Enlightenment, despite the overwhelming evidence that it involves a fundamental rejection of continuities. Such a position may be either "progresive" or "anti-progressive" - denying progress or clearing the way for it. In reality it means the denial of a continuity of values and techniques, a view that may imply the threat of madness, as in Erwartung and The Waste Land; a reversion to primitivism as in the work of Emile Nolde or Igor Stravinsky; or the optimistic prospect of a freedom from oppressive tradition as in Mondrian or Brecht. To claim that it is fundamentally the latter is fundamentally mistaken. Paul B 23:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article appears to be using 'culture' in the anthropological sense. The sentence to which you object is, I think, an attempt to summarise all of the material on modernism in everyday life that sections of the article develop. Hence the references to commerce, philosophy, etc. From that perspective, it's not unreasonable to describe modernism as affirming "the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation". The problem as I see it, which relates to the discussion around literature above, is that the claim "and is thus in its essence..." makes it sound like that's the only side of modernism. The problem isn't a straightforward as your declension of implications implies; there's some confusion here--in the article--between 'modernism', 'modernity', and 'modernization' (to use Marshall's triad); also, the distinctions in your examples aren't as clear cut either--surrealism wants to change the world through the subconscious, for example. While it's not correct to collapse modernity into the Enlightenment, as you argue (some versions of) postmodernism/ity do, neither is it correct to imply a radical break; the article uses a 'contradictory poles' image to suggest the relationship. I would suggest doing a text-search on the article's page for the word 'progress'; you'll see how many different and qualified ways it's used and the many caveats it offers. Rather than deleting the intro material, perhaps a re-write would be better, which better summarises the account given below the intro? DionysosProteus 04:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is in essence unreasonable to describe it as such. The section is fundamentally misleading, and it's not an adequate reply to say that "the article" talks a lot about progress, we do not judge what should be in that article on the basis of what someone has put in there, but on the basis of reliable sources. If this article is confusing radically different usages of the term modernism then the article as a whole is the problem. Paul B 08:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the problem is much greater than that even; if you take a look at Modernity you'll see what I mean. The reason the different senses of 'modernism' are here is because of the way 'modernity' has been defined there--that is, so broadly as to become synonymous with modern history per se. My suggestion about looking at the use of 'progress' in the article was a way of approaching your own use of the term, which is unclear; modernism--modernization--the New is an essential set of ideas for whichever sense of the term one employs. As such, progress, however that may be conceived in each particular case, is an essential part of its definition (hence the opening statement about reforming movements). Your post talked of 'denying progress', at which point you lost me; how and who in 'modernism' "denies progress" isn't clear to me at all; the 'modern' in 'modernism' presupposes a relation to the New and processes of social, cultural and artistic modernization. The article appears to have reliable sources; the problem is that they are not specific enough to bear examination (as they're only given at the end); your suggestion that they are some anonymous person's subjective opinion seems unlikely in that light. Your changes to the lead have made it illogical at present. Until the different senses are separated out, the part of that sentence about remaking the world ought to remain. DionysosProteus 15:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Paul here. DionysosProteus, your understanding of modernism as progressive is, I am quite certain, more indicative of an original and patently flawed rereading of the term than an adequate understanding of even its periphery.  Modernism has no faith in the perfectibility of humanity and sees any humanistic art as not only flawed, but dangerous to humanity.  So long as the introduction or the article imply that such a reading of modernism is potentially correct it will remain useless and misleading.  Chicomello 18:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See the discussion on optimism above. The majority of artists cited directly contradict your understanding. Ibsen isn't a humanist? A great many, too, are 'progressive', however one defines that term. Biggest name in cinema? Eistenstein; biggest name in painting? Picasso; in drama? Brecht. Note that these are far from being minor or peripheral names! That's just in the 'arts', without even touching on wider cultural, social and political phenomena. Your anti-humanist reading is partial; though, of course, there are anti-humanist elements to the movement. But progress is not inherently aligned with 'humanism'. That is the kind of post-modern reductionism that Paul mentioned. DionysosProteus 19:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Outline for a re-write
It seems clear from recent posts that many of us find the current version of the article partial and problematic for various reasons. While I've argued against some proposals for changes that have appeared on this talk page, it has been (what I have understood as) their exclusionary nature to which I've objected.

There is a lot of material already in the article. Despite the list of sources, it's not broken down into citations. Is it too daunting a task to give it a make-over?

If we were to do so, what's missing? what shouldn't be here? what might be the most appropriate ways to organise the results? Looking at Modernity, the reason all the philosophical and 'cultural' material is here becomes apparent.

Is there any interest in this? How might we start?

DionysosProteus 04:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You not posting anymore would seem like a good start. --86.152.88.234 (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Modernism / Modernization in first citation
I added this citation: In the twentieth century, the social processes that bring this maelstrom into being, and keep it in a state of perpetual becoming, have come to be called "modernization." These world-historical processes have nourished an amazing variety of visions and ideas that aim to make men and women the subjects as well as the objects of modernization, to give them the power to change the world that is changing them, to make their way through the maelstrom and make it their own. Over the past century, these visions and values have come to be loosely grouped together under the name of "modernism." to support the original text in the leader to the article that read: "It is a trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation". As you can see, the beginning of the quotation refers to modernization, because the text has just finished listing a range of different social processes--industrialization, science and technology, corporate power, demographic change, mass communication, nation states, etc, etc. I included that first sentence to help orientate the next concept, but this seems to have confused you Paul. The second sentence then goes on to relate these social processes of 'modernization' to "visions and ideas" etc. These 'visions and ideas' are known, the text says, as modernism. Modernist visions and ideas that empower us to live with social processes of modernization. I agree (see above) that the article would benefit from re-writing and that it needs a thorough citation-drive. That is what I initiated with this quotation. Please, before removing it, take the trouble to read it in full. DionysosProteus 12:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Citing a thinker, Berman, who is responding to post-modern thinkers is an absolutely inappropriate place to begin an encyclopedia discussion on Modernism. Such a discussion should begin with thinkers more relevant to the initial context of Modernism, not with someone who is quite obviously responding to later developments and who is engaged in a highly contested debate.  Moreover, Berman's take on modernism is by no means universally accepted, it represents one point in a much larger argument.  A better place to begin would be with traditional modernist thinkers, writers, and artists, whose examples point toward basic ideas and debates central to modernism.  Minutia like Berman is more appropriate for footnotes or later sections that deal with the state of current debate, balanced, of course, with other competing perspectives.  Like Paul maintains, the audience of these articles are primarily undergrads, not people who have or are seeking Ph.Ds.  We are not writing to our peers, but to people who have no frame of reference with regard to the topic matter.  Thus, the article must begin with a more basic and noncontroversial discussion, not by an immediate declaration of its writer's ideology, which quoting Berman would necessarily be.  I was perhaps too strong in may original post, but it seems to me that the course you are suggesting for revision contains within its very conception the same problems--i.e. misunderstanding of audience, over emphasis of a specific ideological perspective--that have made revising the article such a pressing imperative. Chicomello 17:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an astonishingly ignorant response. Not sure who Breman is, but you're clearly not familiar with the field. You are making an idiotic suggestion; 'modernism' only emerged as a critical term in the sense used today post WWII. The account of the artists etc you suggest is precisely what Berman et al provide. To use anything else would be original research!!! "Minutia" reveals your ignorance, since he's excerpted in most major collections, as does your underhgrad / phd nonsense. You HAVE to paraphrase or quote authors in the intro and elsewhere, otherwise its original research; go read the intros to wikipedia again. Better still, go read a book on modernism. DionysosProteus 17:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Touchy, touchy! First, I wrote my response in word and transferred it over, hence the accidental mistyping of Berman’s name, for that I apologize.  Second, there is no need for mudslinging here and your intentional misreading of my point speaks more against you than it does discredit me.  Third, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are badly constructed, many falling into your pattern of quoting recent scholarship out of context—i.e. out of its original debate—and hence making the article useless to the students who do not have the necessary background.  Forth, Berman is responding to post-modern critiques of modernism, to this I ask if you agree or disagree as I think that this point is rather clear to anyone who has read a book on modernism, which I humbly admit to having done.  If you would like a list I will be happy to compile one for you, though at the moment I must return to my course work.  By the way, audience is about the most important thing to consider with regard to Wikipedia articles, this isn’t a forum for people show everything they know or think they know; it is a forum for the dissemination of basic and encyclopedia level knowledge.  Experts, and I know you hate my usage of this term, aren’t going to read Wikipedia articles, except, of course, to change them and check them for accuracy.  Hence, write something that won’t mislead people and start with someone whose perspective doesn’t require an initial discussion of post-modernism, but of modernism itself.  76.208.34.8 20:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You've failed to address the core of my criticism, which concerns your suggestion that the article should only refer to accounts of modernism that are contemporary to it; not only does the term not really emerge in its contemporary sense until after WWII--"the homogenization of these diverse practices into Modernism as a movement and critical category occurred in the 1950s, by virtue of what Raymond Williams calls 'the post-war settlement and its accompanying, complicit academic endorsements'" (Modernism: An Anthology of Sources, xvii)--but any accounts by modernist writers, etc., that did attempt to survey a wider field are hopelessly partial and ideologically-motivated, given the schismatic tendencies of each movement within the whole. To suggest that quoting Berman here is 'out of context' is astonishing. Your suggestion that accounts that also address the development (if it exists) into the 'postmodern' are inappropriate here is also astonishing. What is it that you're suggesting instead, exactly?
 * Paul's original caveat concerning postmodern thinkers is reasonable enough: accounts weighed for the promotion of a particular contemporary postmodern practice are not the most appropriate place to begin a description of modernism. Your development of that idea over-inflates the caveat to absurdity. What 'ideological' bias are you thinking of with Berman? How can you describe a book that spends the majority of its time doing a close reading of major modernist thought--Goethe, Marx, Baudelaire, etc.--as having as its subject the 'postmodern'?!? From which parallel universe have you recently arrived? It's an account of the experience of modernity and a major contemporary text on modernism.
 * I think you misunderstand the scope of Wikipedia. We can't simply survey the primary sources ourselves and draw out general tendencies, comparisons, alignments, etc. THAT IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Any discussion of modernism from any point during the last century has always been 'highly contested' and, while it remains an important legacy for contemporary artists, will remain so. Almost any contemporary account of modernism will be aware of the debates surrounding it's relation to the postmodern; that is certainly not a reason to reject them from contributing to the description in this article. From where, exactly, do you suggest we source a description instead? Why exactly would using Berman at the start require a description of postmodernism? It's not his subject; I can only assume you haven't read him. Even if it were, as it is with someone like David Harvey, for example, that in no way invalidates his account of modernism, modernization or modernity. Harvey, for example, provides a broad description of modernism in order to substantiate his argument that what the postmodernists describe as a radical break is in reality merely a shift; what is the logic behind your suggestion that that would invalidate the contribution of his insights about modernism to this article? The 'context' you imagine for the primary sources simply doesn't exist, at least certainly not in any form useful to an encyclopedic account. All this nonsense about undergrad/PhD level or expert readers obscures the point; you can't offer a description of 'modernism' that only describes one particular tendency within one part of literary modernism. Modernism is a broad cultural phenomenon; the inclusion of a broad range of film-makers, visual artists, architects, novelists, poets, playwrights, theatre directors, composers, choreographers, performance artists, etc. is a necessary requirement of an encyclopedic account, not a pissing contest. DionysosProteus 12:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the Berman quote is out of place. Remove? Would simplify everything. I found I had to edit around it, contextualize it, to make the intro consistent.

--Ddawkins73 (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are the articles Modernism and post-modernism mirrors
I wanted to find out the difference, and found out they are exactly the same. Basejumper2 14:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

where is architecture? and residual naivety of the article
The following sentence (below) should be changed. But given the intense discussion, I am reluctant to enter the fray.

Modernism encouraged the re-examination of every aspect of existence, from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was 'holding back' progress, and replacing it with new, progressive and therefore better, ways of reaching the same end.

I do not like the word 'existence.' in this context? and why 'every' [if I can find one aspect then that disproves this] and was the goal really that which was 'holding back progress' There are a lot of 'modernists ' who opposed progress or at least had conflicted approaches to progress. etc. etc., so reader beware.

The other point is about architecture and urban planning. Words like 'functionalism' do not appear at all, and there is no reference - nor even any substantial links - to the whole history of architecture. Brosi 21:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

strange wording
Am I mistaken, but this sounds strange too. Two of the most disruptive thinkers of the period were, in biology, Charles Darwin and, in political science, Karl Marx. why disruptive. Why not 'significant' or something like that. Also why the "Explosion of Modernism" wow that sounds very undergradate. Why not the 'expansion and development' of Modernism? These and other slight exagerations and hypings are unbefitting a style of writing that claims to be more objective. Brosi 21:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)