Modern art

In Cubism, Futurism, and Constructivism, Nash discusses the relative importance that each artistic movement had upon the development of modern art.  Cubism recoiled against traditional art by portraying images in an abstract manner, consisting of geometric forms where the subject is shown in several different perspectives.  This gives the image an esoteric feel with recognizable figures giving way to a whole other set of shapes that were not visible a moment before.  Additionally, Cubism returns to a more primitive perception of figures and is not characterized by colourful paintings.  Futurism, attempted to show the world as it was experienced and focused on the representation of movement.  Despite the tension between Futurism and Cubism, the most famous two Futurism paintings were completed by a Cubist.  Personally, I feel that Constructivism more closely resembles modern art as it is today because it introduced the element of architecture into art, which is a dominant theme in many exhibits today.

As is expected with successive movement, they did not occur overnight.  Picasso and his buddy Braque progressively increased the conceptual framework of Cubism, which received several innovations by other artists.  One can see that history is not easily fragmented into separable periods defined by a particular artistic phenomenon but rather the culmination of opposing artistic traditions which collectively paved the way to modern day society.

With these three artistic movements, the foundation of modern art as it is today was established.  Throughout history with each successive "revolution" of art, the degree of abstraction seems to progressively increase.  Perhaps this is due to human nature's natural tendency to continually push the limits of our existence, delving further and further into intangible concepts. 

The Artists of Cubism, Futurism, and Constructivism

Within 40 years, the art world was presented with works of art that ranged from Bouguereau’s “The Birth of Venus” (1879) to Malevich’s white square on a white canvas (1918). This rapid change was largely driven by a new emphasis on the importance of The Artist; the artist is no longer just a medium that represents the world, but a source that creates it. During this time, there was a belief among many that artists occupied a special place in society, that they were somehow “different” and superior to other people, and had a “loftier spiritual vision.” The artists were therefore given a special type of power (or perceived power) to affect more than just the art world, and so we see the artist’s persona as well as his moral and social values become almost as important as the art itself. For example, Futurism was not only an art movement but an ideological movement as well (complete with numerous manifestos), so the artists sought to use art to further their ideology. The artist’s persona also adds to the appeal of the art. Nash mentions how Picasso’s image as unpredictable, indifferent, and original was carefully promoted through journalism while the Futurist painters “lived on publicity.”

Rivalries between the artists and the various movements were also a major factor that influenced the surge in innovations in the early 20th Century. Each of the artists of these movements sought to be as original as possible, to be the true “inventors” of their art. However, as Picasso said, “There is no abstract art. You must always start with something.” Nevertheless, the artists continued to strive towards originality and in the process were both influenced by and competed with each other. Through friendship and rivalry, Picasso and Braque took cubism to its greatest heights. Cubism then went on to influence and challenge the Futurists and Constructivists to push the limits and redefine not only art’s aesthetics, but also its value and purpose as well.

picasso, source, and philosophy

What interests me about this article is where Nash reveals where Picasso was drawing his inspiration from in developing his new revolutionary art. First, allow me to digress to express my romanticization of Picasso and his "Picasso gang" in Paris. I just want to reflect on that incredible moment of like-minded and not-so like-minded artists and writers in each other company, being influenced, moved, and shaped by each other, ultimately allowing them substantial growth as artists. I imagine a place so fulndividuals with raw talent and communication allows for such a a development of ideas and a rapid movement and evolution of their respective arts.
Nash reveals that Picasso drew his inspiration from that were considered beasts, savage artists of the avant-garde, painting the ugly and the aggressive. It was through this medium that Picasso believed he could find the path to something new, as opposed to a path of perfecting the old, the Renaissance. It seemed rather that he was inspired to attack it – in its perspective, its depth and orientation, coloration and also, the most untouched variable, female beauty.
From the reading it is as if Picasso took contemporary art in a new direction such that it was difficult and indecipherable to the critics. In order to help with navigation through his art, “Braque, then Picasso, used lettering to clarify his meaning”
I also want to comment on the relative importance of Braque and Picasso and I wonder why Braque, who, through the readings, is exemplified to have contributed as much originality and thought to cubism as Picasso, however is given far less popular credit.
Philosophy in art. I am beginning to view artists as visual philosophers. In this reading, heavy on the influence of philosophers on the artists, I began to think how much of the artists work is in his mind, giving color to his philosophies by advancing current philosophical issues.

Cubes, Futures, Constructs, Karls

These new movements seem to reek of a teenage boy, sporting a green mohawk and spiky leather clothing in an attempt to be unique and different. On the other hand, each of them have their ideals. Cubism sought truth that doesn't exist, Futurism sought to reject all current ideals and morals, and Constructivism sought to reject resemblance to anything. Actually, on second thought I'm going to stick with the insecure teenager.

These modern movements seem to be the culmination of what has been happening to art since Perspectivism. Perspectivism was the last step in the direct of representing the world. From then on, everything became more and more about "feelings" and "sensations", and vibrating dogs, and people that are cube-like, and cubes. It is here that the definition of art really begins to be questioned. Should art be the best imitation of life, the most aesthetically pleasing, or the best at expressing things? But I suppose this is no longer about comparing things to other types of art, despite the amount of cross influence between these, and is more about the art as it was intended to be viewed.

Cubism sought to reveal truth, which the artists claim doesn't exist. It also sought to remain a mystery and just continue to confuse people. It fails to do much of anything other than present things in a stark manner, extremely direct and not very pleasing to the eye.

Futurism sought to reject current ideals and morals. It embraced things like war and destruction. At least, that's what the movement in general was, the art itself seemed to be about representing motion and sensations on paper. If rejecting current traditions is what Futurism is really about, I think Constructivism would be better.

Constructivism sought to have each work be based off nothing and simply be something in itself. This resulting in paintings of cubes and stuff, amongst some more complex setups that were nonetheless geometric.

In my opinion, constructivism does the best at being a full on movement, being a leap away from what has previously been made. Cubism and Futurism were more like little experimental projects, messing with the aspects of painting but nonetheless still doing the same thing as movements prior. I suppose the way I look at these new movements is something that it brings about art that is amusing to look at and think about, rather than art that is nice to hang up on the wall.

Cubism, Futurism & Constructivism

By the early 20th Century, a new era of colonialism -- Imperialism --was in full swing. The colonization of the Americas was a thing of the past, especially since most of the continent had become independent sometime in the 19th century. Spain had for a long time lost its luster, and lost what little remained of its empire at the end of the 19th Century; Russia underwent a sort of Westernization which culminated in the 1917 revolution; Italy, as did Germany, unified but its industrialization/modernization was concentrated in the north, thereby creating a north/south rift; and then there was World War I.

Such was the context in which Cubism, Futurism and Constructivism found themselves in.
Given Cubisms' esotericity, can we really claim this as a movement? What constitutes a movement? Could we not say that most high art is elitist? And as such, is that not in a sense, esoteric (in a looser meaning of the word) and therefore not a movement if 'openness' were a requirement for the labeling of something as a movement?

These three movements were certainly quite different from one another. Yet at the same time, given the fact that they emerged in the early 20th century, they informed one another at least minimally. What each had in common was their 'rawness', constructed differently of course in each one: Cubism sought to deconstruct the traditional notion of reality and beauty; Futurism sought to glorify violence and speed, as though to foreshadow what was to come later that century; and Constructivism sought to shed the past by starting anew.

Nash: Cubism, Futurism and Constructivism

In “Cubism, Futurism and Constructivism” J.M. Nash explains the history behind all the art movements, as well as the main art contributors. Each movement had its own characteristics that set them apart, but they also had many similarities. Each movement evolved from the ideas and style of the previous movement, yet each was willing to criticize their predecessors.
The paintings Demoiselles d’ Avignon and Nude, by Picasso and Braque, defined the characteristics of Cubism. Both took on the human form and defied the nature contours and shape that had previously been seen. “It was the ugliness of the faces that froze with horror the half-converted.” (Nash 12). Like some previous work the raw sexual aspect of the figures disturbed audiences, Picasso paints a woman with her legs wide open, invited anyone to her. Braque’s painting has a woman looking over her shoulder almost invitingly, this is odd because the eyes are hollow yet her stance looks inviting. With these new disfigured models art began to take a more abstract form moving into the 20th century. Although this new style emerged it has influence from Cézanne, Cubism had a geometric aspect to it. It formed rigid lines that broke down shapes and had obvious outlines, unlike the Impressionists who strove to get rid of lines. Cubism began with a very private circle; it was not for the public. Picasso was not setting out to change art for the world nor find “eternal truth”, his art was for him to just express. Cubism evolved into making fake textures, that eventually as adapted into the Futurism style. Futurist painters emphasized the change in moods in every painting, often trying to capture opposite moods. The Futurists movement lived off of publicity that ended with WWI; they owed much more to the Cubists than they ever wanted to admit, but were still able to make themselves original. The Constructivist movement began after the Russian Revolution, by Tatlin who became inspired by Picasso’s collage style. They wanted to change the old art world, as Picasso’s art became much more known the original purpose and intended meaning were lost. The preceding movements were not meant to be private; they were in fact very public. Lissitsky’s geometrical layouts and typography were seen as revolutionary that created “new types of spatial relationships, new inventions of forms, new visual laws” (Nash 201). As the time periods shifted each became much more geometrical, mechanized and abstract.

Cubism, Futurism, and Constructivism

J.M Nash stated that Cubism, Futurism and Constructivism were the three most important movements in early twentieth-century art. While they all fell under the umbrella of "modern art," they still opposed each other strongly.
The birth of Cubism, according to Nash, was private. It is interesting that while we see Cubism as a completely revolutionary form of art, it really was not conceived as a movement because it was not public. This is almost a counterintuitive idea because to us, the general public, Cubism (especially that of Picasso) truly exhibits the departure from the concept of "art" to what we see as "modern art." There were two major Cubists, Picasso and Braque, who played off of each other to develop their arts, but it is puzzling to note that while Picasso is so well-known, Braque is not. What about Picasso's paintings that made him stand-out so much in the course of art history?
Nash's discussion on Demoiselles d'Avignon by Picasso brings about an interesting idea that initial reactions to the painting were mainly disgust, uneasiness and shock because of its "newness" which translated to "ugliness." People who have been conditioned to view traditional art, such as Renaissance art, as "beautiful" were not used to this new type of art; the "Medusa-masks" in Demoiselles d'Avignon were simply hideous because they screamed primitive, grotesque art. This idea of rejecting things that we are not used to as simply "gross" or "weird" seems to be true not only in art, but in other aspects of life, like how some people react to same-sex marriage. This fear and uneasiness with being confronted with new ideas are a natural response programmed into human brains. But why did Picasso choose to paint in a style that is characterized as bold, harsh, distorted and primitive? What values did he see in this, or in other words, what was he really trying to do? Speaking of primitive, it is interesting to note that after long periods of perfecting beauty, representation the realistic, perspective in art, we go all the way back to primitive art. What contributed to this tracing-back of artistic style?
The discussions on Futurism and Constructivism were not as lucid as the one about Cubism was. Futurism seemed to be mainly focused on human action, violence and anarchism as a response to WWI, which is well illustrated by Marinetti's Manifesto of Futurism. This almost seems like "scary" art, or even pessimistic, which some people argue is realistic. Why it is called Futurism, I am still not entirely certain.
Overall, I get the impression that the three movements were a bold step away from traditional art, which conveyed beauty in ways people were generally comfortable with (for example, even though Impressionism was criticized initially, people didn't see it as something grotesque or obscene) and completely threw people off balance, forcing them to confront new ideas that made some uncomfortable.