1997
HERBERT KÜHN (1919) writes in the ”Encyclopaedia of Expressionism” (originally “Encyclopedie de l´Expressionisme”, Somogy, Paris 1978): “Without socialism, expressionism does not exist.”
The author, LIONEL RICHARD, wrote the following in his article: “It was evident in many instances, appearing over and over again, that the first modernist movement (1915-1930) originated from expressionism.” His definitions of modernism alternate between two things: emphasizing either style or movement. He points out: “The true modern art of the social class is born with expressionism, by means of verbal experimentation, abstraction in painting, synthetic theatre, and dissonant music; and within these trends can be found some of the artistic tendencies of our society.”
The socialist revolution of Western Europe burned to ashes at the beginning of the century. Similarly, it is coming to an end, or fundamentally changing, in other parts of the world.
Then, what is to be done with “modernism”?
Lenin said at the outset: “Even if the outcome is doubtful, we must begin Communism, and try to bring it into conclusion”.
Revolution in the world of art happened in the same way. We are already familiar with the outcome: both ended up in a cul-de-sac.
The events of the twentieth century aroused our attention far more than at any time before. Technical progress was unstoppable, and an extremist way of thinking became almost inevitable. To keep up with progress, the art world had to prove itself if it wanted to keep the attention it had gained at the beginning of the century.
Art had reached the “dada” movement - now nick-named “minimal art – early in the game. Furthermore, modern art (the- isms) exploited its own end result with the speed of lightning, from an inner and still spontaneous spiritual movement, clearly recognizing the extremism of these trends.
Despite the significance of this warning at the time, the art world continued to follow its trajectory, eagerly longing for a similar “explosion” as indicated by a multitude of “–isms” as compared to the previous centuries.
But nothing wonderful happened.
Later stages of art history, lasting up to the present day, indicated nothing but stagnation for over seventy years. In our perception, this period is confused, like the enforcement of communism.
The art world noisily overlooked law, customs and values, eagerly searching for the sensational, for the stunning. Lionel Richard writes in the above mentioned review: “Only the fundamental aesthetic principles and the technique of expressionism remained, although they also became a meaningless fashion. There was no mention of the inherent necessity declared by Kandinsky. Broken lines and explored forms, disharmony, dissonance, artificial primitivism, extreme colours and the like were mere tools to provoke and shock the public”
The motivation was neither its function, usage, nor some human-scale intention. Man serves as the object of the artwork and is mostly represented in the form of the previously described tools (in a true social-realist manner). In this way, some objects of art can basically be valued from the viewpoint of art history.
Who would set up, in their clean house, a pile broken beer bottles, together with dirty garbage bins and stinking mouse droppings? Moreover, would they do so even if such “artwork” were signed by the artist?
Museums on the other hand are filled with rubbish: rags, broken bits of timber, rusted metal wrecks, dirty garbage bins and greengrocer’s boxes - as a documentary of our age.
We must not forget the largest, albeit quiet revolution of the twentieth century: the women’s liberation movement. Whilst women were hoping to fulfil their aspirations, the “being” of womanhood changed, just as relationships between women and men since this movement served a historical need for enforced changes, with a viewpoint to offer an acceptable place for women in society. It is a fact that our recent conception of women is entirely different from that of the past. Similar changes occurred in the perception of artists (male or female), who thought of the movement as a new, although not completely digested, experience. Female existence as an aesthetic term has become obsolete and has therefore disappeared as a theme of the art world.
In addition, art has recently transformed, or more precisely, reduced the concepts of aesthetics. Traditional notions have been declared as outdated, some expelled, so they do not appear any longer. Traditional human feelings, desires, colours and moods became undesirable and, simultaneously, everything turned towards the esoteric. We understand that within this everything has its place - the great and the small, the talented and the charlatan - and it is therefore not impossible to hide in this spiritual stagnation.
The question that arises today is the following: does modernism represent the beginning of a new era? Then the answer (considering the lack of perspective and complete reduction) would sound like: modernism is the end of an era.
This in mind, I declare 1997 for the art world as the year of the
DEATH OF VENUS
Balint
