Revisjonen fra 27. sep. 2017 kl. 19:46

Itroduction

In this article Harold Rosenberg highlights Paris' great position in international Modernism during the first decades of the twentieth Century. He also shows us however, how the city's greatness was due to come to an end and leave the place to the next modernist city: New York.

The Style of Today

During the course of the twenthieth Century, some "exuberant" artistic mouvements too place in Europe and in particular in Paris, described as the Holy Place for artists ^[1].

Paris was described by Rosenberg as a "passive" city which could be possessed and owned by artists. This passivity was seen by Rosenberg as the success of the city, and which led Paris to become an art Capital. This was a good pretext for international artists, students and refugees to settle in, and therefore it became a pioneer for culture in the same way that America was for economy^[2].

This intellectual mileu gave birth to "international culture" : the influences received from that international crowd were visible not only in cafes, clothes, street life, but came out also, and especially in Visual art. This art was not Parisian, not European but International. The definition for this sort of Development in a city's look and culture is what Rosenberg defines as "the Modern"^[2]. Consequently this concept of Modern started inherently to be associated with Paris, and therefore to create a style which became largely criticised by the conservative and patriotic crowd .^[3]

The modern artist tried very hard to push the limits away from what was acceptable, in order to come out from the deadness of the real world and fullfill the search for freedom^[4]. What this meant was that the modern artist community in Paris was interested in looking for the now and the immediate feelings of the moment, without having to attain boundaries of time and rules. As such, Rosenberg described this condition as a No-Time Paris. This was a way for that artist community also to get estranged in a way from the present time they were living in. This estrangement, second to Rosenberg, is what made Modernism more of a sentiment than an historical movement. A sentiment for eternity, outside of time boundaries^[5].

In parallel to the "No-Time" Paris, Rosenberg also defines a "No-Place" Paris, which purely concerned the international aspect of the city. The multiculturality of the capital, the many artistic influences, etnicities and religions managed to produce the most neutral, completely past-free context ever seen. Rosenberg points out, however, that this change of paradigma had concerned not only Paris as a single city, but a wider international ground, involving the entire European scene and other countries world wide Central for the future modernity. In fact, what came to be called modern epoch stayed active in these other countries in their variations (social, economic and cultural aspects) ^[6].

The Intellectual Form of Defeat

Commentary

Literature list

Harrison & Wood. "The Fall of Paris" Modernism as Critique. Art in Theory 1900-2000. Malden: Blackwell,2003

Rosenberg, Harold. Tradition of the New, London and New York, 1962, pp.209-20

1. ↑ Rosenberg, Tradition of the New, 209
2. ↑ ^{2,0 2,1} Rosenberg, Tradition of the New, 210
3. ↑ Rosenberg, Tradition of the New, 211
4. ↑ Rosenberg, Tradition and New, 212
5. ↑ Rosenberg, Tradition of the New, 213
6. ↑ Rosenberg, Tradition and New, 2014-15