20th Century Early Modernism, Where Art Died

This is going to be a tough blog post for me because there is almost nothing in this era where I enjoy the aesthetic. It is all awful. The point of contention is really just about degree. Early Modern is where art dies for me. So I will present three works that someone enjoys. They might appreciate something about the piece. It definitely won't be me. 

What I dislike about this era for me is the deconstructionist tone that art takes. Where suddenly early moderns both philosophically or artistically want to break down tradition and institutions for the sake of establishing something new. It's fueled by Marxism in some cases, the core of critical theory, which does actually prescribe breaking down of institutions for the betterment of the world. Art has become this political tool, not a new thing, but that tooling has a more recognizable construction with more relevant political implications today.  Additionally, after WWI the world seems to be in something of shock, and there is kind of a question looming about how did we as a society let things get so bad? That’s a question that I think most rational individuals had because in the aftermath of WWI there were so many dead or maimed it kind of caused this existential crisis in the world. You can see that in the art. So it is logical why artists developed styles that were iconoclastic in a sense. It makes sense. 

However, all of that can be true and that doesn’t change my opinion. The only way out is through.   

We are going to start off with my least favorite artist of all time Wassily Kandinsky. If you ever take additional art courses anywhere this gentleman will show up in just about every single one during the abstract or early modern phase. He is incredibly influential. He is a Russian artist who is more or less rejected in Russia and is ultimately invited to be part of the Bauhaus movement, and you can see that in some of his works. Before World War I he had this kind of impressionistic style. After he returned to Russia he made this absolute unit In Grey.  

According to Wissily Kandinsky this piece, “In Grey marks the end of my 'dramatic' period." This is an oil painting and apparently there was a sun and an oarsman in there somewhere. That turned into something less “dramatic” and more organic. If you squint and tilt your head you might imagine you are on a beach, and some child left all of their beach toys out maybe. The color is wretched, I don’t see any application of color theory being used, where you might use complimentary or analogous colors to make depth. Or a scene. That is major kudos for a gentleman who is attempting to fight against all of that. There is line use if we consider the hashtag in the center to be a valid use of line, and there is evidence of scribbles. But as you can clearly see the point of this piece is to not be anything beautiful or wonderful. That’s something that is allowed in art, and it got his name in every art course I have ever taken since middle school. There is no depth, no foreground or background, there are lines and some use of shape and color but not in anything you could pin down as an oar man or a sun. I have probably spent about 20-30 hours studying this particular piece in my life. I still don't know what this is, and I am certain Kandinsky also doesn't know what it is. But what can be said is Kandinsky was a Marxist and part of why he was creating art in the fashion that he was, was a political statement. He was trying to undo the traditional bindings of art, and attempting to undo Western influence. There is also this sense in which the art accompanies Marxism in being the new social science the new stamp on the age. 

 

Another movement that was happening concurrently was Futurism. The way that I like to remember futurism is it's almost exactly like Kandinsky’s art, with the major exception that they use geometric shapes, sometimes you can tell what they are trying to draw or paint and it’s usually a machine. Typically futurism is concerned with technology, or science. In this case, Air Bombing by Tullio Crali made in 1938 oil on canvas by an Italian self-taught painter are plainly planes. Looking at his larger portfolio he does something like M.C. Escher with transforming cities into geometric shapes, with some portraits mixed in,  and even some stunning landscapes. It is always from an aerial perspective and involves aircraft usually. He always uses this interesting jagged style even in those.  His use of color gives you the sense that these are aircraft strafing. He uses minimalistic shapes to infer that these are biplanes, and the jagged squares hint at a city. Yet with all of these sharp razor like subjects he has a little bit of organically shaped clouds that hint at what his style is capable of in a more realistic or naturalism sense. He was a little bit late to the futurism bandwagon however his contributions were great. I was surprised by the breadth of his work and he chooses to paint like this because it makes him happy, he was a pilot and this is how he thinks of his favorite technology. In this work there are shapes, and colors that kind of almost hint at 3 dimensions. He likes airplanes and shapes, all relatable things, in a way this isn't terrible. His primary focus being on aeronautics and the first air wars is part of his fascination with science. 

This is Daddy Longlegs of the Evening-Hope! By Salvador Dali. I can see where he came up with the title. It is crystal clear. It was made in 1940, oil on canvas. In a sense, I have to begrudgingly like Salvador Dali because in part he was the inspiration behind one of my favorite artists Zdzisław Beksiński. Where Beksiński’s work was weird in a nightmarish way, Dali’s work is weird in kind of a fun way. Dali’s work is supposed to be inspired by Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. It is science, but its psychology so its not going to be about technology its going to be highly symbolic. There is an attempt to paint the subconscious in a certain way. I don’t know how a melting violinist and a horse cannon factor into that. However, you can tell there is a horse coming out of a cannon. The color is grotesque, the shapes are unnerving, and the line work really does communicate that a person is turning from a taffy-like substance to a body of liquid that is in the shape of a face. Perhaps that was a play on words, a body of water being a body.  In this work, there are fully fleshed-out figures with color, shape and linework. There is a foreground and background with evidence of color theory being used to communicate space. There is a sky and it is normal and blue. There is also a tree. I am just happy that I actually saw something that I recognize. Not a square or a scribble. 

References

In Grey, 1919 by Wassily Kandinsky. Wassily Kandinsky, https://www.wassily-kandinsky.org/In-Grey.jsp#google_vignette. Accessed 22 July 2024.

Daddy Longlegs of the Evening-Hope! 14 July 2024, https://collection.thedali.org/mDetail.aspx?rID=2000.6%26db=objects&dir=DALIART&osearch=Painting&list=res&rname=&rimage=&page=1 . Accessed 22 July 2024.

Tullio Crali Official. Tullio Crali, https://www.tulliocrali.com/en/. Accessed 22 July 2024.