The answer to Suzi Gablik’s question is that Modernism as we conceive it didn’t fail at all. Picasso, Schoenberg and Joyce were all too successful. What may have failed is the contemporary response to their challenge. This is partly a matter of the self-defeating technical thrashing about of postmodernism: indeed one of Ms Gablik’s premises is that ‘As long as we are willing to consider anything as art, innovation no longer seems possible or even desirable’. But it is also a matter of values: so much of the ‘best’ contemporary art is just not as good as that of the past: it lacks its coherence, its complexity, and its concern with ‘real life’ rather than aesthetic values. It is not as satisfying. It gives less pleasure, because it is not concerned with anything much more than the intellectual, avant gardist responses of its audience. The collapse of modernist culture and its values may be the cause of a terminal decadence in art. Has Modernism Failed?, which is a tract for the times, rather than a scholarly analysis, describes the context and the symptoms of this breakdown very well.
Follow Literary Review on Twitter
'Has the printed book finally outlived its span?' asks @AdamCSDouglas. 'If so, how long can the rare book trade continue? And how much longer can we keep flying in fat-bellied jets to gather in some foreign land to exhibit our wares?'
'The capital is revealed as a frightening, roiling place of disease and debauchery, the heads of traitors displayed on spikes, the sky leaden with fumes and fog.'
@MirandaFrance1 on Maggie O'Farrell's new plague-era novel, 'Hamnet'.
I thoroughly enjoyed @MyBiggestLuke’s deliciously dark and funny new novel THEFT. My piece for @Lit_Review: