Irrational Modernism: A Neurasthenic History of New York Dada

by Amelia Jones

A revisionist history of New York Dada, with appearances by Baroness Elsa as the embodiment of irrational modernism. In Irrational Modernism , Amelia Jones gives us a history of New York Dada, reinterpreted in relation to the life and works of Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven. Jones enlarges our conception of New York Dada beyond the male avant-garde heroics of Marcel Duchamp, Man Ray, and Francis Picabia to include the rebellious body of the Baroness. If they practiced Dada, she lived it, with her unorthodox personal life, wild assemblage objects, radical poetry and prose, and the flamboyant self-displays by which she became her own work of art. Through this reinterpretation, Jones not only provides a revisionist history of an art movement but also suggests a new method of art history. Jones argues that the accepted idea of New York Dada as epitomized by Duchamp's readymades and their implicit cultural critique does not take into consideration the contradictions within the movement—its misogyny, for example—or the social turmoil of the period caused by industrialization, urbanization, and the upheaval of World War I and its aftermath, which coincided with the Baroness's time in New York (1913-1923). Baroness Elsa, whose appearances in Jones's narrative of New York Dada mirror her volcanic intrusions into the artistic circles of the time, can be seen to embody a new way to understand the history of avant-gardism—one that embraces the irrational and marginal rather than promoting the canonical. Acknowledging her identification with the Baroness (as a "fellow neurasthenic"), and interrupting her own objective passages of art historical argument with what she describes in her introduction as "bursts of irrationality," Jones explores the interestedness of all art history, and proposes a new "immersive" understanding of history (reflecting the historian's own history) that parallels the irrational immersive trajectory of avant- gardism as practiced by Baroness Elsa.

Genres: Art

336 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

Amelia Jones is an American art historian, art critic and curator specializing in feminist art, body/ performance art, video art and Dadaism. Her written works and approach to modern and contemporary art history are considered revolutionary in that she breaks down commonly assumed opinions and offers brilliantly conceived critiques of the art historical tradition and individual artist's positions in that often elitist sphere.

Amelia Jones studied art history at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania. She received her Phd from UCLA in 1991.

Jones has taught art history at UC Riverside and is currently the Pilkington Chair of the art history department at Manchester University.

Jones received a Guggenheim Fellowship in 2000.

Amelia Jones is the daughter of Princeton Psychology professor Edward E. Jones.

Reviews

[Jonathan Frederick Walz · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think this book is important and fairly interesting; I do. I consider myself a feminist, but I could only read portions of chapters here and there because of the overpowering and wearing rhetoric (not unlike beating a dead horse). It is obvious that the author conducted much research, but I felt frustrated that in presenting her model and theory, it never seemed that there was a deep understanding of time or personnages. Why is a text by Anais Nin considered relevant, other than it is from the same time period? How can the geometry book-wedding present to Suzanne be the first readymade when it is also later claimed that "Bicycle Wheel" carries that distinction? Duchamp, Picabia, and Man Ray are singled out for not fighting in the Great War, which is true, but there were other non-combatants who played a role in New York dada, including Joseph Stella, Marsden Hartley, and Charles Demuth, just to name a few. It seems like by just focusing on three men (and ok arguably the "most important" contributors) that the argument becomes a bit forces. I do appreciate the author's honesty in self-disclosing her panic/anxiety disorder, but this term gets elided with neurasthenia, whose own definition seems to morph and change like Thetis throughout the text; this ends up being frustrating. This is the first time I read the entire book from start to finish; I will admit that for my dissertation I only read the sections that were relevant for the objects I was discussing. That said, at times the ideas and subsequent manifestation in text seemed rushed or sloppy. This was not helped by strange evidence, such as relating to the reader that the author "has been told" that men frequently look at each other's genitals when pissing next to each other at urinals, or off-base observations, such as, in a discussion of Demuth's watercolor "At the 'Golden Swan'" she states that Demuth and Duchamp, who are seated in adjacent chairs, "fac[e] each other as if for self-protection in this dynamic but (to them) alien environment." (This bar was in The Village, not Harlem, so I'm not sure why the pair would feel out of place there...or even threatened?!) Additionally, there are characters and ideas that drop in and drop out unexpectedly, without transition, such as a discussion of plumbing/ablutions that ranges from "Fountain" to Barr's chart of the development of abstract art...and then suddenly the author begins analyzing Demuth's "Distinguished Air", without any indication of who the artist is and what role he played in New York dada...in addition, queerness suddenly seems of the utmost urgency without having really been broached or explicated heretofore. All of this said, the book reproduces some long-lost work and other interesting images (though some less obvious clunkers, too) and for that reason alone should be required reading for dadaists. Just take much of it with a grain of salt...

[Ekaterina Okuneva · Rating 3 out of 5]

Какая-то странная книга, как будто бы она должна быть про баронессу фон Фрейтаг-Лорингхофен, а оказалось, что нон-стоп там критикуют Дюшана. Есть такое чувство, что за сложным языком пытались скрыть недостаток материала и глубоких мыслей, и на все лады измеряли, кто из дадаистов был самый немужественный, а то и гомосексуальный, не дай бог.