What do you think?
Rate this book
The Meaning of Modern Art
That modern art is different from earlier art is so obvious as to be hardly worth mentioning. Yet there is little agreement as to the meaning or the importance of this difference. Indeed, contemporary aestheticians, especially, seem to feel that modern art does not depart in any essential way from the art of the past. One reason for this view is that, with the exception of Marxism, the leading philosophical schools today are ahistorical in orientation. This is as true of phenomenology and existentialism as it is of contemporary analytic philosophy. As a result there have been few attempts by philosophers to understand the meaning of the history of art—an understanding fundamental to any grasp of the difference between modern art and its predecessors.
Art expresses an ideal image of man, and an essential part of understanding the meaning of a work of art is understanding this image. When the ideal image changes, art, too, must change. It is thus possible to look at the emergence of modern art as a function of the disintegration of the Platonic-Christian conception of man. The artist no longer has an obvious, generally accepted route to follow. One sign of this is that there is no one style today comparable to Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, or Baroque. This lack of direction has given the artist a new freedom. Today there is a great variety of answers to the question, "What is art?" Such variety, however, betrays an uncertainty about the meaning of art. An uneasiness about the meaning of art has led modern artists to enter into dialogue with art historians, psychologists and philosophers. Perhaps this interpretation can contribute to that dialogue.
Art expresses an ideal image of man, and an essential part of understanding the meaning of a work of art is understanding this image. When the ideal image changes, art, too, must change. It is thus possible to look at the emergence of modern art as a function of the disintegration of the Platonic-Christian conception of man. The artist no longer has an obvious, generally accepted route to follow. One sign of this is that there is no one style today comparable to Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, or Baroque. This lack of direction has given the artist a new freedom. Today there is a great variety of answers to the question, "What is art?" Such variety, however, betrays an uncertainty about the meaning of art. An uneasiness about the meaning of art has led modern artists to enter into dialogue with art historians, psychologists and philosophers. Perhaps this interpretation can contribute to that dialogue.
- GenresArtPhilosophy
166 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1968
2 people are currently reading
69 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 11, 2022
Fucked up you can't give half-star ratings. This book is a 3.5 for sure but I'm giving it a four in the hopes that I'm not the last person on earth to read Karsten Harries' The Meaning of Modern Art. Eli asked why I've been concerning myself with a book that grapples with what art means when it was written in 1968. While we're in a new epoch of art, the Contemporary sphere is still in conversation with Modernism even if we're post- it.
What Harries gets at is still relevant. I read this with Covid-brain so excuuuuuuusssseeee meeeeee if I get his thesis wrong but from what I understand—and this book, despite its 159 pages, is dense—Harries sees a dichotomy, a schism, between good art and Kitsch. Kitsch is art that is more concerned with portraying the "Real," whatever that may be, than with exploring the freedom man is granted. This freedom can scare man. What is he to do with all this emptiness? He can turn nihilistic, he can worship false idols, he can convince himself that art must follow a fascistic aesthetic. There are lots of ways to go wrong.
"Modern Art has its origin in the disintegration of the traditional order of values which once assigned to man his proper place." When God died, when revolutions began loosening taut mores, the creative class was even freer to rebel against what had happened before. The artist must create in this vacuum. It is a daunting task, but as long as she shows us something we haven't seen before, she succeeds in her mission. Art should be a total expression of self; a chance to transcend the Real. That sounds about right to me.
What Harries gets at is still relevant. I read this with Covid-brain so excuuuuuuusssseeee meeeeee if I get his thesis wrong but from what I understand—and this book, despite its 159 pages, is dense—Harries sees a dichotomy, a schism, between good art and Kitsch. Kitsch is art that is more concerned with portraying the "Real," whatever that may be, than with exploring the freedom man is granted. This freedom can scare man. What is he to do with all this emptiness? He can turn nihilistic, he can worship false idols, he can convince himself that art must follow a fascistic aesthetic. There are lots of ways to go wrong.
"Modern Art has its origin in the disintegration of the traditional order of values which once assigned to man his proper place." When God died, when revolutions began loosening taut mores, the creative class was even freer to rebel against what had happened before. The artist must create in this vacuum. It is a daunting task, but as long as she shows us something we haven't seen before, she succeeds in her mission. Art should be a total expression of self; a chance to transcend the Real. That sounds about right to me.
Displaying 1 of 1 review