Constructivism & Productivism – Russia’s Other Artistic Revolution (1917-1928)

What was it about? What were the goals?

This was another Russian art movement, competing with Malevich’s Suprematism. It was founded by Vladimir Tatlin in 1913. Although there are many explanations written for the art, be warned, none of it makes any sense. Constructivist artists were innovative in terms of industrial materials and making photo collages. They also developed kinetic art – sculptures that move. This movement was very political, celebrating the end of monarchy and the rise of socialism. These artists wanted to put their work in the streets and squares of Russia in order to create a new culture and society. Of course, their patriotism was completely lost on Stalin who banned it around 1930, in favour of his Socialist Realism.

A bit of historical context:

So, this movement began with Tatlin and Rodchenko. Malevich coined the name Constructivism to make fun of it, in 1917. Constructivists rejected the notion of a spiritual quality in art, and even deposed Kandinsky as the director of the Institute of Artistic Culture. Constructivists also argued among each other with Gabo and Pevsner criticizing Tatlin and Rodchenko as well. Tatlin built a large tower in 1920, with search lights added on. Gabo complained, “Either create functional houses and bridges or create pure art, not both.”

The Manifesto:

Naum Gabo and his brother Antoine Pevsner wrote a manifesto for the group in 1920, for some reason titled the Realistic Manifesto. It doesn’t represent the movement as a whole so much as their own beliefs – they splintered from the rest of the group, and also fled Russia to continue their work, while Stalin forced the others to conform to his vision of Socialist Realism. Anyway, here’s the manifesto: 

“We proclaim: For us, space and time are born today.  Space and time: the only forms where life is built, the only forms, therefore, where art should be erected.

States, political and economic systems, die under the push of the centuries: ideas crumble, but life is robust; it grows and cannot be ripped up, and time is continuous in life's true duration.  Who will show us more efficient forms?  Which great human will give us more solid foundations?  Which genius will conceive for us a legend more elating than the prosaic story that is called life?

The fulfillment of our perception of the world under the aspects of space and time: that is the only goal of our plastic creation.

And we do not measure our work by the yardstick of beauty, we do not weigh it on the scales of tenderness and feeling.  The plumb line in hand, the look accurate as a ruler, the mind rigid as a compass, we are building our works as the universe builds.  This is why, when we represent objects, we are tearing up the labels their owners gave them, everything that is accidental and local, leaving them with just their essence and their permanence, to bring out the rhythm of the forces that hide in them.

1. In painting, we repudiate color as a pictorial element.  Color is the idealized and optical face of the objects.  The exterior impression is superficial. Color is accidental and has nothing in common with the internal content of bodies.

We proclaim that the tone of bodies, that is, their material substance absorbing the light, is their sole pictorial reality.

2. We deny the line its graphic value. In the real life of the bodies, there is nothing graphic.  The line is only an accidental trace that humans leave on objects.  It has no connection to essential life and to the permanent structure of things. The line is a merely graphic, illustrative, decorative element.

We acknowledge the line only as the direction of static forces that are hidden in the objects, and of their rhythms.

3. We disown volume as a plastic form of space.  One cannot measure a liquid in inches.  Look at our real space: What is it if not a continuous depth?

We proclaim depth as the unique plastic form of space.

4. We disown, in sculpture, mass as a sculptural element.  Every engineer knows that the static forces of solids, their material resistance, are not a function of their mass.  Example: the rail, the buttress, the beam . . . But you sculptors of any trend and any nuance, you always cling to the old prejudice according to which it is impossible to free volume from mass.  Like this: We take four planes and we make of them the same volume that we would make with a mass of one hundred pounds.

We thus restore to sculpture the line as direction, which prejudice had stolen from it. This way, we affirm in sculpture depth, the unique form of space.

5. We repudiate: the millennial error inherited from Egyptian art: static rhythms seem as the sole elements of plastic creation.

We proclaim a new element in plastic arts: the kinetic rhythms, which are essential forms of our perception of real time . . .

Art is called upon to accompany man everywhere where his tireless life takes place and acts: at the workbench, at the office, at work, at rest, and at leisure; work days and holidays, at home and on the road, so that the flame of life does not go out in man.”

Productivism

Gabo’s manifesto led to a series of artistic debates in Europe that led to this new idea, championed in Russia, that art should be industrial, and that the age of easel painting should end. Tatlin agreed and became a designer, designing clothes, furniture, and everyday appliances like stoves. Rodchenko became a graphic designer, creating advertising posters, and collaborating in films.

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, and literature?

Besides fine art sculptures, industrial and graphic design, Constructivists tried their hands at cinema, creating The Young Lady and the Hooligan (1919), Kino Eye (1924), and the sci-fi film Aelita (1924), among others.

Was it great?

Good question. Like the futurists in Italy, this was a short-lived experimental movement that borrowed heavily from the art movements around it, and didn’t last long enough to really produce much. It seems to have produced more debate than artwork. Having said that, Rodchenko became famous for his posters, and some of Naum Gabo’s sculptures are quite creative. It’s a bit like other modern art movements where the philosophy is nuts, but some of the work is interesting.

Some leading figures:

Alexander Vesnin (1883-1959)

Vladimir Tatlin (1885-1953)

Antoine Pevsner (1886-1962)

Aleksei Gan (1887-1942)

Lyubov Popova (1889-1924)

Naum Gabo (1890-1977)

Alexander Rodchenko (1891-1956)

Varvara Stepanova (1894-1958)

 

Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

 

Intro to Post Modernism (1960 – The Present)

 

Black Paintings by Ad Reinhardt

 

“A quarter century ago, Ad Reinhardt announced that his black paintings had made him history's ultimate artist. He said he had taken art as far as it could go. He had solved all its problems. There was nothing left to do. The critics were impressed. But unfortunately, a lot of other artists refused to hand in their brushes, so art continued.

“Ever since, Modern Art has resembled a doomsday cult on the day after the deadline for the end of the world. The true believers have awakened to find that the sun has risen, the mad prophet's disappeared and they've all got to find something to do with the rest of their lives. They dissolve into factions with rival theories about what happened, what it means and what they're going to do next.

“In art, this predicament is what they call Postmodernism. And if you're confused about it, it's probably because you're beginning to understand it.” – Brad Holland

 

“Postmodernists believe that truth is myth, and myth, truth. This equation has its roots in pop psychology. The same people also believe that emotions are a form of reality. There used to be another name for this state of mind. It used to be called psychosis.” – Brad Holland

 

What was it about? What were the goals?

Post Modernism is an umbrella term for many smaller kinds of art making that are not always related. It's an academic attempt to organize and make sense of what's happened in the art world since 1960, even though it makes little sense. These different, albeit interconnected, movements include: conceptual art, installation art, land art, pop art, feminist art, appropriation (i.e. plagiarism), and performance art (not to be confused with performing arts like dance or theater).

Almost all of Postmodern art is conceptual, meaning the idea is more important than the final art object. The idea is the art. The object merely presents an example, it holds no other value (although they sure sell for a lot). Because it's the idea that matters, conceptual artists often don't make anything at all, instead hiring craftsmen to make things for them.

The notion of conceptual art was first introduced by the Dadaists, back in 1916, but it was supposed to be crazy back then. Now people just shrug their shoulders and accept it. You can think of conceptual art as the Return of  the Living Dadaists, a shambling zombie puking art all over museums fifty years after it died:

Rainbow Body, Puke Painting, by Millie Brown, c. 2003? – did you think I was kidding?

 

A bit of historical context:

Postmodernism began in the 1950’s and 60’s, right when hippies were protesting wars. Just as Impressionism died from pessimism, Modern art also showed early promise for a better world, only to suffer two world wars, nuclear bombs, a new cold war, and endless fighting in tiny countries like Vietnam and Cuba, where the actions of a small group of leaders could lead to a nuclear holocaust. In place of a new peaceful era, we were living a political nightmare, and it’s still ongoing...

Conceptual artists sought to “dematerialize” art, partly due to the increasingly materialistic and money-driven art world in which they found themselves. Artists felt upstaged by their own work. Robert Rauschenberg protested outside of Sotheby’s auction hall as his most famous works went for bidding at sky high prices, and he didn’t get a cent out of it. He was sick at the thought his single greatest patron, Robert Scull, was only in it for the money.

Artists began to feel that the only way to show you were an artist for the right reasons, was to make are that no one could possibly buy or sell. This was based on the flawed notion that accepting money for one’s art is a corrupting influence. It’s not. But, they would create "performances" that only those present could view and enjoy, leaving only documentary evidence in the form of photos and notes. Or, they would make simple objects like plywood shelves with various items - the irony being these "unsellable" documents and objects are now bought and sold for thousands, for their historical value, just like any other artwork.

 

The underlying philosophy of the period:

Post Modernism began with a host of new philosophers around 1950-60 called either deconstructionists or post-structuralists (same thing), most notably Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. The structuralists who came before had theorized that the way we experience and understand the world is through our culture, especially language. Without language, along with a system (or structure) of beliefs based on nature, science, religion, politics, etc., we wouldn’t be able to function or operate in the world. It’s these filters that help us make sense of the world we live in, without which, we’d be lost.

Post-Structuralists agreed with this premise, but complained, since the way we understand these cultural structures is biased, just as our perceptions of history are biased, there’s no way we’ll ever see beyond them, at true reality. We’re still lost, we just don’t know it. Foucault argued that modern society wasn’t nearly so advanced, progressive, or superior as people believed. They argued that this was why there are no simple answers to life’s big questions, and that acceptance of this was a sign of maturity.

So, the job of an artist became to explore one’s environment. Society shapes you. Without your parents, community, church, school, technology, language, etc. you’d be nothing. So, art should focus on the things that make you who you are––it should critique society. This was a popular notion in the 1960’s when America was at war in Vietnam. You can think of Post Modernism as protest or hippy culture.

Not all artists working today are interested in Post Modernism, or the philosophy involved. If an artist working today paints portraits or landscapes, he or she is contemporary, but probably not so post-modern, although little bits of the post modern world sometimes slip in. When I draw and paint, for example, I have zero interest in any of the major figures of postmodernism, nor their philosophies.

 

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, and literature?

Apart from fine art, postmodernism is most prevalent in music, literature, and architecture.

 

Was it great?

No? Not in general? I mean, this covers a lot of people and art, and some you could argue was really great – if you like to argue. But, incontestably, it made for some truly phenomenal comedy. Most postmodern artists can be best understood and appreciated as comedians. PoMo art is probably about 85% satire.

One of the worst effects of PoMo art is the lack of appreciation and even denigration of skill, which has seeped into art education. Some classes and courses no longer offer instruction in technique, focusing solely on what the artwork means. The teachers don’t show you how to do anything. They give an assignment, leave the students to work alone, then critique the results, judging solely on the work’s deeper meanings.

Meanwhile, students commonly state their work couldn’t have mistakes because “it’s my art, it’s exactly how I wanted it to be.” People didn’t say this in the past - and they don't say it about other fields of expertise. I’ve seen art teachers that openly say they have no skills, but it doesn’t matter, and I’ve seen other teachers complain about judging student work, and how it upsets their poor, sensitive egos (as if it were possible to prevent students from seeing and judging their own artwork).

But, art is about humility. You don’t come into the studio an artist, you come as a student, and you stay that way for most, if not all, of your life. The bar for quality has already been set by Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Rembrandt, Picasso, and so on. That’s the goal, and most of us will never get there, and that’s okay––it shouldn’t come as a shock or embarrassment. It doesn’t mean you can’t judge your progress over time, the same as if you started running daily, or practicing the piano. Lying to yourself that quality doesn’t matter, or that it doesn’t even exist, is not going to get you anywhere. Lying to yourself is what should be embarrassing. 

 

Some leading figures:

Balthus (1908-2001) (not considered PoMo, yet)

Francis Bacon (1909-1992)

Lucien Freud (1922-2011)

Robert Rauschenberg (1925-2008)

Cy Twombly (1928-2011)

Jasper Johns (1930-)

Faith Ringgold (1930-)

Gerhard Richter (1932-)

Eva Hesse (1936-1970)

David Hockney (1937-)

Chuck Close (1940-)

Jennifer Bartlett (American 1941-)

Odd Nerdrum (1944-)

Anselm Kiefer (1945-)

Jean-Michel Basquiat (1960-1988)

Jenny Saville (1970-)

Bill Viola (1951-)

Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

 

Abstract Expressionism & Colour Field (1940-1980)

“After World War II, the United States emerged as the world's superpower. American companies like Cities Service and Esso, which had once been regional businesses, became international corporations. They adopted abstract names like "Citgo"; and "Exxon" to give themselves world-class status. Since multinational giants couldn't have little pictures of red barns or weeping clowns in the lobbies of their Bauhaus buildings, Abstract Expressionism emerged as the world's most overrated form of interior decoration.” – Brad Holland

“Self-Expression: the crowbar used by artists to pry open the Pandora's Box of self-indulgence for everybody else in society. Fifty years ago, it was the dream of every bohemian artist to be seen getting out of a limousine wearing blue jeans and sneakers. Today, it's the dream of probably half the people in the country.” – Brad Holland

What was it about? What were the goals?
Abstract Expressionism was a controversial new approach to making art. It wasn’t just a style, it was a new art form. Jackson Pollock famously laid his canvases on the ground and dripped paint on them randomly, walking on them, dropping cigarettes on them and stamping them out. In a way, it was a glorification of Surrealist automatic drawing––on a grand scale.
     This art was about capturing the spirit of something abstractly. You might not be able to tell what it is by looking, but at least the title should make sense. Jay Meuser said, “It is far better to capture the glorious spirit of the sea than to paint all of its tiny ripples.” This was a radical departure from what most artists had made before (besides Kandinsky, Paul Klee, Franz Kupka, Robert Delaunay…). Many of these artists worked quite large. Rothko wrote:

“I realize that historically the function of painting large pictures is painting something very grandiose and pompous. The reason I paint them, however ... is precisely because I want to be very intimate and human. To paint a small picture is to place yourself outside your experience, to look upon an experience as a stereopticon view or with a reducing glass. However you paint the larger picture, you are in it. It isn't something you command!”

     Fun fact, Rothko denied his paintings were abstract. They were pure emotions. An abstraction is a distortion of a real, tangible object. His works were not, nor were most Abstract Expressionist pieces. And yet, we call him an Abstract Expressionist, and more precisely part of the Color Field subgenre. This included the “circle of Rothko”: Clyfford Still, Barnett Newman, and Adolph Gottlieb.
     Rothko, like the other artists in this group didn’t see his work merely in formal aesthetic terms. People will often tell you, if you don’t like a Rothko artwork, stare at it for awhile, and then look away at the white museum wall, and see if you get an after-image. That’s not what he wanted. He said:

“... only in expressing basic human emotions—tragedy, ecstasy, doom, and so on. And the fact that a lot of people break down and cry when confronted with my pictures shows that I can communicate those basic human emotions ... The people who weep before my pictures are having the same religious experience I had when I painted them. And if you, as you say, are moved only by their color relationship, then you miss the point.”

     Rothko gave a lecture where he outlined the necessary ingredients for a great artwork. He claimed it must be preoccupied with death for there to be tension. In addition, there should be something witty, ironic, ephemeral, random, and sensual about the work. Finally, it must contain “10% hope to make the tragic concept more endurable.” This is what he, and pretty much all the Abstract Expressionists, attempted to put into their works.

A bit of historical context:
Abstract Expressionism was heavily influenced by the art of Europe, specifically the intense emotional impact of Expressionism combined with all the anti-figurative movements: Suprematism, Bauhaus, De Stijl, Cubism, and Futurism. Painting actual things and people had become passé.
Abstract Expressionism got a boost in the media as “the first specifically American art movement to achieve international influence, and put New York City at the center of the western art world.” You could argue that it’s a bit disingenuous to call it an American movement, when so many of the group were born elsewhere (see list below). But, it was America that drew all these artists together, with its combination of wealth and freedom. More importantly, these artists weren’t so much drawn to New York, as fleeing the Nazis before WWII. Anyway, America took the credit, and these artists gained a lot of fame, money, and awards.
     Some say this was due to American propaganda, seeking to place itself as the dominant post-WWII culture. Critics were full of praise. Harold Rosenberg said, “At a certain moment the canvas began to appear to one American painter after another as an arena in which to act. What was to go on the canvas was not a picture but an event. . . . The gesture on the canvas was a gesture of liberation from value—political, aesthetic, moral.” These “action paintings” were considered “pure” and “essential.”

The underlying philosophy of the period:
As Rothko explained in his lectures and writings, this art was meant to help people feel, to focus their feelings, re-examine themselves and their actions, and improve – the same Romantic notions we’ve seen in every previous art movement. The recurring theme is always, why can’t we be better?

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, and literature?
While most of these artists painted on canvas, there were also Abstract Expressionist sculptors and photographers. Frank O’Hara was an Abstract Expressionist poet. Robert Frank was an Abstract Expressionist filmmaker, and the movement certainly influenced other famous avant garde filmmakers, such as Ernie Gehr and Brakhage.

Was it great?
No? I mean, in a way? Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they made it, and I’m glad they got so much attention. These artists helped liberate the art world to where an artist can make anything and find credence somewhere in the community. It’s a bit dangerous so far as promoting quality, but as an artist, it allows me to make what I want in peace.
     I don’t think it’s fair to denigrate their work as mere decoration, but it’s also not fair to call their works in any way superior to realistic art that covered the same topics in different ways. I don’t think any Abstract Expressionist artwork could ever be more shocking than this, for example:

'Orphaned', by Nikolai Kasatkin, 1891

I’ve heard proponents of Modernism claim that the little details in a work like this detract from the message. Laylah Ali once complained after she’d drawn realistic portraits of her friends wearing nooses – people kept commenting on the beautiful textures of the hair and rope. In that case, I agree. But, with Kasatkin I think the attention to little details––the atmospheric perspective of the hill in the background, the texture of the wood on the grave markers––add to the work. They are what made the works of Salvador Dali so great, because they stick in our mind. They’re visceral, like the way the blood might fly in a violent film. They affect you, and sure, you can reference that indirectly in Abstract Expressionism, but I don’t see the result as any more powerful. Still, it was an experiment, and it has benefited artists in numerous ways – via composition, and so on.

Some leading figures:
Hans Hoffmann (1880-1966) (born in Germany)
Mark Toby (1890-1976)
Dorothy Dehner (1901-1994)
Mark Rothko (1903-1970) (born in Russia)
Adolph Gottlieb (1903-1974)
Arshile Gorky (1904-1948) (born in Armenia)
Clyfford Still (1904-1980)
Isamu Noguchi (1904-1988)
Willem De Kooning (1904-1997) (born in the Netherlands)
Barnett Newman (1905-1970)
David Smith (1906-1965)
Herbert Ferber (1906-1991)
Theodore Roszak (1907-1981) (born in Poland)
Lee Krasner (1908-1994)
Franz Kline (1910-1962)
Jay Meuser (1911-1963)
Philip Pavia (1911-2005)
Louise Bourgeois (1911-2010) (born in France)
Jackson Pollack (1912-1956)
Agnes Martin (1912-2004) (born in Canada)
Ibram Lassaw (1913-2003) (born in Russia)
Robert Motherwell (1915-1991)
Richard Diebenkorn (1922-1993)
Ellsworth Kelly (1923-2015)

Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

'Woman I', by Willem de Kooning, 1950

'White Center', by Mark Rothko, 1950

'Blue Poles', by Jackson Pollock, 1951

'Elegy to the Spanish Republic no. 110', by Robert Motherwell, 1971

Surrealism (1924-1980)

“An archaic term. Formerly an art movement. No longer distinguishable from everyday life.” – Brad Holland

What was it about? What were the goals?
The word surreal means strange, especially a weird combination of things you normally wouldn’t see together in real life, but more likely in a dream – a concept known as juxtaposition. The goal of this movement was to foment social revolution. Many of its members began as Dadaists, so, much of what they said and did didn’t make sense. Nevertheless, their ambitions were political, and the move from Dadaism to Surrealism is often explained as a move from political anarchy to communism. One leader of the Surrealists, the writer André Breton, said, “Long live the social revolution, and it alone!”
     Breton defined Surrealism as “pure psychic automatism” in which the artist tries as much as possible to give up control of what he is doing, letting his subconscious make the work. If this sounds like blind scribbling, that’s how it looks:

Automatic Drawing by André Masson, 1924

Surrealists compared this to musical improvisation. Of course, most Surrealist art wasn’t quite so messy or unfinished, but, if you look closely, you’ll see they used this as a starting point. Other innovations to automatic art included rubbings, where paper was placed over uneven surfaces so that the texture would show through in the drawing, and decalcomania, where various prints were stamped on the work.

     Central to Surrealist art was a fantastic use of juxtaposition as well as pareidolia––seeing images in abstract shapes, especially faces. Artists like Dalí used pareidolia to give multiple meanings to shapes. A blob could be a tree, a mountain, and a person’s face all at the same time.

     None of this was meant to make art, per se. Surrealists didn’t care about aesthetics or decoration. This was still anti-art, and they viewed these new works as a form of psychological research, to serve as evidence for their social and political views. Breton felt this new art form was a better strategy for social revolution, because automatic art making was seen as a more honest and personal form of expression. Surrealist artists embraced their subconscious, without fear. It was a form of personal liberation, where you could finally be yourself, and not worry how others judge you. Dali said, “There is only one difference between a madman and me. I am not mad.” Dalí and Breton thought, if people could accept these ideas, they would become more, honest, enlightened, rational, benevolent and peaceful. Scribbling for social change may sound crazy, but it actually kind-of worked. Sort of…

A bit of historical context:

The French playwright Apollinaire first used the term Surrealism in 1917, when describing his and other works. This is one of the few times where an art movement was coined by a follower, rather than a critic.

     André Breton cofounded this movement, writing (in his definition) the first Surrealist work, Magnetic Fields, in 1919. His motive came from his experiences in WWI. André had been a student of psychology when he was drafted into the war. He became a doctor, examining soldiers suffering from insanity, then known as “shell shock”. Through Freud’s theories, Breton became fascinated with the subconscious, and wanted to explore it through automatic drawing and writing, as a way to learn who we are deep down, and what we need to be happy.

     After the war, Breton and other Dadaist writers and anti-artists came back to Paris. There, in 1924, these artists formed two competing Surrealist factions, one led by Breton and the other by Yvan Goll, each with its own manifesto. Goll and Breton actually fought in the street over who could use the term Surrealist, and Breton won. Hardly anyone even knows what was in Goll’s manifesto anymore.

     Besides his manifesto, Breton and his comrades wrote a journal called La Révolution Surréaliste, which had twelve issues from 1924-29. They also formed a center for Surrealist research, where they experimented with hypnotism, and kept an archive of their works. The first Surrealist art exhibit was held in Paris in 1925.

     By 1928 many of the core members broke from the group, based on different political opinions – which goes to show, exploring your subconscious is no guarantee that people will get along any better. Breton supported Leon Trotsky, while Dalí supported the fascist dictator Franco in Spain – Dalí was expelled from the group for this. Others supported Stalin. The group splintered to pieces, and each went his separate ways, even as they gained recognition and continued showing art in London, New York ,and elsewhere. After WWII, Breton turned his back on communism, choosing to return to his roots as an anarchist.

Salvador Dalí, wearing a diving suit at the London International Surrealist Exhibition, in 1936.

Fun fact: he almost died from suffocation there, as no one knew how to take the helmet off.

The underlying philosophy of the period:

The main idea of this movement was that one could use automatic art making as a form of psychotherapy, not only to know who you really are, but thereby, to help you find answers to all of life’s questions. It’s all buried somewhere in your head, and you just have to let it out, and if the whole world got into it, this could change people’s perceptions, bring greater freedom, and shape humanity into a better society. It’s all rather romantic if you think about it. 

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, film, and literature?

There were several Surrealist writers, including Breton, Apollinaire, Artaud, Aragon, Crevel, Péret, and Lorca. There were also several famous Surrealist films, directed by Buñuel, Dalí, Man Ray, and Cocteau. They filmed Un Chien Andelou and L'Age D'Or. Some composers experimented with Surrealism, including Martinu, Satie, Souris, and Varèse.

Was it great?

It was wild. Certain works are absolutely great, but Surrealism was all about experimentation, and not every experiment succeeds. Funny enough, a lot of the work feels repetitive – the same long-legged blobs walking drunkenly through an empty wasteland with blue skies and funny little shapes and lines scattered about, and the occasional insect. Dalí and Magritte are the two exceptions who consistently made new and surprising artworks that required actual skill and time to produce.

Some leading figures:

Francis Picabia (1879-1953)

Jean (Hans) Arp (1886-1966)

Giorgio De Chirico (1888-1978)

Man Ray (1890-1976)

Max Ernst (1891-1976)

Joan Miró (1893-1983)

André Breton (1896-1966)

André Masson (1896-1987)

Rene Magritte (1898-1967)

Yves Tanguy (1900-1955)

Luis Buñuel (1900-1983) (filmmaker)

Salvador Dalí (1904-1989)

Wolfgang Paalen (1905-1959)

Frida Kahlo (1907-1954)

Méret Elisabeth Oppenheim (1913-1985)
Ilene Meyer (1939-2009)

Some of the greatest artworks of the movement:

'Panorama Populaire', by Rene Magritte, 1927

'The Treachery of Images', by Rene Magritte, 1929

'The Persistence of Memory', by Salvador Dalí, 1931

'The Dream', by Salvador Dalí, 1931

'The Voice of Space', by Rene Magritte, 1931

'Tears', by Man Ray, 1932

'The Enigma of William Tell', by Salvador Dalí, 1933

'L Condition Humaine II', by Rene Magritte, 1935

'Lobster Telephone', by Salvador Dalí, 1936

'The Enigma of Hitler', by Salvador Dalí, 1937

'La Reproduction Interdite', by Rene Magritte, 1937

'Apparition of a Face & Fruit Dish on a Beach', by Salvador Dalí, 1938

'The Face of War', by Salvador Dalí, 1940

'Christ of St. John of the Cross', by Salvador Dalí, 1951

'Crucifixion', by Salvador Dalí, 1954

'Rinoceronte Vestido con Puntillas', Puerto José Banús, by Salvador Dalí, 1956

'Le Château des Pyrénées', by Rene Magritte, 1959

'Moon Bird', by Joan Miró, 1966

'Jeune fille s'évadant', by Joan Miró, 1967-75

'Dalí pintando a Gal', by Salvador Dalí, 1973

'Gala Contemplating the Mediterranean Sea, Which, at 20m Becomes Abraham Lincoln, Homage to Rothko II', by Salvador Dalí, 1976

Dadaism (1912-1922)

“Dada artists were ironists. Duchamp was their star and his masterpiece was a urinal. He ended his life playing chess. He claimed he was making an art statement. My grandfather had a sense of humor too. And he ended his life playing chess. But since he did it to keep from being bored, no one thought it proved anything. This suggests that Dada artists are exempt from the general rule that ironists are the biggest victims of their own irony.” – Brad Holland

What was it about? What were the goals?
Dadaism, also called Anti-Art, was a protest movement, starting just before WWI, that used new forms of art to criticize the violence, war, fascism, and poverty found in modern capitalist society, as well as the acceptance of these atrocities by the bourgeoisie (upper-middle class). Dadaist art included sculpture, collage, assemblage, installation art, “sound poetry”, and “cut-up writing”. It was irrational and ridiculous, serving as an attack on modern society and industry––that what most people considered logical and normal was actually just as irrational and silly as their work. Politically, most Dadaist artists favoured communism and/or anarchy. Dadaist work was supposed to be offensive and ugly.
     Dadaism was inspired by Cubism, Expressionism, and Futurism, which all allowed artists to dismiss realism and beauty, focusing instead on other issues. It also introduced the idea of using cheap, mass-produced materials. Where Dadaism differed was in allowing random chance to dictate art. Jean Arp would throw bits of paper on the ground and glue them to a background, wherever they lay.

Untitled (Collage with Squares Arranged according to the Laws of Chance), by Jean Arp, 1916-17

      Dadaists also started the practice of installation art – transforming a room through a variety of decorations and objects. Although short-lived, Dadaism was hugely influential on 20th century art, guiding the way for Abstract Expressionists like Pollack, Pop Artists like Warhol, and all kinds of conceptual artists.

A bit of history:
Dadaism, although short lived, was an international art movement, starting in Zurich, Switzerland, by a group of artists who all had one thing in common – they had all fled to Zurich to avoid the horrors of WWI. Dadaism soon spread to New York City (NYC), Berlin, and Paris as these artists travelled around. It was in NYC that Duchamp met Picabia and Man Ray. This is where Duchamp exhibited his readymades, and it was also a centre for Dadaist writing.
     Although Dadaism was an art movement, its proponents, in true Dadaist fashion, denied this, calling it an anti-movement, whatever the hell that means. This didn’t stop them from making journals, and artist Hugo Ball’s Dadaist Manifesto in 1916. Tzara wrote another, the following year.
No one is sure where the movement got its name. It sounds like a baby’s babble, suggesting a childish art. One story is that the Austrian artist Hulsenbeck stabbed a French dictionary with a knife and it landed on the word dada, meaning “toy horse”. Another theory is that the name came from Romanian artists Tzara and Janco always saying, “Da, da,” meaning “yes, yes.”
     Two of the earliest Dadaist works were the play, Ubu Roi, by Alfred Jarry, performed in 1896, and the ballet Parade, composed by Erik Satie. Towards the end of Dadaism, which centred in Paris, many Dadaist artists were intrigued by psychology and moved on to become Surrealists. Dadaism returned to prominence as Neo-Dada in the 1960’s.

The underlying philosophy of the not-a-movement:
Like the romantics before, Dadaists believed that they needed to somehow break down all the social beliefs, institutions, and practices that allowed for war, and to reinvent a better society, and they thought they could somehow do this through art. They failed, miserably, but it was a noble effort. Where they succeeded was in redefining art and art making, with a variety of new methods and techniques.

How was it represented in other arts: music, architecture, and literature?
As stated earlier, Dadaism found its place early in theatre and music. It also found its part in literature, with books like The Blind Man, Rongwrong, New York Dada, and Marsden Hartley’s essay “The Importance of Being ‘Dada.’ ”

Was Dadaism great?
It’s unclear that they made great art, or any art at all for that matter (it’s anti-art, remember), but they certainly made a great debate that still rages on a hundred years later. Having said that, Dadaists made many works that are memorable, evocative, humorous, and influential. That’s something.

Some leading figures:
It tells you something, when the leader of an intellectual group is the youngest one there...

Éric Alfred Leslie Satie (1866-1925) composer
Alfred Jarry (1873-1907) playwright
Francis Picabia (1879-1953)
Emmy Hennings (1884-1948) wife of Hugo Ball
Hugo Ball (1886-1927)
Hans/Jean Arp (1886-1966)
Kurt Schwitters (1887-1948)
Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968)
Sophie Taeuber (1889-1943)
Hannah Hoch (1889-1978)
Man Ray (1890-1976)
John  Heartfield (1891-1968)
Max Ernst (1891-1976)
Carl Wilhelm Richard Hülsenbeck (1892-1974)
Tristan Tzara (1896-1963) defacto leader and strategist for the group in Zurich.

Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

Duchamp’s Ready-Mades: Duchamp picked a total of thirteen objects that he elevated to fine art status, in most cases simply by signing them. Objects included a urinal, a snow shovel, a comb, and a typewriter cover. This was in response to a 1917 art exhibit in New York City that promised to accept everything, no matter what. Duchamp wanted to test their honesty, and it turned out they had lied. The Society of Independent Artists hid his “fountain” and Duchamp soon quit the group. Duchamp selected these items as a form of trolling, but also to force debate on a new definition of art, one which the world is still wrestling with. He wanted these works to be impersonal and uninteresting, lacking any handmade craftsmanship, and having nothing to do with taste, which he called the enemy of art.

(Italian) Futurism (1910-1920)

“This was a movement of intellectuals who wanted to replace tradition with the modern world of machinery, speed, violence, and public relations. It proves that we should be careful what intellectuals wish for, because we might get it.” – Brad Holland

What was it about? What were the goals?
This movement was an effort to radically change society for the better by embracing science and modernity, and through seeing the world in new ways. It was a movement that saw art as one of many tools to use in a greater effort. Unfortunately, it was hopelessly flawed by its misunderstanding of science, nature, and society – particularly in the acceptance of pseudo science like superior races, and a naive view of a future world transformed by man without any negative consequences. This is an example of people with great intentions, advocating terrible ideas, who simply didn’t know any better.
     Despite their flaws, Futurists did contribute some innovative artworks. They developed the notion of dynamism – of the interaction between people, places, and things. They also incorporated the idea of “simultaneity” in time––that the past, present, and future are connected. Balla said, “. . . moving objects constantly multiply themselves; their form changes like rapid vibrations, in their mad career. Thus a running horse has not four legs, but twenty, and their movements are triangular.”
     As these artists travelled to Paris, they became heavily influenced by Cubism, borrowing heavily. The best way to see the difference between these two movements is in their subjects. While Cubists enjoyed painting portraits, still lifes, and nature, Futurists preferred to paint cities and modern vehicles in motion.

A bit of historical context:
So, this was an avant-garde movement that began in Milan, Italy in 1909, with a poet named Marinetti, who wrote up a Futurist Manifesto. The paper actually said little about painting (many more manifestos followed, on every art form), and spoke optimistically about the future, embracing new technology, science, progress, and change. The past, he believed, was holding society back and so traditions and taste should be eradicated. Meanwhile, the future would bring man’s triumph over nature (This was before we learned of global warming).
     Marinetti was also very political, promoting nationalism, fascism, and freedom from Austria. His manifesto proclaimed, “We will glorify war —the world's only hygiene —militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman.” Marinetti worked closely with Mussolini and tried to promote modern art as being Italian, nationalist, anti-foreign, and anti-Semitic. It didn’t work.  Mussolini and Hitler saw modern art as degenerate. Nevertheless, Marinetti’s ideas attracted a group of young artists who became the Futurists. Many of these artists, including Marinetti fought in WWI & II, and some died.
     Fortunately the main thrust of this movement soon ended during WWI. Boccioni was killed in action, and the remaining artists separated into factions (Milan vs. Florence) and went separate ways. Marinetti tried to revive “il secondo Futurismo” in the 1960’s, but, by then, his influence was gone.

The underlying philosophy of the period:
The biggest problem with the Futurists was in creating a false choice between tradition and modernity. They thought society needed to erase everything and start over, and they even advocated violence to achieve this––the ends justified the means. This is also why they supported Mussolini and disliked democracy. They thought you needed a strong hand to force change quickly. In hindsight, it seems easy to say that modern isn’t always better. And we know now that the ends don’t always justify the means. But, they were just entering the modern world. They were naive, idealistic, foolhardy, and in some ways pig-headed.

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, and literature?
Marinetti planned for Futurism to influence all areas of life: music, writing, architecture, design, and even food! Marinetti hated pasta, and wanted people to begin eating rice, grown in Italy. He even looked forward to a future of pills to replace food. However crazy this sounds, several followers did try to carry his ideas into different arts.
     Antonio Sant’Elia was a Futurist architect who designed “La Città Nuova” in 1912-14. He was killed in action before any of his ideas could be built, but his writings were influential, leading to several structures that still exist today, like the train stations in Florence and Trento. Rovegno has a ghost town built in a Futurist style that no one wants to live in.
     The two main composers of Futurist music were Pratella and Russolo, two people who scorned all the Italian composers of the past, and yet were never able to surpass them. I mean, have you ever heard of Pratella or Russolo? Enough said…

Was it great?
...No? Futurism is one of those examples where it’s hard to separate the art from the (awful) politics of its adherents. It’s a little like if Dr. Evil decided to paint his version of utopia. There are some works where I can admire the skill of conception and the impressive crafting of the image, but I’ve never seen a Futurist art work that really spoke to me or amazed me. Futurism answers the question, what happens when a new art form comes to a country where the people are generally dissatisfied and feel inferior, and so they think they’ve finally found a way to change things and get a bit delusional.

Some leading figures:
Giacomo Balla (1871-1958)
Filippo Marinetti (1876-1944) (poet)
Carlo Carrà (1881-1966)
Umberto Boccioni (1882-1916)
Gino Severini (1883-1966)
Luigi Russolo (1885-1947) (composer)
Antonio Sant’Elia (1888-1916) (architect)
Anton Bragaglia (1890-1960) (photographer)

Russian Futurists:
Kazimir Malevich (1879-1935)
Natalia Sergeevna Goncharova (1881-1962)
Aleksei Kruchonykh (1886-1968) (poet & playwright)

Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

'The City Rises', by Umberto Boccioni, 1910

'Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash', by Giacomo Balla, 1912

'Materia', by Umberto Boccioni, 1912

'Nude Descending a Staircase II', by Marcel Duchamp, 1912

'Unique Forms of Continuity in Space', by Umberto Boccioni, 1913

(German) Expressionism (1900-1950)

“The Miracle of Authenticity: The faith that if we're all authentic and express ourselves, society will benefit. A charming ideal, but it overlooks the obvious. There are a lot of authentic jerks and idiots in the world. Encouraging them to express themselves will never do anybody much good, much less society.” – Brad Holland

What was it about? What were the goals?
Expressionism was a form of social protest, hoping to revolutionize society through art. The goal of these artists was outlined in 1906 by Ernst Kirchner in his Expressionist Manifesto: “We call all young people together, and as young people, who carry the future in us, we want to wrest freedom for our actions and our lives from the older, comfortably established forces.”
     Kirchner and his friends looked at the world in a new way, attempting to visualize the emotional experience of a subject, rather than its realistic outward appearance. They didn’t want to simply paint a face, a building, or people in a city street. They wanted to explore what these things meant to them.

The underlying philosophy of the movement:
According to the art historian Antonin Matějček, Expressionists rejected Impressionism. They took the same observations as an Impressionist, and then interpreted through the “filter of the soul” to remove unnecessary details and get a clearer, more honest representation of what they saw. Artists of this movement were deeply influenced by the psychologist Sigmund Freud, and by philosophers like Kafka and Nietzsche, and so they explored emotions such as angst, nervousness, isolation, depression and self-doubt, finding ways to depict these feelings visually. This was one of the first art movements to look for something other than beauty as a subject. The notion that this art was more “honest” than other movements may be pretentious, but it was certainly more personal, and at times more revealing.

But, wait a minute? Isn’t all art expressive? What makes Expressionism different?
Of course all art is expressive. Just look back at Art Nouveau, the Pre-Raphaelites, and even Impressionism and Realism, which these artists despised. All these movements portrayed the world in ways a camera couldn’t. What made Expressionism different was its experimental approach, choosing selectively what to observe and include, and exclude, without a care for realism or academic training.

A bit of historical context:
Expressionism took inspiration from certain post-impressionist artists like Van Gogh, Bonnard, and Vuillard. Although it was international, Expressionism began in Germany with two different groups of artists, Die Brücke (The Bridge) in Dresden, and Der Blaue Reiter (The Blue Rider) in Munich (named after one of Kandinsky’s paintings). These artists looked to explore how life was changing, often for the worse, in new, large, cosmopolitan cities. They considered injustices like poverty, materialism, and war, and wondered how modern, civilized society could tolerate them. Ironically, their critique was much the same as the Realist artists Manet, Millet, and Courbet, back in the 1850’s and 60’s. But, the Expressionists rejected the look of realism, considering it a tradition forced on them by society, so they chose to embrace a level of primitivism, childishness, vulgarity, and ugliness to free themselves of social constraints and better express how they really felt.
     Die Brücke got its name from one of Nietzsche’s books, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, where he used a bridge as a metaphor for the barbaric past, and what should be a better future. Expressionists wanted to be that bridge, which makes their fate all the sadder. Both Franz Marc and August Macke died in combat in WWI. Expressionism fell out of favour in Germany with the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party in the 1930’s. Many of their artworks were burned. Hitler even organized an exhibition of “degenerate art” to make fun of it. The show included over 30 works by Kirchner, who committed suicide soon after. Other artists had to flee, and many died before WWII ended. By that point, however, Expressionism had spread out around the world where it continues to be a major artistic influence and inspiration.

Was it great?
I think so, at least some of it. Some people fail to appreciate it, but I enjoy a lot of these artists, their aesthetics, the feelings they invoke, the inventiveness, and the overall spirit of their experiments. I also recognize the difficulty in what they were doing, and see a level of expertise in these seemingly childish works that non-artists sometimes miss. At its best, with the works of Kathe Kollwitz, and Egon Schiele, it’s extremely powerful.
     Another common question concerns whether these artists were capable of drawing realistically, or if they were just bad at it. Having reviewed some of their earlier works, I’ve found they actually could draw quite well. They learned realism first, and then went on to abstraction.

How is Expressionism any different from other modern movements, like Fauvism or Primitivism?
Art historians agree that it’s very hard to differentiate these early modern movements. It mostly has to do with geography. Originally, Fauvists were French, Futurists were Italian, and Expressionists were German. Both movements showed a disdain for modern city life, and a longing nostalgia for nature and forests. Both were abstract and childlike. There was also a lot of blending of ideas, as these artists travelled and influenced each other. I would say, the biggest single difference is that Expressionist works are generally more dismal, sombre, and frightening, especially the later works.

How was it represented in other arts – music, architecture, and literature?
The first Expressionists also wrote poetry, and as the movement spread, it filtered into literature, dance, music, and even film. Mary Wigman was a major innovator in dance. Franz Kafka was the main novelist of the movement. Famous films include The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari by Robert Wiene, Metropolis by Fritz Lang, and Nosferatu by Murnau.
     The artist Oskar Kokoschka also wrote the first Expressionist play, Murderer, The Hope of Women, in 1909. The composer Paul Hindemith then arranged it into an opera. Other playwrights included Georg Kaiser, Ernst Toller, Bertolt Brecht, and, in America, Eugene O’Neill, Arthur Miller, and Tennessee Williams. Expressionist theatre often concerned a hero who becomes disillusioned by society and rebels, having a spiritual awakening, and many plays mirrored Jesus’ stations of the cross.
     Apart from Hindemith, the three main Expressionist composers were Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, and Alban Berg, members of the “Second Viennese School”. They developed the “serial twelve-tone technique” in which all twelve tones are equally represented – no one note dominates. This results in music that’s virtually impossible to remember, as there is no key, no repetition, no melody, no motifs, etc. You’ll recognize it when you hear it, but you won’t be able to hum it after.
Expressionism even worked its way into architecture but it wasn’t fully accepted there. The two most famous works are the Einstein Tower in Potsdam by Erich Mendelsohn and Bruno Taut’s Glass Pavilion in Cologne.

The Einstein Tower in Potsdam, Germany, by Mendelsohn, 1921

Some leading figures:

Members of Der Blaue Reiter:
Marianne von Werefkin (1860-1938)
Alexej von Jawlensky (1864-1941)
Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944)
Paul Klee (1879-1940)
Franz Marc (1880-1916)
August Macke (1887-1914)

Members of Die Brücke:
Emil Nolde (1867-1956)
Otto Mueller (1874-1930)
Fritz Bleyl (1880-1966)
Ernst Ludwig Kirchner (1880-1938)
Max Pechstein (1881-1955)
Erich Heckel (1883-1970)
Karl Schmidt-Rottluff (1884-1976)


Other leading figures:
Edvard Munch (Norwegian, 1863-1944)(Also considered a Symbolist)
Kathe Kollwitz (German, 1867-1945)
Paula Modersohn-Becker (German, 1876-1907)
Marsden Hartley (American, 1877-1943)
Arthur Dove (American, 1880-1946)
Pablo Picasso (Spanish, 1881-1973)
Amedeo Modigliani (Italian, 1884-1920)
Max Beckmann (German,1884-1950)
Marc Chagall (Russian-French, 1887-1985)
Egon Schiele (Austrian, 1890-1918)
Otto Dix (German, 1891-1969)
Joan Miro (Spanish, 1893-1983)
Henry Moore (English, 1898-1986)
Estelle Ishigo (American, 1899-1990)
Alice Neel (American, 1900-1984)
Francis Bacon (English, 1909-1992)
Lucian Freud (English, 1922-2011) (son of Sigmund Freud)


Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

'The Scream', by Edvard Munch, 1893

'Self-Portrait', Picasso, 1901

'Woman with Dead Child', by Kathe Kollwitz, 1903

'Portrait of Alexander Sakharoff', by Jawlensky, 1909

'Self-Portrait with Hand to Cheek', by Egon Schiele, 1910

'Portrait of Max Oppenheimer', by Egon Schiele, 1910

'Portrait of Marcela', by Kirchner, 1910

'Portrait of a Young Girl', by Modigliani, 1910

'The Rider', by Kandinsky, 1911

'Composition No. IV', by Kandinsky, 1911

'Blue Horse No. 1', by Marc, 1911

'In the Rain', by Marc, 1912

'The Tightrope Walker', by Macke, 1913

'Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery', by Beckmann, 1917

'Warrior with a Pipe', by Otto Dix, 1918

'The Suicide Victim', by Dix, 1922

'The Dead Man', by Dix, 1924

'Members of Die Brucke', by Kirchner, 1927

'Trench Warfare', by Dix, 1932

'Town Castle', by Klee, 1932

'Abstract Head: The Word', by Jawlensky, 1933

'Death and the Mother', by Kollwitz, 1934

'The Triumph of Death', by Dix, 1934

'Prisoners of War', by Dix, 1948