Filozofski vestnik Modernism Revisited Edited by Aleš Erjavec & Tyrus Miller XXXV | 2/2014 Izdaja | Published by Filozofski inštitut ZRC SAZU Institute of Philosophy at SRC SASA Ljubljana 2014 CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana 141.7(082) 7.036(082) MODERNISM revisited / edited by Aleš Erjavec & Tyrus Miller. - Ljubljana : Filozofski inštitut ZRC SAZU = Institute of Philosophy at SRC SASA, 2014. - (Filozofski vestnik, ISSN 0353-4510 ; 2014, 2) ISBN 978-961-254-743-1 1. Erjavec, Aleš, 1951- 276483072 Contents Filozofski vestnik Modernism Revisited Volume XXXV | Number 2 | 2014 9 Aleš Erjavec & Tyrus Miller Editorial 13 Sascha Bru The Genealogy-Complex. History Beyond the Avant-Garde Myth of Originality 29 Eva Forgács Modernism's Lost Future 47 Jožef Muhovič Modernism as the Mobilization and Critical Period of Secular Metaphysics. The Case of Fine/Plastic Art 67 Krzysztof Ziarek The Avant-Garde and the End of Art 83 Tyrus Miller The Historical Project of “Modernism”: Manfredo Tafuri’s Metahistory of the Avant-Garde 103 Miško Šuvaković Theories of Modernism. Politics of Time and Space 121 Ian McLean Modernism Without Borders 141 Peng Feng Modernism in China: Too Early and Too Late 157 Aleš Erjavec Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge 175 Patrick Flores Speculations on the “International” Via the Philippine 193 Kimmo Sarje The Rational Modernism of Sigurd Fosterus. A Nordic Interpretation 219 Ernest Ženko Ingmar Bergman’s Persona as a Modernist Example of Media Determinism 239 Rainer Winter The Politics of Aesthetics in the Work of Michelangelo Antonioni: An Analysis Following Jacques Rancière 255 Ernst van Alphen On the Possibility and Impossibility of Modernist Cinema: Péter Forgács’ Own Death 271 Terry Smith Rethinking Modernism and Modernity 321 Notes on Contributors 325 Abstracts Kazalo Filozofski vestnik Ponovno obiskani modernizem Letnik XXXV | Številka 2 | 2014 9 Aleš Erjavec & Tyrus Miller Uvodnik 13 Sascha Bru Genealoški kompleks. Zgodovina onkraj avantgardnega mita o izvirnosti 29 Eva Forgács Izgubljena prihodnost modernizma 47 Jožef Muhovič Modernizem kot mobilizacija in krizni čas sekularne metafizike. Primer likovne umetnosti 67 Krzysztof Ziarek Avantgarda in konec umetnosti 83 Tyrus Miller Zgodovinski projekt »modernizma«: Metazgodovina avantgarde Manfreda Tafurija 103 Miško Šuvaković Teorije modernizma. Politika časa in prostora 121 Ian McLean Modernizem brez meja 141 Peng Feng Modernizem na Kitajskem; prezgodaj in prepozno 157 Aleš Erjavec Bij bele z rdečim klinom 175 Patrick Flores Razglabljanje o »mednarodnem« prek Filipinov 193 Kimmo Sarje Racionalni modernizem Sigurda Fosterusa. Nordijska interpretacija 219 Ernest Ženko Persona Ingmarja Bergmana kot modernistični primer medijskega determinizma 239 Rainer Winter Politika estetike v delu Michelangela Antonionija: Analiza po Jacquesu Rancièrju 255 Ernst van Alphen O možnosti in nemožnosti modernistične kinematografije: Lastna smrt Pétra Forgácsa 271 Terry Smith Premislek o modernizmu in modernosti 321 Notica o avtorjih 325 Povzetki Modernism Revisited Filozofski vestnik | Volume XXXV | Number 2 | 2014 | 9–11 Aleš Erjavec & Tyrus Miller Editorial Since the 1970s and 1980s when the concept of postmodernism was advanced and hotly debated, the concept of “modernism” was not simply superseded, but also itself became a major object of criticism, questioning, negation, and rein- scription. Throughout the 20th century and until the present, “modernism” has regularly simply superseded, has regularly accreted and shed meanings, fields of reference, and conceptual grounds. It has been variously characterized as the opposite of realism or a further radicalization of realist representation; as an outgrowth of or rupture with previous movements such as aestheticism and naturalism; as a synonym for or the antipode of various strands of the avant- garde; and as the visible proof of relevance of the notion of modernity, which by different thinkers has been said to have come to an end, been globally dis- persed, or continued in further development and differentiation. It has been divided among Latin American, Anglo-American, German and French designa- tions, and was proclaimed to be the last cultural dominant arising from Europe or the capitalist “West,” to be then broadened into “global modernisms.” By recent theorists, it has been temporally distinguished from contemporary art (by Terry Smith), dissolved within a historically more encompassing “aesthetic regime of art” (by Jacques Rancière), and displaced within the concept of “off- modernism” (Svetlana Boym). Due to its varied and contradictory history and to its uncertain present status 9 and content we have invited new reflection on the notion of modernism as a his- toricizing, periodizing, and/or geographical-historical framework. We wanted to attract boldly speculative, polemical essays that will set out new directions and spur further discussion and debate. These were some possible questions for contributors to consider in formulating topics: • Is modernism solely a past phenomenon or does it remain a contempo- rary one, and if so, how? aleš erjavec & tyrus miller • How does the contemporary moment compel revisiting and reinterpreta- tion of the modernist past, previous conceptions of modernism, the mod- ernist canon or archive? • Should alternative concepts such as those developed by Rancière, Smith, Boym (or other relevant thinkers) displace and / or replace the concept of modernism? • Should we speak of global and alternative modernisms and how are these related to expanding notions of modernity and modernization? • How do the various strains of “Eastern modernism”—related to Soviet, socialist bloc, and non-aligned social contexts—inflect the concepts of “modernism,” “Western modernism,” and / or “global modernism”? • How do differentiated, multiple temporalities—i.e. social-political time, technological time, material rhythms, gendered temporalities, memory structures, etc.—affect formulations of the concept of modernism (or al- ternatives to it)? • How have conceptions of modernism (or alternatives to modernism) re- sponded to marginal and / or emerging identities? The issue of Filozofski vestnik that is in front of you offers some answers to the questions formulated above. At the same time it also raises new questions and reveals new facets of this dynamic artistic, cultural and political phenomenon, thereby witnessing that in spite of frequent postmodern and also contemporary denigrations and proclamations of modernism as being obsolete and irrelevant, by its inner dynamism it continues to retain its importance and applicability to the past if not also to the present art. This is possible because past art forms, ideas, and works are being continuously interpreted and re-interpreted, and thereby reintegrated and then temporarily retained within what we call “art”— 10 whether art as an institution or art as its opposite and negation. In both in- stances past art—the art of modernism—is being recuperated and exists now on the same synchronic level as recent and contemporary art. Due to this re-emer- gence/rejuvenation of modernist art and its inclusion into our present it suffices to view this art as continuously relevant. Its being incessantly questioned is an- other feature of its inner and continuous dynamism and vitality. Such charac- teristics and circumstances prove that in some (or many) of its past and current meanings and significations it remains a concept that we expect to see and work with in the future. Modernism thus continues to be a pivotal cultural and artistic foundation of our past and present. It represents the pinnacle of art in the his- editorial tory of the EuroAmerican culture and, as recent research and exhibitions show and prove, has exterted and continues to exert an extraordinary amount of in- fluence also in other parts of the globe. This volume is thus yet another occasion to consider this point, causing modernism to be in the need of being revisited many more times. 11 Filozofski vestnik | Volume XXXV | Number 2 | 2014 | 13–28 Sascha Bru* The Genealogy-Complex History Beyond the Avant-Garde Myth of Originality1 As1there are many possible historical contexts within which to frame modern- ism, there are also various histories of modernism. From the 1980s through the turn of the millennium, scholars tended to rub modernist texts and artworks up against their most immediate contexts—understood in institutional, ideo- logical, social, or cultural terms. More recently, new approaches have called this procedure into question: digital humanities appear to bookend all of modernist history by questioning the traditional modes of presenting textual and artistic sources;2 cognitive readings substitute the human brain for context;3 while eco- logical and other approaches regard the history of modernist art and literature as a blip on the screen of planetary history, or “deep time”, radically expand- ing the reach of a term like context.4 These recent approaches have led to what could be called an “excess” of context that has thoroughly complicated our his- torical understanding of modernism and its classic avant-gardes (futurism, ex- pressionism, Dadaism, surrealism, among others). Yet this excess has also cre- ated a situation in which the wood is often no longer seen for the trees, because it has tended to draw attention away from a basic concern that unites all his- torical analyses: the issue of writing history or historiography, of the narrative