Modernists Reading Themselves

Leonard Diepeveen
{"title":"Modernists Reading Themselves","authors":"Leonard Diepeveen","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198825432.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 5 begins with an extended examination of Edith Sitwell’s interactions with her critics and her baffling formalist analyses of her own works. Sincerity, in early modernism, was under contestation. While initially apologists tended to claim sincerity for modernism either as self-expression or as accurate rendering of perception, sincerity became increasingly based on self-consciousness and methodology, based on ideas of development and professionalism. Modernism’s defenders increasingly moved intent to the sidelines, with the following arguments: that modernist works had articulable meaning; that the province of real criticism proceeded from a general acknowledgement of the artwork’s autonomy; that it was inappropriate for criticism to consider intent; and that forms of doubleness like contradiction, paradox, and irony were central not just to modernism but to all great art. In short, the defenses of modernism’s apparent fraud modulated into an aesthetic discourse based on formalism, New Criticism, and the intentional fallacy.","PeriodicalId":170510,"journal":{"name":"Modernist Fraud","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modernist Fraud","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198825432.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chapter 5 begins with an extended examination of Edith Sitwell’s interactions with her critics and her baffling formalist analyses of her own works. Sincerity, in early modernism, was under contestation. While initially apologists tended to claim sincerity for modernism either as self-expression or as accurate rendering of perception, sincerity became increasingly based on self-consciousness and methodology, based on ideas of development and professionalism. Modernism’s defenders increasingly moved intent to the sidelines, with the following arguments: that modernist works had articulable meaning; that the province of real criticism proceeded from a general acknowledgement of the artwork’s autonomy; that it was inappropriate for criticism to consider intent; and that forms of doubleness like contradiction, paradox, and irony were central not just to modernism but to all great art. In short, the defenses of modernism’s apparent fraud modulated into an aesthetic discourse based on formalism, New Criticism, and the intentional fallacy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
现代主义者阅读他们自己
第五章以伊迪丝·西特维尔与批评家的互动以及她对自己作品令人困惑的形式主义分析开始。在早期的现代主义中,真诚是备受争议的。虽然最初的辩护者倾向于声称现代主义的真诚,要么是自我表达,要么是对感知的准确呈现,但真诚越来越多地基于自我意识和方法论,基于发展和专业主义的理念。现代主义的捍卫者越来越倾向于旁观,他们的论点如下:现代主义作品具有清晰的意义;真正的批评的范围是从对艺术品的自主权的普遍承认开始的;批评考虑意图是不恰当的;这种形式的双重性,如矛盾、悖论和讽刺,不仅是现代主义的核心,也是所有伟大艺术的核心。简而言之,对现代主义明显欺诈的辩护转变为一种基于形式主义、新批评主义和故意谬误的美学话语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sincerity’s Champions Modern Parody Rereading the Shameless Puffery of Modern Charlatans Default Settings Intent in Practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1