Pub Date : 2019-03-07DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198825432.003.0002
Leonard Diepeveen
Chapter 2 takes on methodological issues arising from the manner in which fraud discourse entered culture. It considers the place of ordinary intellectuals, and fraud discourse’s large presence in daily and weekly journalism, including the aesthetic principles that could be invoked but did not need to be argued for. It considers how this default aesthetic worked when it was at rest, comfortably interacting with works that responded well to its modes of analysis. It then turns to this aesthetic when it was under stress, dealing with modernist works that resisted its forms of analysis. The chapter then considers modernist criticism’s irritations with the standard criticism of the time, and to the place of evidence in early twentieth-century aesthetic argument. It ends with the function of journalism’s gestures of refusal to engage with modernism, and the functions of jokes and doggerel in that refusal.
{"title":"Default Settings","authors":"Leonard Diepeveen","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198825432.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198825432.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 2 takes on methodological issues arising from the manner in which fraud discourse entered culture. It considers the place of ordinary intellectuals, and fraud discourse’s large presence in daily and weekly journalism, including the aesthetic principles that could be invoked but did not need to be argued for. It considers how this default aesthetic worked when it was at rest, comfortably interacting with works that responded well to its modes of analysis. It then turns to this aesthetic when it was under stress, dealing with modernist works that resisted its forms of analysis. The chapter then considers modernist criticism’s irritations with the standard criticism of the time, and to the place of evidence in early twentieth-century aesthetic argument. It ends with the function of journalism’s gestures of refusal to engage with modernism, and the functions of jokes and doggerel in that refusal.","PeriodicalId":170510,"journal":{"name":"Modernist Fraud","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127080301","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-07DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780198825432.003.0004
Leonard Diepeveen
This chapter looks at the different ways in which intent functions in aesthetic creation and experience, what counted as signs of sincere intent in the early twentieth century, and what aspects of modernism threatened the effortless functioning of such signs. It argues that in the early twentieth century the signs of sincere intent were under contention, as they always are at moments of cultural change and ideological contestation. In any new aesthetic movement or cultural context, one which appears to break with the past rather than just modulate it, the signs of sincere intent—because they are contextually and socially understood and negotiated—have to be renegotiated. Radically new works, works that are most in violation of the time’s default aesthetic, will present unclear signs of intent, clouding their sincerity.
{"title":"Sincerity’s Champions","authors":"Leonard Diepeveen","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198825432.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198825432.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter looks at the different ways in which intent functions in aesthetic creation and experience, what counted as signs of sincere intent in the early twentieth century, and what aspects of modernism threatened the effortless functioning of such signs. It argues that in the early twentieth century the signs of sincere intent were under contention, as they always are at moments of cultural change and ideological contestation. In any new aesthetic movement or cultural context, one which appears to break with the past rather than just modulate it, the signs of sincere intent—because they are contextually and socially understood and negotiated—have to be renegotiated. Radically new works, works that are most in violation of the time’s default aesthetic, will present unclear signs of intent, clouding their sincerity.","PeriodicalId":170510,"journal":{"name":"Modernist Fraud","volume":"115 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114473609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-07DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780198825432.003.0001
Leonard Diepeveen
Beginning with the work of art critic Kenyon Cox and then turning to the many accusations of fraud levelled against modernism, Chapter 1 gives an account of fraud discourse’s dominance in early twentieth-century culture. Accusations of fraud were commonplace, and unleashed a set of rituals; fraud’s unveiling and fallout is highly stylized, and both narrative and social. These melodramatic moments of modern fraud, for all their lack of nuance, did a lot of work, and are part of a larger category that extends outward, taking on ideas such as insincerity, unclear intent, mimicry, and deception. After presenting a theory of fraud and its enabling conditions, the chapter argues that fraud discourse profoundly shaped the initial response to modernism, the modern canon, and its justifying principles.
{"title":"Rereading the Shameless Puffery of Modern Charlatans","authors":"Leonard Diepeveen","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198825432.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198825432.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"Beginning with the work of art critic Kenyon Cox and then turning to the many accusations of fraud levelled against modernism, Chapter 1 gives an account of fraud discourse’s dominance in early twentieth-century culture. Accusations of fraud were commonplace, and unleashed a set of rituals; fraud’s unveiling and fallout is highly stylized, and both narrative and social. These melodramatic moments of modern fraud, for all their lack of nuance, did a lot of work, and are part of a larger category that extends outward, taking on ideas such as insincerity, unclear intent, mimicry, and deception. After presenting a theory of fraud and its enabling conditions, the chapter argues that fraud discourse profoundly shaped the initial response to modernism, the modern canon, and its justifying principles.","PeriodicalId":170510,"journal":{"name":"Modernist Fraud","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125691483","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-07DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780198825432.003.0006
Leonard Diepeveen
This chapter begins with an account of the Blind Man’s defense of Duchamp’s Fountain, using it to make a more general point that inferring intent is central to the aesthetic experience and meaning of art in general, and in highly particular ways in modernist works of art. Inferring intent is inevitable, and it is always uncertain and messy. Modernist works of art highlighted that tension, presenting unclear signs of intent and making uncertainty central to the value of their aesthetic experience. Particularly at modernism’s avant-garde edges, readers and viewers uncertainly perform intent in modernist artworks, an experience which implies a particular argument about the place of intent and fraud in aesthetic experience. The chapter ends with an inductive turn on the basis of this argument, presenting a theory of intent’s function in aesthetic experience, and its relation to ideas of aesthetic autonomy.
{"title":"Intent in Practice","authors":"Leonard Diepeveen","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198825432.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198825432.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter begins with an account of the Blind Man’s defense of Duchamp’s Fountain, using it to make a more general point that inferring intent is central to the aesthetic experience and meaning of art in general, and in highly particular ways in modernist works of art. Inferring intent is inevitable, and it is always uncertain and messy. Modernist works of art highlighted that tension, presenting unclear signs of intent and making uncertainty central to the value of their aesthetic experience. Particularly at modernism’s avant-garde edges, readers and viewers uncertainly perform intent in modernist artworks, an experience which implies a particular argument about the place of intent and fraud in aesthetic experience. The chapter ends with an inductive turn on the basis of this argument, presenting a theory of intent’s function in aesthetic experience, and its relation to ideas of aesthetic autonomy.","PeriodicalId":170510,"journal":{"name":"Modernist Fraud","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130599897","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-07DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780198825432.003.0005
Leonard Diepeveen
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.
{"title":"Modernists Reading Themselves","authors":"Leonard Diepeveen","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198825432.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198825432.003.0005","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":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133127127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-07DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198825432.003.0003
Leonard Diepeveen
Beginning with an account of a parody of Spectra (itself a hoax movement intended to expose the fraudulence of imagism), this chapter examines how actual frauds, hoaxes, and parodies—as attempts to unmask modernism’s fraudulent ambitions—performed something essential to a successful fraud: a mimicry of sincerity. Along with this mimicry, parodies and hoaxes interpreted what modernism’s features were, arguing as well that modernism was easy to replicate, and therefore insincere. As part of this analysis, the chapter questions whether truly new or avant-garde works are capable of being parodied when their features are not understood. The goal of these frauds, hoaxes, and parodies was not to articulate an affect of aesthetic pleasure, but to make the aesthetic experience of modernism one of recognition, credulity, common sense—a silent appeal to ideology, and a moment of unmasking.
{"title":"Modern Parody","authors":"Leonard Diepeveen","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198825432.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198825432.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"Beginning with an account of a parody of Spectra (itself a hoax movement intended to expose the fraudulence of imagism), this chapter examines how actual frauds, hoaxes, and parodies—as attempts to unmask modernism’s fraudulent ambitions—performed something essential to a successful fraud: a mimicry of sincerity. Along with this mimicry, parodies and hoaxes interpreted what modernism’s features were, arguing as well that modernism was easy to replicate, and therefore insincere. As part of this analysis, the chapter questions whether truly new or avant-garde works are capable of being parodied when their features are not understood. The goal of these frauds, hoaxes, and parodies was not to articulate an affect of aesthetic pleasure, but to make the aesthetic experience of modernism one of recognition, credulity, common sense—a silent appeal to ideology, and a moment of unmasking.","PeriodicalId":170510,"journal":{"name":"Modernist Fraud","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116675151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：