The World's Largest Online Library |
|
Would you like to know more about surrealism movement and its history? Visit free books and magazines by Questia
|
|
 A Concise History of Modern Painting -- Book by Herbert Read; Frederick A. Praeger, 1959
A comprehensive history of modern painting is not at present possible, if only for the reason that such history has not yet reached the end of its development. But it did seem worthwhile to attempt, for the general public and within the strict limits set by the publisher, a concise account of the movements which together constitute the extremely complex change that has taken place in the art of painting during the past half-century. In order to avoid the tedium of a list of names and dates (which alone might have occupied the space allotted to me), I had to take drastic action, purging the narrative of many minor items that would have clogged its flow. The selection I have made, of names and events, will inevitably betray a personal bias, but I have taken some care to correct such bias when it became evident to myself, and I hope that any emphasis that remains is judicious.
Certain omissions that might be mistaken for prejudice must be explained. For example, I have not included Henri Rousseau among the precursors of modern painting, in spite of the high reputation that he has enjoyed among modern painters. My excuse is that the naïvety of his style is not in any sense a 'modern' quality, and the same is true of all the naïve painters of our time --Morris Hirshfield, Ivan Generalic, Joseph Pickett, John Kane, Louis Vivin, André Bauchant, Camille Bombois--a considerable and enchanting group that nevertheless does not affect the main trend of painting in our time.
For a similar reason I have excluded realistic painting, by which I mean the style of painting that continues with little variation the academic traditions of the nineteenth century. I do not deny the great accomplishment and permanent value of the work of such painters as Edward Hopper, Balthus, Christian Bérard, or Stanley Spencer (to make a random list); they certainly belong to the history of art in our time. But not to the history of the style of painting that is specifically 'modern'. I have already described this style as 'complex', but for all its complexity (which also implies variety) it has a unity of intention that completely distinguishes it from the painting of earlier periods: the intention, as Klee said, not to reflect the visible, but to make visible. That is, at any rate, the criterion of modernity I have adopted, and my exclusions are determined by it. |
Nevertheless, there are certain artists one omits with a somewhat guilty feeling of neglect. Maurice Utrillo, for example, is one of the most renowned of contemporary painters, but his aim was certainly to reflect the visible, and he remained true to the style of an earlier age. Jules Pascin is another great artist who refuses to fit into our category. More open to criticism, no doubt, is my omission of the contemporary Mexican school--Diego Rivera, José Orozco, and Alfaro Siqueiros. Like some of their Russian contemporaries, they have adopted a propagandist programme for their art which seems to me to place it outside the stylistic evolution which is my exclusive concern.
A concise history such as this is admittedly a synopsis of existing knowledge. Such knowledge remains for the most part scattered, but within recent years a beginning has been made towards the necessary synthesis. In this connexion I would like to express my great indebtedness to the publications of the Museum of Modern Art, New York, and to the admirable bibliographies compiled by its librarian, Mr Bernard Karpel. It is a curious but well-known fact that contemporary records are often inconsistent, and even the artists sometimes contradict themselves in their recorded statements. In such circumstances I have in general accepted the published records of the Museum of Modern Art. Apart from this source of information, there are two scholars, both connected with this Museum, to whom any student of the period is perforce indebted--I refer to Mr Alfred Barr, Jr., and to Mr John Rewald. Mr Rewald's Histories of Impressionism and Post-Impressionism are based on wide and patient research, and can be accepted as authoritative. The same is true of the monographs which Mr Barr has devoted to Matisse and Picasso, and the many catalogues he has edited have been an invaluable source of information. I would also like to mention the similar pioneer work which Professor Will Grohmann has done for German Modern Art and especially his authoritative monographs on Paul Klee and Kandinsky.
In the Bibliography I have tried to give some guidance to the general reader who wishes to proceed from this outline to a more detailed study of the various phases of modern painting, but again I must emphasize that it is a list for the general reader rather than the specialist.
I would like to thank all those artists, collectors and art galleries who have helped me in assembling the many photographs required for the illustration of this book. The works of nearly 400 painters are illustrated in the text or pictorial catalogue. No doubt there are omissions due to oversight, but it will be appreciated that beyond a certain point the task of selection inevitably becomes arbitrary, and I must apologize to those artists whose work is not illustrated, but who, in my opinion as well as in their own, might have had an equal claim to representation. |
|
