Is Modern Art Degenerated?
An answer to the “Academy of Ideas” and their video “Modern Art and the Decline of Civilization”
In June 2020, I noticed the video “Modern Art and the Decline of Civilization” on my YouTube suggestions. The headline was very sensational, relating two subjects dubiously. It was made by the Academy of Ideas, which is run by two Canadian brothers. The channel explores classicism, stoicism, nihilism, and existentialism. I am acquainted with those subjects in my search and study of compared religions and Theosophy. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to see fascists in those circles, and this video is not free of it too.
I watched it and had a mixed reaction. The video has some good information on it. The authors are very knowledgeable. They quote Nietzsche, Carl Jung, Rollo May, Erich Neuman, and others. At first, it seems a naive existentialist video.
However, important information was missing related to Modern Art. I identified subtle arguments throughout the video that indicates outdated ideas of art and society. I have a B.A. in Visual Arts, and I could see clearly that the authors don’t know art theory at all. I would not mind it, for you don’t need to know art theory to talk about art.
Looking at the comment section, I could see it was misleading people to believe that Modern art is abhorrent.
And then we have this one:
The video subtly relates the “degeneration” of society with the lack of Christianity as if without religion society is degenerating. By comparing the art of past centuries with modern art it discourses about the sickness of our society and how we live chaos. A not-so-wise opinion, indeed.
Technique vs Experimentation
First, the author praises classicism — he is an idealist — as if art has the role to transform the world, to portrait ideals, the beauty of a world that never existed. The “beautiful art” that he refers to in the video, is the classical art that came before modern art and the impressionists. It would be the Renascensse Art, Neoclassical, Romanticism, Barocco, Rococo, something that looks “finished” and in some way photo-realistic.
Classical art was rigid, drench in romanticism and fakeness. A good example is the French Artistic Mission that came to Brazil in the 17th-century painting Native Brazilians as fair-skinned. At that time, white is the “right skin color” of a human being. The painting “First Mass” by Victor Meirelles seems at first, to depict a beautiful and sacred event, where Native Brazilians watch afar from treetops in harmony with the invaders in curiosity — what a romantic view! The truth is that Native Brazilians were decimated by the Portuguese army at their arrival. It was genocide. Those classic and high idealistic paintings do not necessarily portrait the truth or reality and were used to deny historical facts. This needs to be understood by the viewers.
Some of these classical paintings are about appearances or ideals, and we could even say that they lack soul and true humanity compared to Modern Art, which I will explain further. There is no ill intention against the classics. They are important for the time they were made. Those movements were vanguards in their own time.
The end of the middle ages was unstable. The rise of religious disagreement with the protestant church and the Age of Enlightenment. In the following decades, there is the advent of Barroco with its high religious goals, Rococo with its frivolity and seduction, both opposites happening at the end of the Renaissance, in the flourishing of the scientific inventions. Later, we have the Neoclassical as a reaction to the futility of Rococo, and also Romanticism art movement, and its repulse of the Industrial Revolution. Each art movement brought something unique and represents a way to see and interpret society. It is strongly connected with philosophy and with events of that particular era. Even so, we must be careful when comparing the past with the present.
In those centuries artists had no freedom to express themselves as we have today. Art was dictated by conservative institutions, that supported technique over experimentation. Paintings were commissioned by wealthy patrons or churches. Art was made for and by elites or the middle class, and they dictated the themes, styles, and even who could be considered a true artist. Classicist painters were into rigorous processes of perfecting the painting through traditional techniques. This includes painting inside a studio for months to finish an artwork; the use of only certain colors; and painting a limited range of themes. These are some of the reasons for the beginning of the impressionism art movement, the precursor of Modern Art.
When a group of painters was not accepted at the Salon de Paris in the 1860s by the Académie des Beaux-Arts because their work didn’t follow the classical standards, they decided to create their own art show with the blessing of Napoleon III — something unique for that time. Those artists were not interested in painting mythology or religious figures, rather they would paint contemporary life and landscapes in location, not in a studio; they would use bright colors, instead of mute and pastels. They want to capture the feeling of events and places, experiment with colors as they see it right in front of their eyes. They use the advent of the locomotive to travel to distant places having little money and abandoned the obsessive creation of ultra-realistic figures when photography was invented.
The critiques of the time didn’t receive it well.
“They thought it was absurd to sell paintings that looked like slap-dash impressions and to present these paintings as finished works.” (Khan Academy)
Artworld from centuries ago is not like today, and impressionism had a profound influence on art. It paved the way for Modern Art with its rebellion of themes and uninteresting on formal art practices.
Romanticism vs Reality
The “supreme beauty” that the author talks about in his video is nothing more than a nostalgic feeling from a world that everyone today should be grateful for not be living in. Modern artists, including impressionists, decided to portrait the times they were living in: famine, war, depression, common life. Things that were happening around those individuals. They were not interested in painting mythological figures that may or not represent some metaphor on morals.
Let’s take for example the “Nymphs and Satyr” painting by William-Adolphe Bouguereau. It is a gorgeous ultra-realistic painting of the god Satyr, that to the eyes of an average person may be seen as “beautiful”. It’s a neoclassical painting that evokes themes from Greek mythology made in a traditional academic style.
Let’s stop for a moment: This tale is about the rape of a Nymph by a lower god. A “beautiful” and romantic idealistic rape, “perfect” to hang on our living rooms, right? Leaving the irony behind, I believe the viewer could look at that painting and never guess for a second the true nature of the event. How would they? They might be lost in the nymph smiles and the perfect white voluptuous skin of the figures. Many neoclassical paintings are stuck in themes of the ancient past and are sterile of empirical reality.
Modern art is soaked in politics, philosophy, and ideology. Modern art gave artists the freedom to think and express themselves as they wish, and in this expression, there is death, love, anxiety, and brotherhood. Some modern artists seeing their fellow men starving to death at the corner of the streets in the neighborhoods preferred to paint what they see. They were not bound by rules, even some of them completely reject the notion of art itself.
On the other hand, Modern art does not commit to realism, they challenge the notion that art needs to realistically depict the world. On the “isms” of Modern Art, we could find the exploration of dreams, use of non-artistic materials, non-conventional mediums, topics based on personal experiences, and much more. Those artists depict what they feel into depicting for the sake of creating. It differs from classicists who painted mostly by commissions. In Modern Art, there was a pluralism of ideas and on the ways to use art, while in classical art, this window was much narrow.
Comparing the Past with the Present
In the video “Modern Art and the Decline of Civilization,” the author chooses depressing artists and paintings, ignoring so many other great works of art, that are not “cold” as he describes it, to make a point against Modern Art.
Many of the human psychological perspectives are very clarifying and intriguing in the video. Academia of Ideas did a great job on their research, I won’t deny it. Although, we find dubious quotes through the video. See this quote about Picasso made by Nikolai Berdyaev. It sums the author’s perspective on Modern Art:
Picasso’s art no longer seeks the complete human at all. It has lost the faculty of seeing things as wholes. It tears off one cover after another in order to lay bare the structure of nature and in doing so penetrates even further in the depths, disclosing images of things truly monstrous.
Nikolai Berdyaev
Europe was falling apart, but Nikolai Berdyaev — a Christian existentialist — wants Picasso to do “pretty” paintings and ignore the Socioeconomic status of that generation. For instance, Picasso painted Guernica in 1937 inspired by the bombardment of the city of Guernica by Franco, a nationalist. The city was full of women and children as the men were at war.
Nikolai, incapable to see beyond the abstract form; addicted and bounded to a Christian non-chaotic world, concludes that Picasso is uncovering monstrous images from the depths of mankind (or maybe from hell). Art should not be propaganda for religion, as it was for thousands of years.
According to the video’s author, “modern civilization suffers from spiritual sickness, deep existential loneliness.” In opposition, I say that it is easy to look at our times and by comparing it to the past conclude that it is chaotic, fragmented, and bizarre by its lack of idealism and religion.
In my opinion — and take it with a grain of salt — the world has always been chaotic. The universe is chaotic no matter how much religions furiously and avidly forces an order into it with its metaphysics. Classical thinking with their gods and Logos, for most beautiful that their teachings are, it doesn’t change the nature of life. The ideal man is a farse if considered that it is some sort of mega-god-plan waiting to be manifested, as if mankind is strewn away from a God given plan. The only legitimate ideal man is the man that humans created for their own, a image of what they want to become.
Art should not be a tool for your propaganda.
Nowadays, there are constant attacks on other cultures that are considered less “perfect”, and classicism is the one philosophy being assimilated into far-right movements. It cohobarates their ideas about society.
Degenerated Art
The idea of relating modern art to degeneration was made a hundred years ago, and it didn’t end well. Nazism was a movement deep in love with the classics, religion, a superior idealistic culture, and the ideal man, who is full of honor and dignity. For the Nazis, everything that contrasts with those ideals is seen as a perversion of the natural and spiritual state of man.
Hitler has constantly tried to connect modern art with the Jewish community. He made “The Degenerate Art Exhibition” in Munich to show Germany the horrific and “deviated” nature of Jews. An excuse for the extermination of an entire group of people
Those ideas are very much alive nowadays, unfortunately. Again, the video doesn’t approach radical ideologies, but if we are to talk about Modern Art and degeneration, nazism needs to be in the conversation.
Modern Art is not degenerated, and it is not a symbol of the decline of society. On the contrary, it is the sign of a civilization that values freedom of expression; that understands that art and meaning are beyond form and style. It is a sign of a society that acknowledges cultures, struggles, and personal battles. It tries to understand people and their creations, instead to force them into preconceived ideas of the world. It does not live in ancient fantasy worlds created in the mind of old rich religious men.
Concluding
Let me state that classicism is great on paper, and I admire the intelligence of its followers nowadays. However, there is something deep down wrong with this fandom. It’s not uncommon to recognize fascists, religious fundamentalists, and hardcore conservatives among its avid practitioners.
Idealists are people with big aspirations, that believe that a perfect utopia is possible on earth. They want to see ourselves perfected, to see mankind full of value, honor, and ethics. I respect that, for I have those values for myself. Despite this, we have a big issue when their idealism makes them believe they are more special than others just for believing in it and pushing towards the extermination or degradation of what they believe is not their ideals.
Comparing classical paintings made for and by the elite of old eras to modern art to conclude that society is declining is naive at its best. I think the video has a lot of good analysis for the author knows how to research, but the subtle rhetoric is flawed. The art comparisons are flawed. The argument that saves this video is the idea of how the inner man — no the ideal man — influences art and society in an era of freedom.
For further reading:
