What Did 'Modernism' Mean In The 1960's?

1. What did “modernism” mean in the 1960’s, for art writers such as Clement Greenberg and Michael Fried? In the late 1950’s and 60’s, modernistic art was referred to as ‘high modernism’. This term was generated by Greenberg’s well thought out and expressive theorizations of modern art. At that time, there were numerous issues in regards to modern art. The art market was growing at an accelerated rate due to the variation in artistic approaches in a fast pace and competitive world. As a result, many felt as if the art of this time was too institutionalized and overly produced. Although many others disagreed with them, Greenberg and Fried shared similar views on modernism. Both agreed that modernistic art should be formally examined on its …show more content…
Do today’s art historians’ agree with the idea of modernism proposed by Greenberg and Fried in the 1960’s? If not, what are some of today’s art historians’ main areas of disagreement with Greenberg’s views, as far as the art of the 20th century is concerned? Art writers Greenberg and Fried developed some of the most thought-out explorations and theories regarding modernism in the 1960’s. At that time, there were many issues at hand in the art world due to a rapid expansion and fluctuation in technical and theoretical methods, the gallery dealer system and the art market in general. Greenberg and Fried were concerned with the pace and priorities held by this new world and feared for the role of the arts all together. They believed that in order to preserve the arts, there must be a constant effort in examine definitions and formal values. There was debate over whether or not this was a completely functioning theory and after political and social issues such as the Civil and Women’s Rights Movements came to be, Greenberg and Fried’s main concerns and urgencies seemed too fix and uncompromising to others. As the new and growing political and cultural issues were considered and dealt with in fresh ways, Greenberg and Frieds work became more and more irrelevant and had too many limitations to function in a new world. Although the two art writer’s ideas have mostly been dismissed by today’s art historians, there is an undoubtable value in them. The boundaries and firmly self-critical elements within high modernism did succeed in producing extremely insightful considerations of painting and sculpture that can be applied and appreciated even in the current art