Interruption 2: Art 203 Sketches

Literary Theory and Modern Art: Decadence Then and Now

 

Postmodern literature, in terms of how it relates to modern art, illustrates and advances a theory created in the late 19^th century known as “decadence.” Initially roused by Rousseau’s Discours de Dijons (an offspring of the Enlightenment Period)2, writers began to seriously consider the West’s elaborate culture as a “degeneracy, rather than the pinnacle of human achievement.” Industrialization and harsh capitalistic ideals which ultimately lead to consumerism in Europe forced many to believe that instead of civil advance, humanity was beginning to experience its antithesis. In other words, institutions created by man were actually helping to deteriorate humanity instead of improve it. This idea spanned a wide range of cultural aspects, including art in many forms. Yet, as thought provoking as this theory was, it began to dwindle, as modernism began to invade the literary world.

Basically on the back burner, the idea of decadence simmered until after WWII, in which the Western world began to realize the absurdity of technology (due to compassionless warfare that objectified humans as chattel rather than animate beings), religion, and for the sake of this essay, art. Post modernism, in lieu of the earlier theory of Decadence, offered a reason why civilization was behaving the way it was. In concurrence with the Pop Art phenomenon – art as “being used to defend the lively man-made environment” [1], literary theorists and authors alike commented on what they thought was art’s role in their work. Briefly, they posited that urban existence is a machine that destroys men through its capitalist emphasis on commodity exchange2 and the advertising as its catalyst. Artists showed these commodities, such as Andy Warhol’s famous reproduction of a Campbell’s soup can, with an ironic milieu.

Theorists then began to speculate the idea of entropy involved with Decadence. The idea that the world, and indeed the universe, had only so many building blocks and that everything created was a recreation or a rearrangement of those blocks, was applied particularly to the art world. It gave reason to the Pop Art phenomenon on a cultural level: because there were only so many ways in which to rearrange an allotted amount of energy, artists were simply running out of ways to arrange them in original ways. In other words, the institution of art had been closed because no new ideas were pouring in.

For instance, Thomas Pynchon asserts in his novel V.3that humankind has no more “energy” (or original ideas) to supplement the closed system of art, and therefore art is in decline rather than progressing. Since all art is in decline, we have no alternative but to arrange and rearrange the same combination until artifice is no longer about the physical art or it’s meaning. Instead, it is technique for the sake of technique, where technique is just a different way of creating the same art: Decadence. Pynchon explains this point perfectly:

A few like Slab actually did what they professed; turned out a tangible product. But again, what? Cheese Danishes. Or this technique for the sake of technique – Catatonic Expressionism. Or parodies on what someone else had already done (324).

In this same way, Pop artists such as Warhol made works that mimicked commodities created and advanced by capitalism, but was also a product of the decline of the art world4. Warhol created many, many other works (such as Shoes located at the Contessa Gallery in Cleveland, Ohio which is a sketch of a brand name pair of shoes; Mineola Motorcycle at the Acuavella Gallery in New York City which states “we ship worldwide, credit cards” and portrays an advertisement for a motorcycle5) that not only recreate a product/someone else’s invention, but recreate a product of capitalism itself.

Decadence accepted in Capitalism is just one institution in which makes the Man the same as his civilization, rather than an individual possessing passion (the ability to create original ideas) or love. And so, artists like Warhol (because of the work of entropy in our civilization in general) could not possibly create anything completely and perfectly original, but rather parodies what his world is consumed in4: capitalism that treats man as an object; a consumer.*

---

 

[1] Alloway, Lawrence. Topics of American Art. “POP ART: The Words.” W.W. Norton and company, Inc.: New York, 1975, pp. 121. University Readers.

2 Mandal, Anthony. The Literary Encyclopedia. “Decadence (1870-1914).” Litencyc.com. 9 Feb 2001. 15 Sep 2009.   <http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=256>

 

3 Pynchon, Thomas. V.. Harper Perennial Inc.: New York, 2005. (Specifically page 324 as cited).

4 Not a personal assertion, but one assertion created some members of the literary world.

5 Andy Warhol: 1928-1987. “Artworks.” Artnet.com. 15 Sep 2009.  <http://www.artnet.com/ag/fulltextsearch.asp?searchstring=warhol&currentCategory=Artwork&page=2>

* In the interest of saving paper, I decided to single space this essay since it was on the longer side for this particular assignment and because of footnote citation. Please don’t mark me off for it!

 

I did this as a first draft, I dunno exactly if I want it the way it is. But it was good to post it, and then look back on it without it being a mere word document. I see some changed that have to be made...