Charles Jencks highlights the relationship between modernism and postmodernism in ‘The Post-Modernism Reader’ (2009), inferring that the failings of Modernism - its capitalist-driven, materialistic ethos were unrealistic, stating that ‘today’s socialism is not quite the goal that the Modernist Karl Marx had in mind’ (pg 15). Jencks cites the principles of Modernism as ‘straightforwardness’, ‘transparency’, and ‘honest simplicity’ – a rather clear-cut view of the world. In contrast, he pins ‘irony’ and ‘ambiguity’ to postmodernism which mirrors a growing cynicism concerning politics and societal systems which aren’t as idyllic as they are often promised to be.
The demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe housing project in St. Louis Missouri, 1972, has been dubbed as ‘the Death of Modern Architecture’ (Jencks, 2009) – over the years following its construction, the project’s living conditions soon descended into poverty, overcrowding, and crime. Jencks seems to attribute the demolition of Pruitt-Igoe to not addressing the needs of its occupiers, saying that Modern projects that ‘failed to perform within the various codes of the users’ (pg 22) were often destroyed much like they were in the instance of St. Louis.
In Postmodernism at the V&A (2011), Jencks claims that postmodernism is ‘another crisis of Modernism, modernisation, modernity’ with an attitude that is ‘ironic about the failures (of capitalism)’. In some ways, postmodernism is purely a reaction, a response, a shift in values that reflects a changing society and a world that is becoming more diverse and varied. Postmodernism is a ‘social style’ (Jencks, 2009, pg 24) and Modernism an ‘elite style’ (pg 24).
Jencks acknowledges that the world is ‘still very much in a modern period’ and that ‘it still dominates most cultures’ (pg 33), but that ‘its critics and creators have moved elsewhere’ (pg 33). This suggests that in a world where many things remain unchanged, certain groups seek out something new.
The rigid conventions prevalent in Modernism, specifically its architecture, are criticised by Robert Venturi in ‘Learning from Las Vegas’ (1972). Venturi notes that early Modern architects appropriated ‘existing and conventional industrial vocabulary’ in their designs ‘without much adaptation’ (pg 3) which perpetuated the recurring Modernist themes of mass-production and capitalism.
Modernism ‘(rejects) the combination of fine art and crude art’ (Venturi, 1972, pg 6), which depicts the predominantly elitist view of Modernism. Yet, Venturi remarks that gaining influence and ‘insight’ from ‘the commonplace’ is hardly new, stating ‘Fine art often follows folk art’(pg 3) – which sits well against the values of postmodernism which encourages a blend of the ‘high’ arts and ‘low’ arts, where the distinction between the two is less clear.Throughout the text, Venturi cites the Las Vegas strip as a sort of epicentre of postmodernist architecture – a combination of styles, influences, and aesthetics, that shamelessly acknowledges its rather capitalist motivations with an excess of advertisements; ‘Symbol dominates space. Architecture is not enough’ (pg 13). The author recognises that critics take a disliking to the kitschy, dated mix of architectural styles, because it is a far cry from being timeless or pure:
‘Those who acknowledge the roadside eclecticism denigrate it, because it flaunts the cliché of a decade ago as well as the style of a century ago. But why not? Time travels fast today’ - (Venturi, 1972, pg 8)
This holds a particular relevance to the criticism of Modernism’s serious outlook on what constitutes as ‘good’. That an object, namely an artistic object, must only be comprised from one element. This purist attitude is refuted in Postmodernism at the V&A (2011), in which architect Robert A.M. Stern states ‘There are no absolutes in art’.
A similar sentiment is reiterated in ‘Modernism and Postmodernism: An Overview with Art Examples’, where it is said that ‘there is no unified theory of postmodernity’ (Barrett, T. 1997). Arguably, this lack of certainty within postmodernism leads to a greater freedom in expressing ideas, and a much less stringent stance on artistic output. Pop art was especially revolutionary in dismantling existing perceptions of art, with Barrett recalling how ‘Arthur Danto (1992) credits Warhol with bringing about “the end of art”...’. In the text, Barrett cites Danto’s claim that the piece titled Brillo Boxes (1964) prompted the end of Modernism, which came with a statement from Warhol himself, that ‘one could no longer tell the difference between an ordinary object and an art object just by looking at it’ (Barrett, T. 1997, pg 24).
The
example of Brillo Boxes in particular
conveys a number of postmodernist traits. It shows appropriation, using
existing imagery and brand identities but transplanting them into an
environment that is different from their usual setting. Barrett (1997) refers
to appropriation as ‘a central postmodernist strategy’ (pg 25-6), saying that
by borrowing from existing sources postmodernists remind us that ‘originality
is absent in most traditions of art’. This may not end in the individuality
that the Modernists dreamed of, but the challenge for the postmodernists arises
in ‘putting old information into new contexts’, ultimately ‘creating new
meaning’ (pg 26).
By removing the Brillo packages from their usual supermarket context, the artwork creates a conversation; Are they a comment on American consumerism? Do they criticise the absurdity of galleries, and their power to elevate an object to a higher status?
Although postmodernist architecture had existed solidly since the 1970s, a pivotal moment in postmodernist design was the debut of The Memphis Group in 1981, whose style would go on to have a great impact on the art and design scene of the 1980s. Memphis was a group of designers that formed in Italy, producing postmodernist furniture and products between 1981-87.
They drew influence from pop art and art deco, with patterns that could be found in the surfaces of kitschy 1950s diners, and graphic prints that were evocative of those in comic books. Dense, geometric forms and garish, clashing colours gradually characterised the work of the design group. The vibrant and flamboyant spirit of Memphis was worlds away from the restraint that dominated Modernism.
Despite the group’s short-lived existence, their exuberant look and unapologetically-gaudy attitude have seemed to emerge in areas of design and illustration today. Whether this is an acknowledgement of Memphis’ influence, or a rising trend that looks back at the 80s aesthetic as a whole, similar visual traits can definitely be evidenced in the work of contemporary creatives.
A direct re-appearance of Memphis-inspired design is that of Nathalie du Pasquier, who was an original member of the design group. Her signature textile designs that featured bold, jarring patterns have been recreated in collaborations with a number of well-known fashion brands. Of course these new uses for du Pasquier’s textiles may lack the intentions and meaning of Memphis, which was revolutionary at its height. However, it could be that their aesthetic embodies a certain tone that fits into creative work today; fun, lively, and experimental.
By removing the Brillo packages from their usual supermarket context, the artwork creates a conversation; Are they a comment on American consumerism? Do they criticise the absurdity of galleries, and their power to elevate an object to a higher status?
Although postmodernist architecture had existed solidly since the 1970s, a pivotal moment in postmodernist design was the debut of The Memphis Group in 1981, whose style would go on to have a great impact on the art and design scene of the 1980s. Memphis was a group of designers that formed in Italy, producing postmodernist furniture and products between 1981-87.
They drew influence from pop art and art deco, with patterns that could be found in the surfaces of kitschy 1950s diners, and graphic prints that were evocative of those in comic books. Dense, geometric forms and garish, clashing colours gradually characterised the work of the design group. The vibrant and flamboyant spirit of Memphis was worlds away from the restraint that dominated Modernism.
Despite the group’s short-lived existence, their exuberant look and unapologetically-gaudy attitude have seemed to emerge in areas of design and illustration today. Whether this is an acknowledgement of Memphis’ influence, or a rising trend that looks back at the 80s aesthetic as a whole, similar visual traits can definitely be evidenced in the work of contemporary creatives.
A direct re-appearance of Memphis-inspired design is that of Nathalie du Pasquier, who was an original member of the design group. Her signature textile designs that featured bold, jarring patterns have been recreated in collaborations with a number of well-known fashion brands. Of course these new uses for du Pasquier’s textiles may lack the intentions and meaning of Memphis, which was revolutionary at its height. However, it could be that their aesthetic embodies a certain tone that fits into creative work today; fun, lively, and experimental.
The
bold, graphic visuals that epitomise Memphis may align with today’s tastes so
well due to the progression of graphic art over the years, as well as the rise
in the popularity of illustration and design. For instance, Kate Moross’ design
work commonly involves a heavy use of colour, and complex arrangements of
abstract forms that are crisp in appearance. There is a sense of movement and
liveliness in Moross’ designs that, in my opinion, are shared with du
Pasquier’s own work. One is perhaps just a more contemporary, digital version
of the other.
When reflecting on postmodernist values and how they may apply to contemporary
practitioners, I believe that David Shrigley is a visual artist whose work
could potentially be classified as postmodernist, or at least as a by-product
of the movement. In Shrigley’s work there is solidarity between the aesthetic
tone of an image, as well as its content or the message it conveys. His
drawings could be viewed as ‘anti-art’ due to their simplistic execution,
lacking in a high level of skill and finesse (which is normally associated with
art). This naive visual style relates to early postmodernist attitudes of
challenging perceptions about art, and defying existing rules and expectations.
The tone of this artist’s work is very tongue-in-cheek and satirical, poking fun at contemporary art and social issues. There is no formality to them, and when social or political subjects are touched upon, they provide no solution or optimism. Again, sharing the ironic and cynical outlook of postmodernism.
Similar qualities can be observed within Ian Stevenson’s illustrations, which also have a wry sense of humour and a strange tone. Use of appropriation is evidenced in Stevenson’s images too, turning well-known cartoon characters into slightly off versions of themselves. These caricatures are portrayed in a crude, distorted drawing style which contributes to the overall bizarreness of them.
Similar qualities can be observed within Ian Stevenson’s illustrations, which also have a wry sense of humour and a strange tone. Use of appropriation is evidenced in Stevenson’s images too, turning well-known cartoon characters into slightly off versions of themselves. These caricatures are portrayed in a crude, distorted drawing style which contributes to the overall bizarreness of them.
Handwritten slogans and phrases are often introduced too such as ‘seen it before’, ‘I could have done that’ – demonstrating an awareness of how audiences view creative work, and how Stevenson’s own work doesn’t fit into this definition.
Irony, sarcasm, and criticisms of modern life and excesses run throughout Stevenson’s illustrations, all bearing relevance to postmodernism.
As previously mentioned, postmodernism worked on dismantling the barriers that existed within the arts for decades, believing there to be no such thing as a clear definition of what art should be. In some ways, I feel that this attitude can be applied to other creative disciplines such as illustration. Looking back on what illustration once was and where it has now progressed to shows that it has became a broader, more inclusive space where a wide array of formats can be accepted.
The illustration of the 19th century was solely viewed as a derivative form of fine art mainly produced for commercial purposes, such as advertising or publishing. Many prominent figures within the field (John Tenniel, for example) were highly skilled draughtsman, and possessing great technical ability was almost always expected. Whereas illustration nowadays exists in multiple contexts, for many different audiences and can take on many different appearances.
In contrast with traditional illustration which took reference from classical art and was often very representational in its style, contemporary illustration can be realistic, imaginative, naive, or a hybrid of all of these things. Today’s illustration is also free to borrow from a multitude of reference points and sources; past, present, factual, or more abstract still – from the artist’s very own experiences.
Barrett (1997) states that postmodernists criticise modernity by referencing postmodernism and modernism respectively as ‘the suffering and misery of peasants under monarchies’, the ‘oppression of workers’ under ‘capitalist industrialisation’ (pg 18) along with other comparisons that suggest the modernist, traditional view to be damaging and non-inclusive. By contrast it is inferred that postmodernism is surely the opposite – a non-hierarchical, non-exclusive space in which people of any status or background are free to create.
Irony, sarcasm, and criticisms of modern life and excesses run throughout Stevenson’s illustrations, all bearing relevance to postmodernism.
As previously mentioned, postmodernism worked on dismantling the barriers that existed within the arts for decades, believing there to be no such thing as a clear definition of what art should be. In some ways, I feel that this attitude can be applied to other creative disciplines such as illustration. Looking back on what illustration once was and where it has now progressed to shows that it has became a broader, more inclusive space where a wide array of formats can be accepted.
The illustration of the 19th century was solely viewed as a derivative form of fine art mainly produced for commercial purposes, such as advertising or publishing. Many prominent figures within the field (John Tenniel, for example) were highly skilled draughtsman, and possessing great technical ability was almost always expected. Whereas illustration nowadays exists in multiple contexts, for many different audiences and can take on many different appearances.
In contrast with traditional illustration which took reference from classical art and was often very representational in its style, contemporary illustration can be realistic, imaginative, naive, or a hybrid of all of these things. Today’s illustration is also free to borrow from a multitude of reference points and sources; past, present, factual, or more abstract still – from the artist’s very own experiences.
Barrett (1997) states that postmodernists criticise modernity by referencing postmodernism and modernism respectively as ‘the suffering and misery of peasants under monarchies’, the ‘oppression of workers’ under ‘capitalist industrialisation’ (pg 18) along with other comparisons that suggest the modernist, traditional view to be damaging and non-inclusive. By contrast it is inferred that postmodernism is surely the opposite – a non-hierarchical, non-exclusive space in which people of any status or background are free to create.
Ed Cheverton is a notable illustrator that is worth mentioning as a way of demonstrating how the boundaries of illustration and visual art have been pushed. Cheverton’s career is greatly varied, spanning from a self-made small publishing house (Jazz Dad Books), work for Anorak magazine, to making comics, toys, zines, sketchbooks and a number of other personal projects. Cheverton’s work proves that contemporary illustration really is limitless, and that visual art can be done on a small, independent scale.
The visual traits that encompass the work of this illustrator are worlds away from ‘classical’ illustration, suggesting that our aesthetic focuses have shifted entirely. The tone of Cheverton’s illustration is naive, playful, and free – with emphasis on the very basic foundations of image making which are colour and shape. His collages, for example, are sporadic and expressive – drawing influence from jazz music, the fantasy-genre, comics, and games which produces a really imaginative and eclectic character.
Relating back to the shift away from modernist values in art, Ed Cheverton’s images are whimsical, kinetic, and have a human, handmade feel. They could not be further from qualities of uniformity and elitism. There is clearly a sense that Cheverton creates solely for the enjoyment of it, and that his motivations aren’t entirely profit-driven (for instance, only distributing zines in person or at fairs, not mass-producing them to be sold online).
In conclusion, although postmodernism may not have had a direct and immediate impact on illustration, it is evident that its influence on the arts and creative industries as a whole has, in turn, made the field of illustration much more diverse and open. I believe that postmodernism has helped to make it known that artistic disciplines are malleable and should be ever-evolving. It is clear that the postmodernist act of borrowing and rehashing influences and points of inspiration is something that is still very much common practice. That creatives search for something new by sifting through, and piecing together the old.
