The Project

My current research examines “unconventional” modernist aesthetics in interwar Britain.  Although artists like Barbara Hepworth and Ben Nicholson epitomize “canonical” definitions of Modernism in the history of twentieth-century British art, many more artists of the same era – the painters William Coldstream and Julian Trevelyan – practiced a form of art that was not concerned to experiment with abstraction, as Hepworth and Nicholson did, but rather to articulated realistically the social conditions of the time. Yet because of their “less innovative” approach (which is usually a euphemism for describing works that prize narrative over experimentation with form), critics and historians traditionally position these aesthetics as ones that are fundamentally, for lack of a better term, “un-Modern.”  But I believe that this is an arbitrary assessment.  Instead, I propose new methods for understanding how these works of art are in fact valid representations of modernity.

To do this, I situate national identity as fundamental to the development of twentieth-century aesthetics.  Rather than defining Modernism as epitomized by abstraction or as an aesthetic associated solely with an avant-garde, I argue that (although the latter factors may indeed be present) the appearance of modernist art is equally dependent upon the social, political and cultural context of the region – more specifically, the national origins – from which modern works arise.

In this instance, Britain is an ideal case study.  Unlike the United States, where Modernism generally developed apace with this country’s political and economic ascent onto the world stage, in Britain, modern aesthetics matured during a period of national decline.  As the twentieth century progressed, the United Kingdom lost its once dominant footing in international affairs and suffered multiple economic collapses. This decline manifested culturally as an art that was much more concerned to visibly articulate the bewildering, sometimes dire state of the human condition at the time.   Formal innovation, in this context, although important, was not as crucial to British artists’ understanding of modernity as was their discovery of new ways to represent the self and society.  Thus in many cases, the modern spirit in painting – I argue – manifested itself as a dedication to the human form, a narrative cityscape, or the gritty interiors that characterized everyday life at the time.

Given these circumstances, it is my argument that although we can refer, very broadly, to a series of qualities or characteristics that we might consider “Modern” in relation to artistic production, namely chronology and an understanding of these aesthetics as a response to the conditions of modernity, there is – ultimately – not one definition of Modernism (with a capital “M”); rather, there are modernisms.  Indeed, the overall objective of my work is to demonstrate that there is no hard and fast rule (nor should there be) when it comes to defining how, why, or even where these modernisms occur.

Julian Trevelyan, "Bolton mills," 1937

During the 1930s, both Coldstream and Trevelyan were associated with the social activist movement Mass Observation (M-O) and their work with this organization is an ideal ground upon which to focus my investigation. M-O was dedicated to the documentation of everyday life amongst the British working classes during the 1930s.  Its purpose was to gather facts about the daily thoughts, habits and activities of “normal” men, women and children, such that they could raise awareness about the lives and opinions of persons whom they believed were otherwise silenced.   Indeed, a major factor motivating the early Mass-Observers was their conviction that – as the dire conditions of the Depression wore on – the common or average voice was being distorted or entirely stifled by the growing power of government and the media.  M-O thus sought out facts and figures, through interviews and passive surveillance, which highlighted the nature of their fellow Britons’ day-to-day existence.  The result of this research was a comprehensive topography of workers’ lives during the Depression, which was intended to provide a new basis for social democracy.

Julian Trevelyan, "The Potteries" (circa 1938)

The work done by Trevelyan and Coldstream, often depicting labor conditions, careworn cityscapes, or rare moments of leisure in the British industrial city of Bolton, emphasizes that modernism can embody the experience of modernity beyond a mere adherence to the doctrine of “art for art’s sake.”  This is to say, although the work of both artists was stylistically innovative (and, indeed, Trevelyan was initially associated with Surrealism), it nonetheless participated in a discourse that worked to undermine the definition of Modernism – as Clement Greenberg so famously argued – as something whose “content is…dissolved so completely into form that the work of art…cannot be reduced in whole or in part to anything not itself,” and instead engage an aesthetic that proves its modernist sensibility precisely because it responds to the political and social issues of the period.