ANGLOPHONE
STUDIES
|
_______________ |
Editor-in-chief Trevor Harris Book Review Editor Molly O'Brien Castro |
|||||
(Literature,
Civilization, Cultural Studies, Gender Studies, Linguistics)
|
|||||||
GRAAT: Pronounce [greit]
|
|||||||
GRAAT: Getting to the bone
A
peer-reviewed journal of Anglophone Studies
Peter Gay, Modernism : The Lure of Heresy from Baudelaire to Beckett and Beyond (London: Vintage Books, 2007). £10.99, 640 pages, ISBN: 978-0-099-44196-0—Eric Athenot, Université François Rabelais, Tours. Modernism:
The Lure of Heresy is the latest in Peter Gay’s awe-inspiringly
long list of publications. Sterling Professor of History Emeritus
at Yale University, he has recently been hailed by the New York
Times as “the country’s pre-eminent cultural historian.”
He is most famous on this side of the Atlantic for his writings on
Freud—among which Freud: a Life for Our Time (1988),
Freud for Historians (1985), Freud, Jews and Other Germans
(1978), A Godless Jew (1987)—, and his earlier studies
devoted to the Enlightenment—including The Enlightenment:
An Interpretation (1969), The Party of Humanism (1964),
and Voltaire’s Politics (1959). Published
in 2007, the present book offers a sweeping view of the cultural phenomenon
that has come to be known as Modernism—or modernism as Gay (and
I after him) chooses to spell it. The author traces two “defining
attributes” of this movement—the eponymous “lure
of heresy” and “a commitment to a principled self-scrutiny.”
He rests most of his argument on the artists’ hatred of the
bourgeois, which, he forgets to note, has been a staple of western
art at least since the seventeenth century. Throughout the book, he
adroitly demonstrates how these self-styled superior souls depended
for their survival on the very people they so conspicuously detested
and attacked in their creations. He underlines the well-documented
debt owed to capitalism by the modernists, which made the international
circulation of their works and ideas possible. On the same note, Gay
establishes a convincing link between the development of the movement
and the rise of “cultural middlemen”—art dealers,
critics, and museum administrators (strangely enough, publishers are
not included in that list). Gay offers ample evidence of his love
for the artists, writers, architects and filmmakers he writes about
while managing to keep critically detached through a tone at times
bordering on gentle irony, as when he notes playfully that their works
were only “shocking to the shockable,” or when he puts
into relief the modernists’ bellicose and confrontational tactics
in self-promotion, through a witty analysis of the military origin
of the word avant-garde. The
most interesting passages, logically, may be those devoted to the
politics of modernism. If the author keeps insisting that it was not
a democratic movement—mostly because of the aesthetic demands
its practitioners placed on their public—, of particular note
and at least to me the book’s strongest pages are the passages
dealing with the link between the modernists and the three major totalitarian
regimes of the past century. In these, Gay notes the hiatus existing
between these regimes’ exploitation of modernity and their brutal
rejection of modernism, a distinction that I will soon come back to.
He concludes this chapter by noting that “among the indispensable
preconditions of modernism, political freedom must rank high.”
The
book’s great strength comes from its author’s relish for
pithy pronouncements, as when he writes that “real originality
is never collective.” The sheer bulk of references, once again,
documents Gay’s truly remarkable and wide-ranging culture. One
has to note, however, that despite Stephen Greenblatt’s ecstatic
endorsement on its back-cover, this book delivers a rather one-sided
and frustratingly limited approach to the topic: witness, towards
the end, Gay’s surreal lament that modernism is a phenomenon
whose revival “is neither impossible nor assured.” Why
we would need such a revival is never made clear. If the links between
modernism and the Enlightenment do not escape Gay’s attention,
he has nothing to say about the link and the debt of post-modernism
to the modernist period. As I progressed through the book, I came
gradually to read “modernism” and “modernity”
as two interchangeable notions. This was somehow confirmed in the
two concluding chapters, devoted to Gabriel García Márquez
and Frank Gehry. The two figures are ranked by Gay among the modernists
and elicit from him the following comment that “considering
the fiction of García Márquez and the architecture of
Frank Gehry, we can imagine artists not yet known, perhaps even not
yet born, who may provide a new birth of life after death.”
The present period, pace Gay [509], has produced
and is no doubt still producing artists whose creations can
hold their own next to their modernist forbears (my own list would
be too long, and I am confident any reader can muster his or her own).
The book’s editors would have been equally well advised to trim
the number of pages recounting the aesthetic emotion felt by the author
at the Bilbao Guggenheim museum, which do not actually bring much
to the discussion. The
author, to do him justice, candidly explains in the Preface that this
volume is “[t]he work of a historian but not a history book.”
Furthermore, he refers in the first chapter to “historians of
culture,” and it is as one of them that he seems to approach
his subject while also aiming—but with limited success in my
view—to pass for an adept reader of cultural artifacts as aesthetic
constructs. That he has many interesting points to make as a cultural
historian makes it all the more frustrating that he frequently fails
to address the works of art under discussion as more than time-bound
creative pieces, however sincere and catching his appreciation of
them may be. As regards methodology, finally, chronology, or so we
are told in the Preface, has been disregarded when “useful or
necessary,” yet the book still progresses in linear fashion
from the past to the present, and dates are occasionally approximate
(as when 1911 is given instead of 1913 as the date of the première
of The Rite of Spring). Context has been preferred to the
“formal analysis of novels and sculptures and buildings,”
and the chapters sketch out the fascinating if ultimately disappointingly
traditional narrative of a period running from the 1840s to the 1960s
spawning brilliant uncompromising individuals that just happened to
be born in those years. The book, to its credit, includes a comprehensive
bibliographical essay, which will be invaluable to anyone reading
and writing on the period. But I fail to see why none of the numerous
writings included in the list is ever evoked within the study proper.
This makes it difficult to figure out for whom exactly this book was
written. It will likely come as a surprise, too, that in the course
of over six hundred pages the author completely leaves out all philosophical
discourse written in the period. One will find two meager pages devoted
to Nietzsche, two references to Heidegger’s Nazi sympathies
but not a single word on Wittgenstein, Bergson, or, even more shockingly,
Benjamin, the arch-modernist thinker. Peter Gay, in view of his truly
astounding culture in things literary, musical, architectural and
cinematic, may have felt he could do without any ostentatious theoretical
help. I, for one, feel this seriously limits the book’s intellectual
scope and interest. This will surely make The Lure of Heresy
a very informative and enjoyable read to anyone looking for an introductory
volume on the topic. Scholars and professional readers of modernism
will turn to the bibliographical essay with profit but may well glean
less from the pages preceding it.
|
|
||||||
|
|
Senior
sub-editor: Hélène Tison Webmaster Georges-Claude Guilbert |