Cosmopolitan Modernism

1: Case Study

The article The Cosmopolitan Modernism of the Harlem Renaissance from The Nation, by Rachel Hunter Himes, published on April 15, 2024, discusses the Harlem Renaissance as a cosmopolitan reflection of modernism. It discusses the transatlantic exchanges that influenced Black society and art in the 1920s and 1930s. But it also discusses the Met Museums attempt to present this period and this art (or lack of) in recent exhibits.

Relationship between Modernity and Modernism

Modernity refers to the historical period marked by the transition from traditional to modern industrial society. This transition was made possible thanks to an increasingly technological society and economic incentives that opened up after the end of the WW1. WW1 in a way marked the end of the old world traditional society. In the US, people experienced the Roaring Twenties, which marked the dawn of a new modern era and a reinvention of identity (men became dandies and women became flappers, to use the jargon of the times). The times were heady, fun-loving, and forward-looking.

Modernism, on the other hand, is an artistic and cultural response to modernity. Artists looked for new ways to express themselves, since the world of their day seemed cut off from the world of before. The old styles and perspectives could not be used to reflect what was going on around them. They needed something new. Thus, artists like Picasso invented their various styles, such as cubism, to reflect the new modernity around them. Overall, modernism can be best described as a conscious artist break with the past from traditional approaches in pursuit of something new, evocative, provoking, appealing to and reflective of modernity.

In the article by Himes, the relationship between modernity and modernism can be seen through the Harlem Renaissance. Himes argues that the Harlem Renaissance was about the self-expression of the Black artistand whether it pleased anyone it did not matter, as Langston Hughes noted (Himes, 2024). Himes goes on to say, however, this disregard for the viewers response to the artwork of the Harlem Renaissance is indicative of modernism: just like Picasso was indifferent to critics and admirers alike regarding the new forms he created, the artists of modernism were indifferent to the audience. Their focus was on self-assertion at a time when a new world of modernity seemed to be opening up. Modernity existed in Harlem, however, in a way that was different from in other places. It was a city that attracted the attention of well-to-do whites, seeking some thrilling alternative to the buckle-down society of the past. Harlem was like a disruptora jarring leap from out of the old world and into the new world of modernity. Harlem was modernity in the sense that, as Hughes put it, its people were indifferent to the past and to the present and even to the future. Their focus was on the Selfthe self-expression of the Black artistthat was the Harlem Renaissance. Its poetry was new and innovative along with its visual artwork. It was distinctly its own thing. In short, or as Himes suggests, African American artists and intellectuals engaged with and represented modernity by creating works that were new to the American scene: they reflected Black experiences, Black urban life, Black identity, and yet there was something global and universal about it allperhaps because in one sense everyone has a Self, everyone has a desire to be seen and heard, everyone has a story to tell, and almost everyones life (to some degree) tells a story about pain and hope in a dance of life.

Antinomy in Modern/Modernist Education

An antinomy related to modernist education that emerges in the...

…prism of the Mets displays (the initial one that forgot the art, and the second one that celebrated it); second, through the art itself (or its displacement). Here is the heart of the antinomy. Black artists were not stuck in Harlem. Harlem was a center of gravity for thembut they were moving about and interacting with others and establishing places of their own in response to their conditions and situations. Both Baker (1987) and Himes (2024) appreciate this fact: Harlem was like a spotlighted part of the stagebut the stage was wider than Harlem. Himes thus reveals an antinomy between the specific Black experience, art, and culture and the idea of universalism in the context of the Harlem Renaissance. Artists and intellectuals of the Harlem Renaissance sought to express the specific experiences and identities of Blacksand Harlem was part of that at timesbut not all the time. Black artists also were involved in dealing with the larger and bigger questions of the human experience in this new world of modernity.

This antinomy is evident in contemporary cultural debates about how this movement should even be considered. For example, the Met thought it could revisit the movement and completely ignore it at the same time in its first exhibition, which Himes criticizes. Baker (1987) likewise is of the view that the movement butts up against other ideas that are not completely comfortable with what the Harlem Renaissance represents. But Bakers (1987) analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the Harlem Renaissance as a modernist movement, and Himes article focuses more specifically on the Mets interaction with it and some of the transatlantic aspects of its artists. Baker looks at the larger cultural and political implications of the Harlem Renaissance. Himes looks instead at how the more things change, the more they stay the same.

References

Baker,…