The Elfin Blog

During the 20th century, Europeans made many attempts to discover and understand the world around them - the modern world. Modernism consists of all of these attempts to understand and make sense of a world that with each passing minute became more complex, as well as attempts to make sense of the ‘historical events’ that various forms of modernism brought about. This is the common thread among all of these responses. These responses to modernity, with complex sounding names to match the world they tried or try to explain, sometimes opposed each other, sometimes coincided, but one thing is certain, there is no absolute right answer in the explanation of modernity. While some forms of modernism, such as Nazism, created great horrors, even the strongest forms eventually reach a point where explanation ends. Further, it seems that one form of modernism forces events to occur, which in turn forces new forms of modernism in an apparently never ending cycle of attempted explanation and criticism of the modern world. It is our purpose here then, to explore just a few of the forms of modernism that tried to explain and define modernity and to show some of their similarities and differences, beginning with Walter Benjamin’s thoughts on the effects of technology on art, and Dadaism’s new view of the world, and then, in the post-war era, the turn of the tide of modernism to explore the very structure of thought, in an attempt to explain the horrors of World War II.

A good place to begin an exploration of modernism is with Walter Benjamin. In his book, Illuminations, Benjamin discusses, among other things, the effects of modern technology on art, and the dangers of fascist aesthetics. He is discussed here because of his insights about the coming of World War II and the problems of technology. Benjamin, a member of the Frankfurt School of Social History, was concerned, first of all with the effects of mechanical reproduction on art. Benjamin states that all original, unique art has an aura, which can be and usually is destroyed by technology. This concern for technology was prevalent during the inter-war period because of its great role in the first World War. Benjamin’s argument is that aura is created by the authenticity of an art work, and its location in time and space. Mass reproduction of art work destroys or greatly alters this aura, changing the face of art, and thus aesthetics, forever. Benjamin states, “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.” (Reader, p. 385) For example, if a painting originally intended to be hung a viewed in a cathedral is reproduced, its aura is diminished. It was intended to be viewed in the context of the cathedral’s setting, but because of mass reproduction, the painting can be viewed anywhere changing the aura, even the meaning of the painting. This is truly a profound effect. Technology was (and still is) capable of altering the whole world’s perceptions of beauty, and aesthetics. Art, then, was forced to change to take in to account the altered aura it would have in any different setting, or in any manner of reproduction. Benjamin points this out when he says, “…the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility.” (Reader, p.387) This is an important point. Art was forever changed the moment the technology became available to reproduce it. This had an effect not just on various forms of modernism, but on modernity itself. Art could now be seen not just as art, but as a tool, just as the technology used to reproduce it was seen as a tool.

One group of modernists who focused on technology were the futurists, who prized technology above all else. The natural progression of futurism is fascism, which is essentially the turning of futurism into a political system. Benjamin is concerned with fascism because of its sense of aesthetics, brought about by the technological transformation and destruction of aura. Benjamin writes, “The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life.” (Reader, p.395) He continues by saying, “All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war.” (Reader, p.395) This is the problem of the destruction of aura, of the technological transformation of art and aesthetics. War becomes aesthetically pleasing, technology and its ‘rational’ use becomes beautiful. Fascism and its rise to power in Italy and in a different form in Hitler’s Nazi Germany are proof of this. Benjamin reaches these conclusions. He says, “…the increase in technical devices, in speed [which futurists were obsessed with], and in the sources of energy will press for unnatural utilization, and this is found in war.” (Reader, p. 396) Finally, Benjamin says, “The destructiveness of war furnishes proof that society has not been mature enough to incorporate technology as its organ, that technology has not been sufficiently developed to cope with the elemental forces of society.” (Reader, p.396) Benjamin’s conclusions are bleak, but not hopeless. There are other responses to the modern world during the inter-war period, that not only looked at technology but at the world being created by it, and at the language used to describe it.

One such response to the changing world is Dadaism, and the writings of Wyndham Lewis. Dadaism, like many of the modernist responses celebrates the present. Dadaism is also important because it began to look at language in ways that had not been done before. As it will turn out, language will become a focus of attention in the post-war era, as well as technology. Dadaism, whose attitudes are evidenced in the name, thought that art could mean anything, it could mean nothing. There is no real meaning to a work of art, according to a Dadaist, just as the name ‘Dada’ consists of sounds of language with no meaning. The Dada movement saw art in life. In “Futurism, Magic and Life”, Lewis writes, “Art merges in Life again everywhere,” and later, “Everywhere LIFE is said instead of ART.” (Reader, p.315) Art was in the modern world, art should be a celebration of the modern world, and the artist was everyone insightful enough to look around the world and see art. Lewis says, “The Artist, like Narcissus, gets his nose nearer and nearer the surface of Life.” (Reader, p. 317) Lewis continues, “Reality is in the artist, the image only in life, and he should only approach so near as necessary for a good view.” (Reader, p. 318) Dadaism then in a sense not only celebrates the picture, but also the picture frame. This modernist trend, of reveling in the present, the now is a prevalent one in most forms, not just in Dadaism. However, Dadaism is the beginning of viewing the picture frame as art, and language is the picture frame of reality. While Dadaism hints at this, post-war thinkers will strike on it in earnest, in no small part in an attempt to explain the Holocaust, and the terrors brought about by supposedly rational technology.

After the war, which threw the world into chaos, a need arose out of this confusion to try to understand what happened. The Holocaust and Hiroshima are both testaments to the power of technology, and the damage that could be done with it. Unlike Lewis’s idea that an image should provide clarity to reality, the images brought about by the systematic extermination of six million Jews, and the detonation of an atomic bomb brought about confusion and paradox. Two intellectuals who tried to answer the questions brought about by the Holocaust are Martin Heidegger and Theodore Adorno. The answers these men reached marked the beginning of the Post-Fascist era, and the end of Humanism’s great narrative. The basic question can be seen as this: technology before the war was seen as essentially rational, as a tool, as a victory of mankind, but then, how could an irrational event such as the Holocaust occur at the hands of technology? Heidegger, in his essay “The Question Concerning Technology,” makes an attempt to answer this question. He attempts to discover the true nature of technology. For Heidegger, technology is a means to an end, but it is also more than that. He says, “…modern technology too is a means to an end. That is why the instrumental conception of technology conditions every attempt to bring man into the right relation to technology. Everything depends on our manipulating technology in the proper manner as a means.” (Reader, p.461) So far this is no huge realization, but it is what Heidegger strikes upon later that opens up news ways of seeing when he says, “Technology is therefore no mere means. Technology is a way of revealing. If we give heed to this, then another whole realm for the essence of technology will open itself up to us. It is the realm of revealing, i.e., of truth.” (Reader, p. 465) Heidegger’s conclusion of the article shows us even more. He says, “Thus questioning we bear witness to the crisis that in our sheer preoccupation with technology we do not yet experience the coming to presence of technology….” Heidegger continues, “The closer we come to danger, the more brightly do the ways into the saving power begin to shine and the more questioning we become. For questioning is the piety of thought.” (Reader, p. 476)

It is difficult to convey how new and amazing Heidegger’s thoughts are. Not only does he attempt to reach conclusions about the power of technology, but he addresses language as a way of seeing. In many ways language as a way of seeing is influenced by technology. What starts to become clear after reading Heidegger (and Adorno) is that technology allows us to have two different relationships to language: either one thinks through language, and will eventually be unable to think past this or one can attack language, as Heidegger has done in his piece. Every time, according to Heidegger, one questions technology, as he does, one is questioning rationality. Technology is rational, or is supposed to. If one questions rationality, then ultimately one is questioning language. Heidegger, then is espousing more of an existential understanding of modernity, unlike other forms of modernism, because the concept of modernization is deceptive for Heidegger due to its reliance on an instrumental understanding of modernity. Heidegger shows us that questioning of technological rationality is possible and necessary. For Heidegger, just as for Benjamin, technology is the cause of inauthenticity. This then is the major problem of modernization. A closer examination of Adorno would show similar results. Clearly then, the post-war era brought about questioning of the very frame work of modernity. It questioned whether technology was really such a good thing after all. The Holocaust scarred many intellectuals, and caused them to fall into a kind of nihilism. Heidegger shows that it is possible to question the fabric of thought, of rationality, without destroying it.

In conclusion, modernity solicited many different responses to it. The lightning fast process of modernization, welcomed by futurists, proved damaging if not properly criticized and held in check. The inter-war period saw a new focus on technology as a rational entity, and on its possibilities for art and thought. The post-war, post-Holocaust, post-atomic bomb period showed precisely how irrational technology can be. It sparked a questioning of not only technology but of how we think about technology and the modern world. It caused intellectuals to examine the ‘frame’ of a picture, as well as the picture itself. Post-war modernism offers some glimpses at what is to come, and some ideas about how possibly to avert tragic errors such as those made by fascism and futurism. It would seem that we now live in a world where we must continually struggle to control the tools we create, and monitor the ways in which we think about ourselves, our tools, and our world.

Note: The references to Reader in the in-text citations are from a course pack prepared, with copyright clearance, by Dr. Claudio Fogu. This paper was written for a Western Intellectual History class taught by him in the Spring of 1996. Authors of the specific citations are forthcoming so that credit may be given in full.

By Tom Kersey, 1996, proving I have been a dork for a while.