<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Apr 12 2008, 04:06 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Apr 12 2008, 04:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Benoy Kumar Sarkar wrote book "Hindu Art" in 1916 which traces all the Modernist movements in early Hindu art. Its a slim volume of fifty pages and a treat to read.
Its in the Internet Archive.
dhu, I think you should read this by this weekend!
[right][snapback]80602[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My understanding has always been that modernist movement takes the 'abstractness' of non-western art as raw material for its own ends, which is basically an assault upon form. There is no iconoclastic spirit in the purported abstractness of non-western art, nor is one style ever poised as a dialectical reaction against another.. In this sense, modernist art consumes, commodifies, exotifies, fetishizes, and most importantly decontextualizes non-western art.
Of course, secularists may see all this as an example of multiculturalism, just as Mughal regime gets transformed into multiculturalism and composite culture.
Its in the Internet Archive.
dhu, I think you should read this by this weekend!
[right][snapback]80602[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My understanding has always been that modernist movement takes the 'abstractness' of non-western art as raw material for its own ends, which is basically an assault upon form. There is no iconoclastic spirit in the purported abstractness of non-western art, nor is one style ever poised as a dialectical reaction against another.. In this sense, modernist art consumes, commodifies, exotifies, fetishizes, and most importantly decontextualizes non-western art.
Of course, secularists may see all this as an example of multiculturalism, just as Mughal regime gets transformed into multiculturalism and composite culture.