Talk:High modernism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This reads very anti currently. Secretlondon 04:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Aye, it does. Everyone I've read who speaks of "high modernism" uses the phrase pejoratively. Perhaps this should be made more explicit. Smerdis of Tlön 04:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, Wolfe shouldn't be listed as the only go-to guy in the further reading section, as his slant prevents a fair assessment. Ann Ardis, Charles Altieri, and a good many other scholars in the journal Modernism/Modernity have begun challenging the notion of literary high modernism.

In the arts section[edit]

Why is Steven Pinker headlining this section, let alone even in it? Shouldn't an art historian or period art critic whose work dealt with and defined "high modernism" headline it? Moreover, shouldn't it begin with a positive review of high modernism, like that from Clement Greenberg or Michael Fried? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Should the "M" be capitalized? (High modernism to High Modernism) Dude1818 (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)