Talk:Late modernism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Two articles[edit]

  • Ethico- Although I think this article is perfectly good, because there is a strong and important linkage between modernism and postmodern art I'm beginning to wondering if Radical movements in Modern Art should become its own article. I think for now the interconnection between the modernist roots and the postmodern response are important. What do you think about that? Modernist 16:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Modernist, I'm glad you've raised this, because I've been thinking about the place of this section in the article as well. I've got no objection to a new article being started if you think there's a place for it. Or, perhaps some of the content could be added to High modernism or Late modernism, given that the Modernism article gets a bit skimpy after WWII? I definitely think the modern movements should have a place in the article (after all Duchamp, Pop and Minimalism are a bit more interesting than neo-expressionism!). As for how I see this section in the article these are my thoughts:
  1. Renaming the section something like 'Transitional movements between modernism and postmodernism' (a bit long winded but you get the idea). The fact that some of the movements might be considered wholly modernist can be included to introduce the section.
  2. Remove Abstract Expressionism, or at least edit it down to cover just Pollock and Process Art. Krauss reinvents Pollock as a 'postmodernist'. Frustratingly I can't find her applying the actual term to him, but it's quite clear what she's getting at.
  3. Edit the other sections so that they provide a briefer description of each movement. The whole history doesn't need to be included, just those parts that are relevant to whether or not and why they are considered to be postmodern.
  4. Put the sections into (roughly) chronological order.

Apologies for the long response to a simple question!--Ethicoaestheticist 18:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Ethico- I don't see renaming as the solution, I am leaning toward dividing the article. Modernist 21:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Radical Movements in Late Modernism[edit]

Done Modernist 22:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


As well as describing certain tendencies of contemporary art, postmodern has also been used to denote a phase of modern art. This position is adopted by both defenders of modernism such as Clement Greenberg[1], as well as radical opponents of modernism such as Felix Guattari, who calls it modernism's "last gasp.".[2]

Fair use rationale for Image:La scienza della laziness (The Science of Laziness) by Frank Stella, 1984, oil, enamel and alkyd paint on canvas, etched magnesium, aluminum and fiberglass, National Gallery of Art (Washington, D. C.).jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:La scienza della laziness (The Science of Laziness) by Frank Stella, 1984, oil, enamel and alkyd paint on canvas, etched magnesium, aluminum and fiberglass, National Gallery of Art (Washington, D. C.).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:OtternessSculpture.JPG[edit]

The image Image:OtternessSculpture.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use Rationale provided, issue resolved...Modernist (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


Should the "M" be capitalized? (Late modernism to Late Modernism) Dude1818 (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ Clement Greenberg: Modernism and Postmodernism, 1979. URL accessed on June 26, 2007
  2. ^ Felix Guattari, the Postmodern Impasse in The Guattari Reader, Blackwell Publishing, 1996, pp109-113. ISBN 0631197087

File:SMITH CUBI VI.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:SMITH CUBI VI.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SMITH CUBI VI.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy? Modernism and Late modernism?[edit]

Is there a need for these two articles? As far as I can see there is a considerable overlap. If Late modernism was a radically different article from Modernism I would not be suggesting this, but it isn't. Why not combine these two articles by sub-dividing the current Modernism and naming the later part Late Modernism? Rwood128 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

They address different issues and are both important, Modernism is a wide rubric that is historical and its scope includes literature, religion, dance, theater, philosophy as well as the visual arts, Late modernism (which is visited approximately 1500 times per month; respectable) addresses the visual arts in the latter part of the 20th century and the early decades of the 21st century and is in contrast to Postmodern art...Modernist (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Late modernism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)