Talk:New materials in 20th-century art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Name Change[edit]

I think a name change is in order here:

  • New materials in Modern painting.
  • New materials in Modern to Contemporary art.
  • New materials in Contemporary art.
  • New materials in 20th century art

Please select a choice or add another....Modernist (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"New materials in 20th century art" seems the best umbrella term and we can avoid the inevitable boondoggle around what is modern vs. contemporary (with the equally inevitable, "so when's postmodernism?"). freshacconci talktalk 14:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Postmodernism's after modernism, silly. Simple as that.
Jokes aside, as the nominator for deletion, I approve of the name change, and hope this article gets fleshed out a bit better than it was at its old name. Conical Johnson (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The article will be fleshed out, it will take some time though...Modernist (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these two paragraphs have much to do with the article:[edit]

I don't think these two paragraphs have much to do with the article:

Early 20th century

The advent of Modernism and Modern Art in the first decades of the 20th century inspired artists to test and transcend the boundaries and the limitations of the traditional and conventional forms of art making in search of newer forms and in search of new materials. The innovations of painters like Vincent van Gogh, Paul Cézanne, Paul Gauguin, Georges Seurat, Henri de Toulouse Lautrec, and the French Symbolists provided essential inspiration for the development of modern art by the younger generation of artists in Paris and elsewhere in Europe. Henri Matisse and other young artists revolutionized the Paris art world with "wild", multi-colored, expressive, paintings that the critics called Fauvism. Henri Rousseau, Pablo Picasso, Giorgio De Chirico, Amadeo Modigliani, Marc Chagall, Robert Delaunay and scores of young artists in Paris made their first modern paintings venturing toward abstraction and other new ways of formulating figurative, still-life and landscape imagery.


During the first decade of the 20th century modern art developed simultaneously in several different areas in Europe (France, England, Scandinavia, Russia, Germany, Italy), and in the United States. Artists began to formulate different directions of modern art, seemingly unrelated to one another. - it is unfinished.


Yes it does..It sets the stage for the following decade of the 1910s in which Picasso and Braque introduce collage materials following analytic cubism and the Russian Constructivists simultaneously also begin using collage materials in their geometric abstractions.

I simply haven't had the time to flesh it out yet. Bus Stop - Keep up the good work. I like your addition to the intro, I wanted to make that point when I stopped writing there the other day. Add what content you think belongs however. I think each decade contributed innovations regarding the use of material..Modernist (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks Modernist. I plan to get back to it. It's a strange article. I think it is more correctly "new materials and techniques," or actually, "Materials and techniques introduced to art production during the 20th century". (A bit unwieldy) It is potentially a vast article. Does styrofoam get mentioned? Does laser-cut steel (Tom Wesselmann ) get mentioned? Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Its just gettin' started...Modernist (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The number of good quality pigments that became available to painters in the 20th century is noteworthy. Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Tehching Hsieh[edit]

I don't know about this:

"Tehching Hsieh included himself in performance pieces often lasting one year. For instance in his "Outdoor piece," he spent one year outside, not entering buildings or shelter of any sort, including cars, trains, airplanes, boats, or tents. He moved around New York City with a packbag and a sleeping bag."

Although I think I see where you're going, with the mention of sleeping bags, etc., this guy's work really has nothing to do with materials. If we include this kind of stuff, the article will really lose its meaning, in my opinion. If we include "trains, planes, and cars that this artist did not enter" as new art material, we'll also have to include an endless barrage of metaphysical nonsense. Conical Johnson (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I lifted that quote out of our article on him. I didn't mean to imply those were "materials." But perhaps it could be said that the human being is the "material" in a performance piece. Bus stop (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I vote gigantic thumbs down to that, as per my note above. If a "human's experiences" are a new material, then we'll have all kinds of intangible metaphysical stuff going on here. As I see it, this is not an article about 20th century art, it is about materials. A human's experience does not satisfy the definition of the world material. It is itself immaterial.
Anyone else want to weigh in on this? I suppose now is the time to define what this page actually is and what it will contain. Conical Johnson (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you. Do you want me to remove Tehching Hsieh from the article or would you like the honors? I don't feel right about including him. But really this article is not thoroughly defined. Its parameters remain up in the air. One problem is that it is potentially endless, or almost so. It lacks a structure. It is just a large paragraph into which editors can throw their favorite examples. Bus stop (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually I have mixed feelings on this. Tehching Hsieh is a well known conceptual, performance artist who includes himself and occasionally others in his pieces - which can last for as long as a year. The human presence is integral to his work. On the other hand every modern dance company/choreographer that I can think of...and theater piece, and film and video piece and other performance art pieces also employ human presence as integral to the art. I think we should do without Tehching Hsieh here. I'm removing him from the intro text. Although a 'see also' inclusion might be a good solution...Modernist (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm placing this here - if there is a change of heart...Tehching Hsieh included himself in performance pieces often lasting one year. For instance in his "Outdoor piece," he spent one year outside, not entering any shelters of any sort. He did this around the streets of New York City. Similar to homelessness, his art piece involved subjecting himself to lack of shelter. In my opinion - I kind of like using the first sentence as a representative of how far performance art has evolved, as we build and develop input for the various decades...Modernist (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Tehching Hsieh is a good artist. I was aware of his work, and I like it. I hope I didn't imply otherwise. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)