tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7589105760911453392.post4677703659836501473..comments2024-03-25T03:15:21.061-07:00Comments on Art Contrarian: Lewis Mumford, Art CriticDonald Pittengerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11307228686847434740noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7589105760911453392.post-70809905414211206792021-05-04T20:09:55.360-07:002021-05-04T20:09:55.360-07:00I'm not familiar with this episode in Mumford&...I'm not familiar with this episode in Mumford's career, but I'd venture based on pretty much every other experience I've had with critics that your last paragraph is part or all of the explanation. One Mumford work I have spent a lot of time with is Art and Technics (early 1950s), and suffice it to say that by that time he was anything but a smug proponent of modern art. As you evince some skepticism of "modernism" in your epigraph, I'd be curious to know what you think of Mumford's tack in Art and Technics. As someone who is more inclined towards "modernism" (if only we could agree on what it means...) I feel that he defines the role of art too narrowly, as invariably dealing in "symbols," and as too simple/direct/reductionist a reflection of the culture at large. This then allows him to show, objectively of course, why "the modern artist, defensively, has less and less to say." Basically, the whole world seemed to have lost its mind, and you can see this in the art, because it's easy to see things like this in art. Maybe I'm not doing it justice here, but it strikes me as incongruously shallow against the depth of his best work. And, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have flown in The New Yorker ca. 1932, though nowadays who knows.Stefan Kachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103517356905739209noreply@blogger.com