Large epochal terms have always been both popular and unpopular with historians: popular because they help define the obvious fact that there are seismic shifts in the processes of history, the structure of culture, the nature of collective consciousness, and the aesthetics, styles and preoccupations of the arts; unpopular because they paste over fundamental differences, and generate endless quarrels about what such terms may really be said to define. The topic of “modernism” is, in this respect, exemplary.
The term is widely deployed, as being of acknowledged usefulness; it’s also an endless matter for dissent. No one is quite sure…
Register today to continue reading
You’ve hit your limit of three articles in the last 30 days. To get seven more, simply enter your email address below.
You’ll also receive our free e-book Prospect’s Top Thinkers 2020 and our newsletter with the best new writing on politics, economics, literature and the arts.
Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with newsletters, subscription offers and other relevant information.
Click here to learn more about these purposes and how we use your data. You will be able to opt-out of further contact on the next page and in all our communications.
Already a subscriber? Log in here