Ars: časopis Ústavu Dejín Umenia Slovenskej Akadémie Vied (2003)

equal partner with Western European modernism. It is sig-
nificant that there is a parallel between the three Eastern
European avant-gardes Mansbach names - dada, Russian
constructivism, and Czech “cubo-expressionism”. But this
is a short list, and it is a bit strained even at three items.
The third term is especially odd, because it seems appar-
ent that an innovation (cubo-expressionism) which needs
to be described in terms of two prior innovations (cubism
and expressionism) may be hard to present as an avant-
gardě.
In his fifth answer named “write the historiés of insti-
tutions” author gives a polemic révision of the John
Clark’s method presented in the book Modern AsianArt.
The dévaluation of non-Western avant-gardes, is based
from the Clark’s point of view on the example of Japane-
se artists such as Yorozu and Kuroda who were not deriva-
tive because they were taken part in an international mo-
vement. The phenomenon of the avant-garde, together with
its concept of originality, should be seen as a shared ideo-
logy in many cultures. Even the concept of originality might
be relative, because it might be ideologically different from
one place to another. Clark’s ModernAsianArt is a work of
Western art history, shot through with Western postcolo-
nial theory, Western protocols for the writing and research
of art history, Western interpretive methods, and a very
Western concem with modernism. To imagine otherwise,
as Clark does, is invigorating but unpersuasive.
The sixth answer “define the work per negationem”
was inspired by Slovenian art historians Tomaz Brejc who
wrote book about Slovenian modernism. He favors to spe-
cify the artist by saying what he is not. This définition per
negationem has the virtue of being very faithful to whate-
ver the painting at hand actually is. Author was impres-
sed by Brejc’s application of this method, which seemed
to him ideally sensitive to the often unnamable différen-
ces between marginal painters and their prototypes. Yet
Elkins also wonders if the définition per negationem is
not compelled to dépend, at every point, on existing Wes-
tern descriptions. Brejc’s via negativa is promising, but
author does not think it can be a model for the descrip-
tion of non-Western work.
The seventh answer “adjust the stress” pays attention
differently by the metaphor of the family tree of moder-
nism, where the sturdy trunk is Western European and
North American modernism. The metaphor of rhizomes,
made populär by Gilles Deleuze, proliferate in all direc-
tions, so that there is no preferred direction or central
node. Deleuze’s metaphor is not quite accurate because
rhizomes are offshoots of root processes, so no matter how
tangled they are, they are all linked to a large central

plant. A better model might be mycelia, the vegetative
bodies of fungi, because they are truly without a center:
they branch and divide through the soil with no pattem
whatsoever, and they can begin from spores that might be
scattered anywhere. A mycelial model of modernism wo-
uld let each local center be as important as every other
center, and there would be no central body-the équiva-
lent, in this model, of a mushroom or slime mold.
The mycélium model does away with the center in the
name of equality, and posits a world filled with labyrin-
thine connections to equally weighted centers. It models
the situation within some régions, but it is not an accurate
model when it cornes to the influence of the West. There
are many more models, as many as there are ways of pay-
ing attention to different art practices. The rhizome and
mycelial models capture two major alternatives. But it is
utopian, to say that the problém of the overbearing influ-
ence of the West can be mitigated by paying more atten-
tion to the margins because that overwhelming influence
was a historical fact over much of the twentieth Century.
Clark makes some sensitive observations on works of Ja-
panese painter Fujita from the 1910s and 1920s made
during his Paris living. It is seldom clear, in Fujita’s works,
where his alliances and affinities lie, and that makes his
work a good subject for a study of identity and its rela-
tion to painted signs. Paying attention differently is re-
warding and historically spécifie, but it necessarily de-
fers the question of wider connections.
In the last answer called “just give up” author conclu-
des with some kinds of art practice that just cannot be
described art historically, because they can never stand
up against other historical practices. In that case, the work
should be appreciated differently - “on its own terms,”
and the whole project of historical writing should be set
to one side. An interesting place to think about this is the
Leopold Museum in Vienna, where are major painters,
who are essential in any account of modernism, Klimt,
Schiele, Kokoschka, Corinth. There are presented also their
followers, who figure in any account of Austrian moder-
nism, Moser, Kolig, Hessing, Dobrowski, Blauensteiner
or Sturm-Skrila. The pictures are modernist, but also in
parts indifferent from modernism.
Of the end author of essay Claims there is no simple
solution to the problém of writing art historical accounts
of the world’s painting. If there was a single answer, it
would mean that there are no significant différences bet-
ween paintings made in different régions or countries,
that they all are part of the massive project of Western
modernism. Happily that is not true. But the lack of a sing-
le answer should also be regarded as a serious challenge.

91