Grey Lines with Black, Blue and Yellow, Georgia
O'keefe, 1923

An allure is attached when describing modernism. Perhaps one of the most groundbreaking movements in historical art, for it rejected any notion of art’s history. The movement described a complete reform in the art world, reevaluating any piece of art ever created. The mission was to defy art, and reject any past convention under art. There was a narcissistic centrism behind modern art, especially in its contributors. The elite and wealthy were praised, and art was thought to have reached its peak. Modernity, in all mediums relative to art or not, upheld standards of and liberal fanaticism, the ideology idolized any notion of progression, yet with this harbored contradictions. Despite the art movement embracing any policy of intellectual pursuit, why was it that it was so inaccessible? Men were considered the principle pioneers in the movement, often recognized as the fathers of modernism. Ironically, it seldom allowed women to join its grandeur.

When revising modern art, little known female artists can be found. One iconic women modern artist however, was Georgia O’Keefe. Often touted as the “first woman to have a retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art(Guerilla Girls, 75),” the midwestern painter was featured as one of the most established modern artists of her time. This is forever lauded as an accomplishment in feminism. The patriarchy continuously uses her feat to reinforce the trite notion that “See, women do have a say. Women are equal in modernism, look at O’Keefe!” Not to dissuade any progress instilled by her amazing success, I offer a different perspective. As aforementioned in class discussions, O’Keefe was perhaps a mild feminist.

Red Canna, Georgia O'Keefe, 1925

Her pieces, which can convey a grand spectrum of depth and subversive pedestal of femininity, she rejected these convictions. She refused to participate in her fan’s depiction of outspoken art, dwindling her potential to skew the art industry. She fiercely opposes any recognition of being a feminist artist. This is perhaps a contributing factor as to why her fame was prevalent, maybe it was allowed by the patriarchy behind modernism to mildly represent an entire gender. She wasn’t regarded as dangerous or radical. This is not to say she wasn’t an avidly aware of her perils as a female artist. “Critics who pooh-pooh- feminism, like Robert Hughes, belittle Georgia because feminists love her. What did Georgia herself have to say about the issue? When she arrived in New York in 1916, she joined the National Women’s Party. She was always outspoken about how she was treated and mistreated as a female, and in an interview in ‘The Masses’, a Marxist newspaper, she remarked that women were oppressed, but that in her heart of hearts, she’d rather talk about abstraction(Geurilla Girls, 75.)” Despite being a soft-spoken, unfortunately placid feminist, she was still criticized by contemporaries in the industry for her feminist fans.

Postmodernism stood as a paramounting force in contrast and opposition to modernism. It was recognized as the only adversary to the predecessor movement. In comparison with the abandonment of modernism, its mission was distinguishably different. It’s purpose was to overthrow modernism, and recognize the fallacies it contained. While modernism produced elitism and classism, postmodern art aimed in being for everybody. This pluralism led into every religion, race, gender, all encompassing identities to join and have a say in the art world. Lowbrow art was a thing of the past, now embracing the perception that everything is equally valued as art. Postmodernism in praxis gave everybody the opportunity to convey their expressions, to contribute however they please. This all, in theory, sounds magnificent and issue free. Yet, in practice, it evidently displays otherwise. There is a fishhook theory in regards to postmodernism and modernism, the two often blur and coincide in certain elements. Both rejected previous conservative behavior, utilizing progression as their newfound ideology. They incrementally call for diversity and accessibility. Liberalism was the path to success in both parties, yet held bipartisan issues. They pretentiously regard themselves as the end-all finality in art, thinking that in the million year timeline of humanity, they are the pinnacle and fin of art. Nothing can transcend their open-minded umbrella of art movements. They regard themselves as flawless and perfect. Yet, just like modernism was exposed as fraudulent and contradictory to its mission statement, postmodernism is as well. The contemporary art movement still have an array of issues. While its accessibility proved beneficial to minority factions having a sense of participation, elitism is still abundant. Particularly white men dominate the industry, proving to be the dictating factor in what is regarded as mainstream and popular pieces of art. While minorities join the race, white men have a head start. And despite stouting their pluralism, the art is still a multi-billion dollar market industry. The opulent wealthy class wield their bourgeois prowess to buy the profitable and prospecting pieces of art. Its a cesspool of monetization, disenfranchising the shadowed minorities while protecting the historically majority. The life of a devoted artist is still bleak, and its only bleaker for minority artists. Poverty is riddled in the bowels that is struggling artists, starving under the stilts of wealthy upper-class men, using their insecurity to deflect the aforementioned artists. Despite constantly being appraised and publicizing their success in being a post-racist, post-classist, post-conservative, post-elitist, post-modernist movement, they still have underlying elements of all just mentioned. It’s simply a facade, a superficial guise to their apparent success. Postmodernism, in similarity with modernism, has failed us.