A Closer Look at Eastern European ModernismAuthor(s): Anthony AlofsinSource: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 84, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), p. 539Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3177318 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 09:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The ArtBulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.198 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:38:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Letter Letter

A Closer Look at Eastern European Modernism

James Elkins's review (Art Bulletin 82 [2000]: 781-85) of Steven Mansbach's Modern Art in Eastern Europe: From the Baltic to the Balkans, ca. 1890-1939 raises some broad issues about the

methodologies of evaluating innovative stud- ies of little-known and neglected artistic pro- duction. Elkins's approach was to assume that the questions he raises are of "interest to the

study of European modernism as a whole." If

they are of such pressing interest to European modernism, should these questions not be of broad interest to all art historiography, or do

special categories apply to European modern- ism that don't apply elsewhere? Elkins also chose "for coherence" to focus on Hungarian modernism (with a few non-Hungarian refer-

ences) in a book with subjects that extend from the Baltic to the Balkans, so that his discussion does not coherently explore Mans- bach's study.

Elkins's proposition of his own methods

may merit discussion, but he elaborated on them at such length that he did not ade-

quately explore the scope of Mansbach's

book, engage the publication on its own

terms, or grasp its central issues and accom-

plishments. Mansbach's book transcends con- ventional surveys by providing discussions that adjust to differences within the vast and

complex political, cultural, and historical contexts of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Po-

land, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Balkan states of the former Yugoslavia, Romania, and

Hungary. Not only is there no such compara- ble comprehensive study in English, there is none in any language. In taking the scope of an entire region, Mansbach introduced fig- ures, movements, and contexts that add sig- nificantly to our understanding of the history of modernism. The way in which he shifts foci

among cultural, political, and artistic phe- nomena as a function of specific national con- ditions raises interesting and debatable meth-

A Closer Look at Eastern European Modernism

James Elkins's review (Art Bulletin 82 [2000]: 781-85) of Steven Mansbach's Modern Art in Eastern Europe: From the Baltic to the Balkans, ca. 1890-1939 raises some broad issues about the

methodologies of evaluating innovative stud- ies of little-known and neglected artistic pro- duction. Elkins's approach was to assume that the questions he raises are of "interest to the

study of European modernism as a whole." If

they are of such pressing interest to European modernism, should these questions not be of broad interest to all art historiography, or do

special categories apply to European modern- ism that don't apply elsewhere? Elkins also chose "for coherence" to focus on Hungarian modernism (with a few non-Hungarian refer-

ences) in a book with subjects that extend from the Baltic to the Balkans, so that his discussion does not coherently explore Mans- bach's study.

Elkins's proposition of his own methods

may merit discussion, but he elaborated on them at such length that he did not ade-

quately explore the scope of Mansbach's

book, engage the publication on its own

terms, or grasp its central issues and accom-

plishments. Mansbach's book transcends con- ventional surveys by providing discussions that adjust to differences within the vast and

complex political, cultural, and historical contexts of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Po-

land, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Balkan states of the former Yugoslavia, Romania, and

Hungary. Not only is there no such compara- ble comprehensive study in English, there is none in any language. In taking the scope of an entire region, Mansbach introduced fig- ures, movements, and contexts that add sig- nificantly to our understanding of the history of modernism. The way in which he shifts foci

among cultural, political, and artistic phe- nomena as a function of specific national con- ditions raises interesting and debatable meth-

odological issues, but Elkins neglects to evaluate this innovative approach.

Even within the framework of his own crit- ical terminology, Elkins relies on some ques- tionable assumptions. He claims that readers need to know "exactly" how artists transfig- ured a modernist vocabulary into their own work, but such knowledge is impossible to know "exactly." His use of the terms "strong" and "weak" to describe paintings is subjective, vague, and redolent of an old-fashioned for- malism that most art historians have long hoped to have transcended. Elkins's defini- tion of regionalism as a condition applying to an artist who "knows what is happening in some other region, but decides to continue

making art that is particular to her own cul- ture" has limited application. An artist can be

regional without any knowledge of "some other region"-the history of art is loaded with such examples.

Far more important in the context of Mans- bach's book are Elkins's views of nationalism.

First, Elkins writes that historians cannot dis- cuss national style or mood without them be-

ginning "to guide one's thoughts." What is the mechanism that exerts such mind control over independent and critical scholars? Per-

haps the point is moot to Elkins since he claims that "debates about nationalist styles were dropped from scholarly discourse." Out- side the rare ideologue, historians no longer promote national styles, but they do remain

obligated to put those debates into critical contexts. To suggest that the art (and archi-

tecture) of east Central Europe can be under- stood without exploring nationalist discourse is to create an artificial construction that has no historical validity. Providing this context is one of the signal accomplishments of Mans- bach's study, and by establishing differences between nationalist agendas, he has created critical frameworks that have not effectively existed.

Most problematic is Elkins's conclusion that Modern Art in Eastern Europe is "nothing

odological issues, but Elkins neglects to evaluate this innovative approach.

Even within the framework of his own crit- ical terminology, Elkins relies on some ques- tionable assumptions. He claims that readers need to know "exactly" how artists transfig- ured a modernist vocabulary into their own work, but such knowledge is impossible to know "exactly." His use of the terms "strong" and "weak" to describe paintings is subjective, vague, and redolent of an old-fashioned for- malism that most art historians have long hoped to have transcended. Elkins's defini- tion of regionalism as a condition applying to an artist who "knows what is happening in some other region, but decides to continue

making art that is particular to her own cul- ture" has limited application. An artist can be

regional without any knowledge of "some other region"-the history of art is loaded with such examples.

Far more important in the context of Mans- bach's book are Elkins's views of nationalism.

First, Elkins writes that historians cannot dis- cuss national style or mood without them be-

ginning "to guide one's thoughts." What is the mechanism that exerts such mind control over independent and critical scholars? Per-

haps the point is moot to Elkins since he claims that "debates about nationalist styles were dropped from scholarly discourse." Out- side the rare ideologue, historians no longer promote national styles, but they do remain

obligated to put those debates into critical contexts. To suggest that the art (and archi-

tecture) of east Central Europe can be under- stood without exploring nationalist discourse is to create an artificial construction that has no historical validity. Providing this context is one of the signal accomplishments of Mans- bach's study, and by establishing differences between nationalist agendas, he has created critical frameworks that have not effectively existed.

Most problematic is Elkins's conclusion that Modern Art in Eastern Europe is "nothing

less than a kind of Orientalism." The claim is erroneous and unfounded. Not only does El- kins's own review fail to support this conclu- sion, but Mansbach's book shows just the op- posite: that by sifting influences and clarifying distinctions in cultural and political contexts he allows what is distinctive to emerge from what is imitative. Mansbach's book does raise

questions about the viability and limitations of stylistic terms for parsing the history of modernism, but rather than looking at the limits of stylistic categorization by repeatable visual elements as applied broadly to the dis-

cipline of art history, Elkins turns the review into a demonstration of a personal approach that sidesteps these fundamental issues.

ANTHONY ALOFSIN

Roland Roessner Centennial Professor Department of Art and Art History

University of Texas at Austin Austin, Tex. 78712

Response

I agree with Anthony Alofsin and Steven Mansbach that the discussion of national characteristics is extremely important, per- haps now more than ever, given the ongoing Eurocentrism of the discipline, the wide-

spread acceptance of undertheorized notions of globalism and world art, and the worldwide dissemination of American and European models of the discipline of art history. All the more reason to pay the closest possible atten- tion to books like Mansbach's and John Clark's Modern Asian Art (which covers an

equal number of countries). As for Prof. Alofsin's other points: I dis-

agree with every one of them. JAMES ELKINS

Department of Art History, Theory, and Criticism School of the Art Institute of Chicago

112 South Michigan Avenue, Room 705-B

Chicago, Ill. 60603

less than a kind of Orientalism." The claim is erroneous and unfounded. Not only does El- kins's own review fail to support this conclu- sion, but Mansbach's book shows just the op- posite: that by sifting influences and clarifying distinctions in cultural and political contexts he allows what is distinctive to emerge from what is imitative. Mansbach's book does raise

questions about the viability and limitations of stylistic terms for parsing the history of modernism, but rather than looking at the limits of stylistic categorization by repeatable visual elements as applied broadly to the dis-

cipline of art history, Elkins turns the review into a demonstration of a personal approach that sidesteps these fundamental issues.

ANTHONY ALOFSIN

Roland Roessner Centennial Professor Department of Art and Art History

University of Texas at Austin Austin, Tex. 78712

Response

I agree with Anthony Alofsin and Steven Mansbach that the discussion of national characteristics is extremely important, per- haps now more than ever, given the ongoing Eurocentrism of the discipline, the wide-

spread acceptance of undertheorized notions of globalism and world art, and the worldwide dissemination of American and European models of the discipline of art history. All the more reason to pay the closest possible atten- tion to books like Mansbach's and John Clark's Modern Asian Art (which covers an

equal number of countries). As for Prof. Alofsin's other points: I dis-

agree with every one of them. JAMES ELKINS

Department of Art History, Theory, and Criticism School of the Art Institute of Chicago

112 South Michigan Avenue, Room 705-B

Chicago, Ill. 60603

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.198 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:38:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions