From Kant to Picasso: A Note on the Appreciation of Modern Art

Abstract

l1WENTIETH-CENTURY PRACTICE-one might risk saying twentieth-century progress-may sometimes move within the scope of eighteenth-century theory. This is notably true in the area of human rights. It is also, although to be sure less obviously, true in that of the arts. Here, it would seem, history refutes Hegel's dictum that the shades of night are already falling as the owl of Minerva takes flight. In this instance, Minerva has anticipated the muses. Theory has preceded and marked the way toward important changes in creative practice and in our attitude of appreciation. Thus, in practical criticism of the arts we may today do well to seek guidance and support from certain very general concepts that are deeply rooted in eighteenth-century thought-and we may do this while defending works of art the most in spirit. Let us consider two examples of current interest. A recent visitor to Chicago who has stood by the Civic Center beneath Picasso's gigantic skeletal figure of rust-tinted wire and sheet metal (Fig. 1) or at the university before Henry Moore's massive bronze memorial that celebrates the release of nuclear energy (Fig. 2) might well consider these objects as memorable examples of an esthetic theory and practice peculiar to our period. Certainly we cannot conceive such works as welcomed or even tolerated in earlier times, much less as being granted prominent location in a metropolitan setting where they are offered to the general public. These monuments are today as modern as anything admired by more than a very limited and self-conscious coterie possibly can be, and they may very well be considered in future times as important and typical examples of twentieth-century sculpture. Certainly they are not classical or neoclassical in aspect. Although monumental in bulk, they may at first glance seem to many observers crude and ungainly, without