History of Modern Art with Klaire
Explore Modern Art history including Impressionism, Cubism, Surrealism, and other key Modernist art movements. Join artist and educator Klaire Lockheart as she examines famous artists and artwork through a 21st century intersectional feminist lens. Whether you’re an artist, student, or patron of the arts, you will hopefully learn something new about Modern Art.
Modernism: Modern Art, Now with Women
It’s weird that contemporary art isn’t Modern Art, right? Modernism can be confusing, but host Klaire Lockheart will do her best to guide you through it. She will even improve upon the typical art history narrative because she will include women artists, such as Hilma af Klint and Georgia O’Keeffe!
Artists and Artwork: Jacques-Louis David (Oath of the Horatii), Hilma af Klint (The Ten Largest, number 7 - Adulthood, Paintings for the Temple), Wassily Kandinsky, Georgia O’Keeffe (Jimson Weed/White Flower No. 1), Willem de Kooning (Interchange), Frida Kahlo, Marcel Duchamp, André Breton, and Diego Rivera
Additional Topics: Bruce Campbell (Army of Darkness), 1913 Armory Show, Beyond the Visible - Hilma af Klint, Theosophy, William V. Dunning, Art for Art’s Sake, Jo van Gogh-Bonger, Degenerate Art Exhibition, Leon Trotsky Impressionism, Orientalism, Postimpressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, Suprematism, Dadaism, Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism, Pop Art, and Postmodernism
Artists and Artwork: Jacques-Louis David (Oath of the Horatii), Hilma af Klint (The Ten Largest, number 7 - Adulthood, Paintings for the Temple), Wassily Kandinsky, Georgia O’Keeffe (Jimson Weed/White Flower No. 1), Willem de Kooning (Interchange), Frida Kahlo, Marcel Duchamp, André Breton, and Diego Rivera
Additional Topics: Bruce Campbell (Army of Darkness), 1913 Armory Show, Beyond the Visible - Hilma af Klint, Theosophy, William V. Dunning, Art for Art’s Sake, Jo van Gogh-Bonger, Degenerate Art Exhibition, Leon Trotsky Impressionism, Orientalism, Postimpressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, Suprematism, Dadaism, Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism, Pop Art, and Postmodernism
Transcript
Hello, my friends! Thank you for joining me for the History of Modern Art with Klaire. I’m your host Klaire Lockheart, and I’m going to explore Modernism from a 21st century perspective. If you’re an artist, student, or you just want to wrap your brain around the concept of Modern Art, I’m happy you’re listening.
[Music]
Why am I talking about Modernism after I already addressed Impressionism, Orientalism, and Postimpressionism? Shouldn’t I have covered this broad topic first? The reason I am sharing about Modernism in general at this point is because I want to discuss concept of it, which really took off in the early 20th century, and this fits nicely within the chronological order. This will especially make sense when I introduce you to Hilma af Klint, who began making abstract paintings in the early 1900s.
Modernism encompasses artwork made in the 19th and 20th centuries in the Western world, which should include Europe and the Americas, but it pretty much focuses on Paris and New York City exclusively. Modernism lasted from about the 1870s through the 1970s, and I say that with some hesitancy. Some art historians will argue that Modernism began earlier with Jacques-Louis David’s painting called the Oath of the Horatii. I’ve also seen other historians make arguments for different artists and artworks as the birth of Modern Art, but it’s debatable. This murky beginning is part of the reason that the history of Modern Art can feel confusing and daunting to investigate. The art that was produced at this time can also be challenging to understand. The more I learn about Modernism the less I feel like I know anything about it, and I often find myself questioning if I even know what Art is anymore. If you find yourself struggling with Modern Art, I’m so pleased you can join me because I want you to know that you are not alone. However, if you love Modern Art, and you easily connect to it, I’m happy you’re here too, and hopefully I can shed some light on why some of your friends or students aren’t as big of fans as you are.
Many art historians, critics, curators, and collectors like to have a nice little timeline to organize the progression of Modern Art with the apex, the highest level of achievement of artists everywhere, as abstraction. They like to think that all artists were unified and universal. This era of art is called Modernism because the artists were depicting their modern lives. When I talk about “Modern Art” with a capital “M,” I am referring to this specific categorization of art that ended about 50 years ago. When I discuss art made by current living artists, I used the word “contemporary” with a little “c” to try to alleviate confusion. Modernism is an umbrella term that encompasses many different movements.
Before I dive in, I feel obligated to disclose that I find Modern Art vastly infuriating. I don’t dislike it, but the concept of Modern Art riles me up. I’m actually no longer allowed to read books about Modernism in airports because my friends are worried that I’ll get put on some sort of list. What I find irksome about Modern Art is the narrative that this artwork was “universal” and created by “geniuses,” and it is the best most amazing art ever. Sometimes this narrative will claim that anyone who appreciates or creates representational art is uncultured and uneducated, and if you don’t have a transcendental experience in a Modern Art gallery, you’re dead inside, and you have no right to call yourself an artist, and you know nothing about Art.
First of all, I would like to address the belief that Modernism is universal. Keep in mind, the majority of the acclaimed artists were white, cis-hetero, Judeo-Christian, wealthy men. Now, of course, when I talk about these men, I don’t mean “all” men individually, I’m actually addressing the institution of white men or the concept of patriarchy. It’s kind of like how it’s fine that one individual movie happens to be written by and stars men, but it becomes a problem when a vast amount of movies can’t even pass the Bechdel Test, which is a laughably low bar for inclusion. Anyway, many of these men artists came from money and privilege. A lot of them were from France, specifically Paris, and they had connections. The people who adored, bought, and promoted Modern artists were from similar backgrounds. Yes, some of the artists were influenced by artwork created by artists outside of Europe, but they benefited from imperialism and colonialism, and their blatant cultural appropriation doesn’t mean their creations were “universal.”
I’ve also heard that Modernism is considered universal because the academic art they rebelled against was elitist. As the rebels, they claimed that their modern art was accessible for all audiences regardless of education or background. They believed that everyone in the world would see their art, understand it, and celebrate the obvious artistic genius! I am going to flat out say that this is false. I have taken so many classes, accumulated a few degrees, seen a lot of this art in person, and devoted more time than the average person to try to understand this apparently “universal” and “easy to understand” art, and I still can’t connect with it the way the artists intended. I’m divulging this information because I’ve had one too many people try to make me feel like a plebeian rube because I’m not moved to tears by Color Field paintings and I haven’t experienced the sublime when looking at a ready-made. Typically these people are drawing from their vast experience of attending a wine and canvas night one time five years ago. If the premise of Modern Art is that I am supposed to understand and appreciate this “accessible” art without being part of the traditional academic systems of the past, then it’s ironic that I have to devote so much of my life to reading philosophy, artist manifestos, curator essays, and exhibition reviews to even get a grasp on what I am seeing.
What I’m saying is that Modernism can be confusing, and if it doesn’t resonate with you, I want to reassure you that it’s okay. I’m also saying that the premise that Modern Art is easy to understand by everyone in the world is also flawed. The circle of people who made this artwork and those who claimed it was accessible to all came from very similar backgrounds, read the same books, and hung out with the same philosophers. It’s like how I can address a group of my friends by saying “Listen up, you primitive screwheads,” and they know I’m referencing Army of Darkness because we have many common experiences and consume similar media. I would not address a group of people I don’t know very well and expect them to know what I was quoting. I also wouldn’t get mad at them for not understanding my reference by claiming that Bruce Campbell and the Evil Dead franchise are universal because they exist outside of officially sanctioned academia.
Now, if you are a person who easily gets Modern Art, I want you to know that I don’t think that’s bad. In fact, that’s amazing! It’s exciting that you have a connection with artists from the past and derive meaning out of their work! Art is exciting because artists, no matter how long ago they lived, can still communicate with current audiences. I know I would love it if 100 years from now my artwork resonates with viewers just based on the compositions alone. I’m asserting that the claim that Modern Art, which was made by a small group of people from a few specific locations, isn’t an art movement that represents the entire planet and everyone on the earth doesn’t magically understand the work. I bet I would have a much easier time grappling with the concept of Modernism if it wasn’t wrapped in esoteric theories and acted as though no one else on the entire planet made any art of any value during the same time period.
After the break, I will share about a painter who has been overlooked by Modern Art history for far too long.
[Break]
In the United States, the common narrative for the history of American art begins with strange folk and colonial paintings that put the ugly Renaissance babies to shame. After fast forwarding through the 1800s, the 1913 Armory Show occurred in New York, everyone lost their minds when they saw Marcel Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2, and then Abstract Expressionism was invented and crowned king of the Art World. However, this narrative has a few flaws. First of all, this art canon completely ignores the varied and unique artwork created by indigenous people. Unfortunately, people of color in general are underrepresented in art institutions and history books. Even though there have been many successful artists, the majority of them are disregarded in favor for just a select few. Then, the more this narrative is taught, the importance of that small group continues to increase, and their work grows in value. The more this story is repeated, the few popular favorites eclipse the contributions made by other artists who are quickly forgotten. If you ask someone to name their 5 favorite artists, I would bet almost all of the artists on their list are men who lived in New York or Paris. In case you haven’t noticed, I like to engage with history by arguing with it.
One artist who was forgotten in the Modern Art history canon was Hilma af Klint. I never heard about her in any of the art history courses I took, and she isn’t in any of my Modernism books. Many art books fail to mention women at all, and so I shouldn’t be surprised by this, but I still am disappointed. Fortunately, the Guggenheim hosted an exhibition called Hilma af Klint: Paintings for the Future. The show ran from 2018-19, and it was the best attended exhibition that the Guggenheim hosted.
Hilma af Klint was born in 1862 in Sweden to an aristocratic family. This was a time when women really weren’t supposed to have jobs outside of the home, and it was very rare for women to receive training and become professional artists. Despite being a woman, af Klint was able to attend the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Stockholm, which started to permit some women to take some classes. Learning about art was an acceptable way to keep unmarried aristocratic women busy at the time, at least until they could get married off and start making tiny humans. Even though women could attend classes, they were restricted in their lessons. For example, women weren’t permitted to draw or paint the human figure. This restricted what artwork they could make, and it effectively banned them from creating big, dramatic history paintings that were still popular in Paris, which was the center of the art world. History paintings were at the top of the hierarchy of art, and they often required nude figures in the their compositions.
Despite these restrictions, Hilma af Klint had a career as an artist thanks to her hard work and dedication. She made portraits, landscapes, and illustrations. However, her abstract paintings are what made her extremely unique. In 1906, af Klint began making the first documented abstract paintings in the Western art world, but typically Wassily Kandinsky is credited as the pioneer of abstract art for a painting he made in 1911. I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that 1906 happened a few years before 1911. Before I go on a tangent about af Klint’s glaring absence from art history, allow me to describe her artwork.
From 1907-08, af Klint created 111 compositions for a series she titled Paintings for the Temple. Her biggest paintings were called the Ten Largest, and these non-representational artworks symbolize childhood, youth, adulthood, and old age. She used colorful abstract shapes, spirals, geometric shapes, and organic lines. Imagine what it would look like if a Pink Floyd album had a baby with a color wheel, and that baby was over 10 feet tall!
One of these revolutionary paintings is called The Ten Largest, number 7 - Adulthood, and Hilma af Klint made it in 1907. To create this work, she put her paper flat on the floor and then applied oil and tempera paint to the surface. This 124 inch tall painting has a light, dull violet background. There is a gigantic gold shape in the right third of the canvas, and it kind of looks like an hour glass because it is skinny in the middle. The bottom section is shaped like a teardrop with the pointed tip at about the center of the composition. There are two more downward almond shapes connected to the top of the first shape, and they appear to be overlapping each other. The gold shape on the top left has a dark outline and a Roman numeral “I” painted in white. The matching downward shape is outlined in red, and it has a number “II” label. The bottom teardrop has a white outline, and three dark repetitions of the same shape inside of the gold space. It’s reminiscent of a bisected onion because of the layers, and there is a white numeral “III” in the centermost section. The top of the canvas has 3 organic, circular blobs that are unified by green pigment. The left of the canvas houses a swirling red arabesque. There are a few other smaller shapes around the arabesque and to the right of the big, gold formation. Directly under the gold shape, there is a black horizontal line, and there are bent figure eights attached to each end. The remainder of the space is filled with light blue, pink, gold, and white shapes and swirling lines. If you want to see photos of her work, I recommend visiting the Hilma af Klint Foundation’s website. You can also see her work in the documentary Beyond the Visible - Hilma af Klint.
After she completed her paintings in 1908, she showed them to her family but they told her that her artwork was too weird and that she shouldn’t show them to anyone else. She also shared her work with Rudolf Steiner, who was a medium and the leader of the German Theosophical Society. Theosophy was a very popular religious movement in the late 19th century, and it was based on the idea of a oneness of all humans. It was inspired by the advances in science, such as x-rays, that made the invisible world visible. Theosophy also provided opportunities and leadership roles for women. Intellectuals, philosophers, and artists were drawn to theosophy at the time, including af Klint. She showed her work to Steiner, but he told her that her work was inappropriate and said he couldn’t interpret her art, and that no one would be able to interpret it for at least 50 years. He also instructed her to stop painting as a medium, and so she did. Even though Steiner said he disapproved of her work he kept photos of her art and a painting she made in his office, but he convinced her to stop creating art for four years. She didn’t resume painting again until after Wassily Kandinsky met Steiner and claimed that he was the one who invented abstract art. I’m not saying there is concrete evidence that Kandinsky ripped off Hilma af Klint’s innovation, but he didn’t make his first abstract painting until a few years after he met Steiner, who had copies of af Klint’s radical artwork. Kandinsky was also extremely vocal about his innovation to establish his role in art history.
Between 1912 and 1915, af Klint resumed painting. She created 82 more works of art for her Paintings for the Temple series, which brought the total to 193 paintings. She made about 1,300 paintings during her life. She did not get to exhibit her artwork very often because her friends, family, and religious leaders told her not to show her work, but she occasionally displayed her art anyway. She even had an exhibition in 1928 in London. She left all her artwork to her nephew, Erik af Klint, but he was instructed to store all her radical work until 20 years after her death because she trusted Steiner when he said no one would understand her art until much later. She died in 1944, and even though many other artists were enjoying fame and praise for their abstract paintings, her work was hidden away until the 1960s.
Are you ready for my angry postulation on why af Klint is ignored by the art world and is still left out of the canon of art history? It’s more than she was just a woman, but that does factor into her omission. Erik af Klint offered the collection of her work to the Modern Museum in Stockholm and they weren’t interested because she was a woman, but they absolutely refused to see her work when they found out she was a medium. Even though her male contemporaries were Theosophists and mediums, the label is more scandalous when applied to women. Kandinsky was a Theosophist, but art historians categorize him as a philosopher instead of a medium.
The other reason af Klint is missing from the history of art is because she wasn’t included in the catalog of Cubism and Abstract Art published by the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1936. This publication was extremely important for setting the canon of art history. The cover of this book is a diagram that lays out the path to Cubism and Abstract Art, which the authors considered the best and most innovative art ever. This exhibition publication didn’t include af Klint; it didn’t include any women artists. Museums in general don’t include a lot of artwork created by women. Over the last decade, only 23% of the MoMA’s acquisitions included artwork made by women. I suppose that’s better than 0%, but it’s still pretty pathetic.
In 2018, Artnet and In Other Words did a joint study of acquisitions by prominent American museums, and discovered that only 11% of the acquired artwork was made by women, and the statistic is even more dismal for women of color and non-binary artists. Women faced so many obstacles to become artists, and it’s extremely frustrating that after women were written out of the history, it’s difficult to get them added back. Additionally, in the tradition of Modernism, it was believed that only men could posses “genius.” This can be traced all the way back to Aristotle’s misogynistic declaration that women are deformed men. It would be great if women and non-binary people would finally be treated as people, but unfortunately there’s still a lot of room for improvement.
[Music]
Hilma af Klint wasn’t the only Modern artist that is difficult to classify because she didn’t write a manifesto and didn’t exhibit with a group that has a widely known “ism” that was supported by writers and other influential people. Georgia O’Keeffe and Frida Kahlo were also Modernists who didn’t fit within specific art movements either, but at least they have been added back into the history of art. In 2014, a painting by Georgia O’Keeffe broke the record for the most expensive work by a woman ever sold. Jimson Weed/White Flower No. 1 sold for $44.4 million, which is a little over $49 million today when adjusted for inflation. I know this sounds like a lot of money, and I would certainly love it if someone bought one of my paintings for that price, but that record breaking sale pales in comparison to the most expensive painting made by a Modernist man. In 2015, someone paid $300 million for Interchange by Willem de Kooning. If we adjust it for 2021, that is a little over $331 million. It’s just a little disheartening to know that the most valuable painting by a Modernist woman is only worth about 1/7 of the cost of the most valuable painting by a man. The next time someone tells me it’s easier for women in the art world, I’m going to punch them in the throat. I’m kidding! I wouldn’t hit anyone, but this lack of inclusion and appreciation of women in the arts is exhausting.
Stay tuned after the break, and I will address the concept of “art for art’s sake.”
[Break]
One of the catalysts for the creation of Modern Art was that artists embraced the philosophy of “art of art’s sake.” This simply means that art itself has intrinsic value. Artists don’t need any other excuse to create. Art doesn’t need to have a function outside of itself, and this is exciting! Artists don’t need to create art for the government, religious leaders, and the art doesn’t have to be functional. I want to note that I’ve noticed some people use this phrase in a slightly different context now that differs from it’s original intent. I have heard others use the phrase “art for art’s sake” as a declaration that everyone is an artist and everything they make is considered art because they say so. The people I encounter who are most adamant of using this phrase tend to not be artists, but rather people who like to melt crayons on canvases with hair dryers or make copies of that one birch tree acrylic painting from Pinterest. Now, I’m not trying to insult people who derive joy from craft projects, because those activities can be fun and have merit. I have many friends who paint, sketch, and collage as hobbies. I just want to reiterate that “art for art’s sake” means that art as a field of study and art itself has value. It doesn’t mean that everything that is handmade is Art with a capital “A.” In the academics of art, it is important to keep in mind that there are certain terms that have specific meanings, and we need to be mindful of the terminology. For example, while I was earning my MFA and delved deeply into the history of Modern Art, I became terrified to use the words “Beauty,” “Truth,” or “Whatever” because I might unintentionally invoke the wrath of the Gods of Past Philosophy and cause art historians to judge me harshly.
Permit me to provide an extremely abridged version of Modernism and list various art movements in a somewhat chronological order. I will begin with Impressionism, which was one of the first art movements that clearly rebelled against the official Salon and art of the academy. The Impressionists hosted independent art exhibitions to show their artwork that depicted modern life as they knew it. Contemporary audiences may see Impressionist paintings as blurry, non-offensive landscapes and cute domestic scenes, but they were quite rebellious when they were new and caused a stir. While Impressionism was happening, the Orientalists depicted their imperialist fantasies of the Middle and Near East. Orientalist painters rebelled against photography, which was black and white at the time, by using vivid colors. Postimpressionism debuted at the last Impressionist exhibition. The Postimpressionists were fascinated with color theory, and their artwork emphasized how the artists could manipulate color to create compositions. The Fauves came next, and they used “wild” unnatural colors. Cubist artists acted as though they were the first people on the planet who realized that paintings were flat, and they represented the world from multiple viewpoints simultaneously. All of these artists were centered in Paris. Suprematism came a little later, and this artwork looks like geometric shapes created with flat colors. This movement developed in Russia. Dadaism is another notable Modern Art movement, and it began during World War I in Switzerland, but it grew in New York and Paris. Surrealism was founded in France, but it also developed in New York.
During the advent of Modernism, Paris was the center of the art world, but there was a shift. According to William V. Dunning in Changing Images of Pictorial Space, “Paris had been the center of world art until the Nazis occupied the city in 1940. An act of war suddenly made New York the new center of world art, and this awareness of being the world leaders in art gave the young modernists the confidence to stop following European artists.” In 1937, nazis in Germany organized the Degenerate Art Exhibition, which was meant to degrade Modern artwork. I don’t want to devote any extra time talking about nazis, but André Breton, Diego Rivera, and Leon Trotsky teamed up to write, “Towards a Free Revolutionary Art” to express their outrage. They observed, “Every progressive tendency in art is destroyed by fascism as ‘degenerate.’” The Degenerate Art Exhibition featured artwork looted by the fascists, and their point was to show Germans how horrible Modern Art was. However, their show had the opposite effect. Two million visitors flocked to the exhibition, and the nazis unintentionally made Modernism more popular.
If you are a person who has a difficult time understanding Modern Art, at the very least you can appreciate it because the nazis hated it. So, the next time you are at a Modernist exhibition and you just don’t understand what you’re looking at, and your friend turns to you and asks what you think of the show, you can always say, “I think Hitler would hate this. Therefore, it is a good example of Modern Art.” You can even carry this over into your personal practice if you’re an artist. Perhaps you’re working on a new series, and you have that moment of self-doubt and wonder if you really are making important artwork or not. Just take a deep breath, and then ask yourself, “Would Hitler hate my art?” As long as you’re making something that doesn’t promote fascism and genocide, then congratulations! You’re making good artwork!
Fortunately, the promoters of Modernism in the United States weren’t nazis. That wasn’t the smoothest transition, but I want to make sure that I fully shift the course of the narrative. The United States got its first true taste of Modernism thanks to Mary Cassatt encouraging collectors to purchase Impressionist artwork, and then Jo van Gogh-Bonger created an audience for Postimpressionism. The 1913 Armory Show in New York also shook things up in the United States, and these many factors helped increase New York’s profile in the art world. Many artists, critics, and historians like to claim that the pinnacle of art is Abstract Expressionism, which developed primarily in New York during the 1940s-50s. Pop Art emerged shortly afterwards in the 1950s and ‘60s. There are several other Modernist movements that I skipped, but Postmodernism arose around the 1970s as a rejection against Modernism. Are we still in the era of Postmodernism? Who knows? Most likely not. I’ve heard some artists and educators describe that we are in Post-Postmodernism or even Post-Post-Postmodernism. Some very sarcastic artists that I know enjoy seeing how many “posts” they can say when describing that we are in the era of Post-Post-Post-Post-Post-Post-Postmodernism.
Modern Art, overall, can be confusing and complex. Modernism began in late 19th century France, and it was rebellious when it was new. Modern Artists pushed back against the establishment in Paris, and they started to paint in ways that looked less like the actual world but the artists claimed that their depictions were more realistic. They also made declarations that their work was universal, even though it wasn’t. There were many different art movements within the overarching classification of Modernism, but not all artists from this era fit within specific categories. Each movement varied based on when and where the art was made and what it looked like, and it feels as though each new genre had to rebel against what preceded it. Even though “modern” means “now,” Modernism with a capital “M” is from the past. If that isn’t perplexing enough, keep in mind that Postmodernism arose about 50 years ago and is already over.
[Music]
Thank you very much for joining me to dive into the concept of Modernism. I appreciate you sharing your time with me, and I hope you’ll join me in the future to learn about Fauvism.
You can find a transcript of this episode, the resources I consulted, or become a patron, when you visit klairelockheart.com and click on the “Media” tab. That’s K-L-A-I-R-E-L-O-C-K-H-E-A-R-T dot com. Find me on Instagram @klairelockheart to see what I’ve been up to, or you can follow me on Facebook by searching for Klaire A. Lockheart.
The History of Modern Art with Klaire was created by me, Klaire Lockheart. This podcast was recorded with equipment provided by Aaron C. Packard of Aaron C. Packard Productions. Check out his Post-Post-Post-Post-Postmodern artwork at aaronpackard.com, spelled A-A-R-O-N-P-A-C-K-A-R-D dot com.
I am grateful for your support and positive feedback. Please remember to subscribe so you won’t miss future episodes. Thank you!
[Music]
Why am I talking about Modernism after I already addressed Impressionism, Orientalism, and Postimpressionism? Shouldn’t I have covered this broad topic first? The reason I am sharing about Modernism in general at this point is because I want to discuss concept of it, which really took off in the early 20th century, and this fits nicely within the chronological order. This will especially make sense when I introduce you to Hilma af Klint, who began making abstract paintings in the early 1900s.
Modernism encompasses artwork made in the 19th and 20th centuries in the Western world, which should include Europe and the Americas, but it pretty much focuses on Paris and New York City exclusively. Modernism lasted from about the 1870s through the 1970s, and I say that with some hesitancy. Some art historians will argue that Modernism began earlier with Jacques-Louis David’s painting called the Oath of the Horatii. I’ve also seen other historians make arguments for different artists and artworks as the birth of Modern Art, but it’s debatable. This murky beginning is part of the reason that the history of Modern Art can feel confusing and daunting to investigate. The art that was produced at this time can also be challenging to understand. The more I learn about Modernism the less I feel like I know anything about it, and I often find myself questioning if I even know what Art is anymore. If you find yourself struggling with Modern Art, I’m so pleased you can join me because I want you to know that you are not alone. However, if you love Modern Art, and you easily connect to it, I’m happy you’re here too, and hopefully I can shed some light on why some of your friends or students aren’t as big of fans as you are.
Many art historians, critics, curators, and collectors like to have a nice little timeline to organize the progression of Modern Art with the apex, the highest level of achievement of artists everywhere, as abstraction. They like to think that all artists were unified and universal. This era of art is called Modernism because the artists were depicting their modern lives. When I talk about “Modern Art” with a capital “M,” I am referring to this specific categorization of art that ended about 50 years ago. When I discuss art made by current living artists, I used the word “contemporary” with a little “c” to try to alleviate confusion. Modernism is an umbrella term that encompasses many different movements.
Before I dive in, I feel obligated to disclose that I find Modern Art vastly infuriating. I don’t dislike it, but the concept of Modern Art riles me up. I’m actually no longer allowed to read books about Modernism in airports because my friends are worried that I’ll get put on some sort of list. What I find irksome about Modern Art is the narrative that this artwork was “universal” and created by “geniuses,” and it is the best most amazing art ever. Sometimes this narrative will claim that anyone who appreciates or creates representational art is uncultured and uneducated, and if you don’t have a transcendental experience in a Modern Art gallery, you’re dead inside, and you have no right to call yourself an artist, and you know nothing about Art.
First of all, I would like to address the belief that Modernism is universal. Keep in mind, the majority of the acclaimed artists were white, cis-hetero, Judeo-Christian, wealthy men. Now, of course, when I talk about these men, I don’t mean “all” men individually, I’m actually addressing the institution of white men or the concept of patriarchy. It’s kind of like how it’s fine that one individual movie happens to be written by and stars men, but it becomes a problem when a vast amount of movies can’t even pass the Bechdel Test, which is a laughably low bar for inclusion. Anyway, many of these men artists came from money and privilege. A lot of them were from France, specifically Paris, and they had connections. The people who adored, bought, and promoted Modern artists were from similar backgrounds. Yes, some of the artists were influenced by artwork created by artists outside of Europe, but they benefited from imperialism and colonialism, and their blatant cultural appropriation doesn’t mean their creations were “universal.”
I’ve also heard that Modernism is considered universal because the academic art they rebelled against was elitist. As the rebels, they claimed that their modern art was accessible for all audiences regardless of education or background. They believed that everyone in the world would see their art, understand it, and celebrate the obvious artistic genius! I am going to flat out say that this is false. I have taken so many classes, accumulated a few degrees, seen a lot of this art in person, and devoted more time than the average person to try to understand this apparently “universal” and “easy to understand” art, and I still can’t connect with it the way the artists intended. I’m divulging this information because I’ve had one too many people try to make me feel like a plebeian rube because I’m not moved to tears by Color Field paintings and I haven’t experienced the sublime when looking at a ready-made. Typically these people are drawing from their vast experience of attending a wine and canvas night one time five years ago. If the premise of Modern Art is that I am supposed to understand and appreciate this “accessible” art without being part of the traditional academic systems of the past, then it’s ironic that I have to devote so much of my life to reading philosophy, artist manifestos, curator essays, and exhibition reviews to even get a grasp on what I am seeing.
What I’m saying is that Modernism can be confusing, and if it doesn’t resonate with you, I want to reassure you that it’s okay. I’m also saying that the premise that Modern Art is easy to understand by everyone in the world is also flawed. The circle of people who made this artwork and those who claimed it was accessible to all came from very similar backgrounds, read the same books, and hung out with the same philosophers. It’s like how I can address a group of my friends by saying “Listen up, you primitive screwheads,” and they know I’m referencing Army of Darkness because we have many common experiences and consume similar media. I would not address a group of people I don’t know very well and expect them to know what I was quoting. I also wouldn’t get mad at them for not understanding my reference by claiming that Bruce Campbell and the Evil Dead franchise are universal because they exist outside of officially sanctioned academia.
Now, if you are a person who easily gets Modern Art, I want you to know that I don’t think that’s bad. In fact, that’s amazing! It’s exciting that you have a connection with artists from the past and derive meaning out of their work! Art is exciting because artists, no matter how long ago they lived, can still communicate with current audiences. I know I would love it if 100 years from now my artwork resonates with viewers just based on the compositions alone. I’m asserting that the claim that Modern Art, which was made by a small group of people from a few specific locations, isn’t an art movement that represents the entire planet and everyone on the earth doesn’t magically understand the work. I bet I would have a much easier time grappling with the concept of Modernism if it wasn’t wrapped in esoteric theories and acted as though no one else on the entire planet made any art of any value during the same time period.
After the break, I will share about a painter who has been overlooked by Modern Art history for far too long.
[Break]
In the United States, the common narrative for the history of American art begins with strange folk and colonial paintings that put the ugly Renaissance babies to shame. After fast forwarding through the 1800s, the 1913 Armory Show occurred in New York, everyone lost their minds when they saw Marcel Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2, and then Abstract Expressionism was invented and crowned king of the Art World. However, this narrative has a few flaws. First of all, this art canon completely ignores the varied and unique artwork created by indigenous people. Unfortunately, people of color in general are underrepresented in art institutions and history books. Even though there have been many successful artists, the majority of them are disregarded in favor for just a select few. Then, the more this narrative is taught, the importance of that small group continues to increase, and their work grows in value. The more this story is repeated, the few popular favorites eclipse the contributions made by other artists who are quickly forgotten. If you ask someone to name their 5 favorite artists, I would bet almost all of the artists on their list are men who lived in New York or Paris. In case you haven’t noticed, I like to engage with history by arguing with it.
One artist who was forgotten in the Modern Art history canon was Hilma af Klint. I never heard about her in any of the art history courses I took, and she isn’t in any of my Modernism books. Many art books fail to mention women at all, and so I shouldn’t be surprised by this, but I still am disappointed. Fortunately, the Guggenheim hosted an exhibition called Hilma af Klint: Paintings for the Future. The show ran from 2018-19, and it was the best attended exhibition that the Guggenheim hosted.
Hilma af Klint was born in 1862 in Sweden to an aristocratic family. This was a time when women really weren’t supposed to have jobs outside of the home, and it was very rare for women to receive training and become professional artists. Despite being a woman, af Klint was able to attend the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Stockholm, which started to permit some women to take some classes. Learning about art was an acceptable way to keep unmarried aristocratic women busy at the time, at least until they could get married off and start making tiny humans. Even though women could attend classes, they were restricted in their lessons. For example, women weren’t permitted to draw or paint the human figure. This restricted what artwork they could make, and it effectively banned them from creating big, dramatic history paintings that were still popular in Paris, which was the center of the art world. History paintings were at the top of the hierarchy of art, and they often required nude figures in the their compositions.
Despite these restrictions, Hilma af Klint had a career as an artist thanks to her hard work and dedication. She made portraits, landscapes, and illustrations. However, her abstract paintings are what made her extremely unique. In 1906, af Klint began making the first documented abstract paintings in the Western art world, but typically Wassily Kandinsky is credited as the pioneer of abstract art for a painting he made in 1911. I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that 1906 happened a few years before 1911. Before I go on a tangent about af Klint’s glaring absence from art history, allow me to describe her artwork.
From 1907-08, af Klint created 111 compositions for a series she titled Paintings for the Temple. Her biggest paintings were called the Ten Largest, and these non-representational artworks symbolize childhood, youth, adulthood, and old age. She used colorful abstract shapes, spirals, geometric shapes, and organic lines. Imagine what it would look like if a Pink Floyd album had a baby with a color wheel, and that baby was over 10 feet tall!
One of these revolutionary paintings is called The Ten Largest, number 7 - Adulthood, and Hilma af Klint made it in 1907. To create this work, she put her paper flat on the floor and then applied oil and tempera paint to the surface. This 124 inch tall painting has a light, dull violet background. There is a gigantic gold shape in the right third of the canvas, and it kind of looks like an hour glass because it is skinny in the middle. The bottom section is shaped like a teardrop with the pointed tip at about the center of the composition. There are two more downward almond shapes connected to the top of the first shape, and they appear to be overlapping each other. The gold shape on the top left has a dark outline and a Roman numeral “I” painted in white. The matching downward shape is outlined in red, and it has a number “II” label. The bottom teardrop has a white outline, and three dark repetitions of the same shape inside of the gold space. It’s reminiscent of a bisected onion because of the layers, and there is a white numeral “III” in the centermost section. The top of the canvas has 3 organic, circular blobs that are unified by green pigment. The left of the canvas houses a swirling red arabesque. There are a few other smaller shapes around the arabesque and to the right of the big, gold formation. Directly under the gold shape, there is a black horizontal line, and there are bent figure eights attached to each end. The remainder of the space is filled with light blue, pink, gold, and white shapes and swirling lines. If you want to see photos of her work, I recommend visiting the Hilma af Klint Foundation’s website. You can also see her work in the documentary Beyond the Visible - Hilma af Klint.
After she completed her paintings in 1908, she showed them to her family but they told her that her artwork was too weird and that she shouldn’t show them to anyone else. She also shared her work with Rudolf Steiner, who was a medium and the leader of the German Theosophical Society. Theosophy was a very popular religious movement in the late 19th century, and it was based on the idea of a oneness of all humans. It was inspired by the advances in science, such as x-rays, that made the invisible world visible. Theosophy also provided opportunities and leadership roles for women. Intellectuals, philosophers, and artists were drawn to theosophy at the time, including af Klint. She showed her work to Steiner, but he told her that her work was inappropriate and said he couldn’t interpret her art, and that no one would be able to interpret it for at least 50 years. He also instructed her to stop painting as a medium, and so she did. Even though Steiner said he disapproved of her work he kept photos of her art and a painting she made in his office, but he convinced her to stop creating art for four years. She didn’t resume painting again until after Wassily Kandinsky met Steiner and claimed that he was the one who invented abstract art. I’m not saying there is concrete evidence that Kandinsky ripped off Hilma af Klint’s innovation, but he didn’t make his first abstract painting until a few years after he met Steiner, who had copies of af Klint’s radical artwork. Kandinsky was also extremely vocal about his innovation to establish his role in art history.
Between 1912 and 1915, af Klint resumed painting. She created 82 more works of art for her Paintings for the Temple series, which brought the total to 193 paintings. She made about 1,300 paintings during her life. She did not get to exhibit her artwork very often because her friends, family, and religious leaders told her not to show her work, but she occasionally displayed her art anyway. She even had an exhibition in 1928 in London. She left all her artwork to her nephew, Erik af Klint, but he was instructed to store all her radical work until 20 years after her death because she trusted Steiner when he said no one would understand her art until much later. She died in 1944, and even though many other artists were enjoying fame and praise for their abstract paintings, her work was hidden away until the 1960s.
Are you ready for my angry postulation on why af Klint is ignored by the art world and is still left out of the canon of art history? It’s more than she was just a woman, but that does factor into her omission. Erik af Klint offered the collection of her work to the Modern Museum in Stockholm and they weren’t interested because she was a woman, but they absolutely refused to see her work when they found out she was a medium. Even though her male contemporaries were Theosophists and mediums, the label is more scandalous when applied to women. Kandinsky was a Theosophist, but art historians categorize him as a philosopher instead of a medium.
The other reason af Klint is missing from the history of art is because she wasn’t included in the catalog of Cubism and Abstract Art published by the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1936. This publication was extremely important for setting the canon of art history. The cover of this book is a diagram that lays out the path to Cubism and Abstract Art, which the authors considered the best and most innovative art ever. This exhibition publication didn’t include af Klint; it didn’t include any women artists. Museums in general don’t include a lot of artwork created by women. Over the last decade, only 23% of the MoMA’s acquisitions included artwork made by women. I suppose that’s better than 0%, but it’s still pretty pathetic.
In 2018, Artnet and In Other Words did a joint study of acquisitions by prominent American museums, and discovered that only 11% of the acquired artwork was made by women, and the statistic is even more dismal for women of color and non-binary artists. Women faced so many obstacles to become artists, and it’s extremely frustrating that after women were written out of the history, it’s difficult to get them added back. Additionally, in the tradition of Modernism, it was believed that only men could posses “genius.” This can be traced all the way back to Aristotle’s misogynistic declaration that women are deformed men. It would be great if women and non-binary people would finally be treated as people, but unfortunately there’s still a lot of room for improvement.
[Music]
Hilma af Klint wasn’t the only Modern artist that is difficult to classify because she didn’t write a manifesto and didn’t exhibit with a group that has a widely known “ism” that was supported by writers and other influential people. Georgia O’Keeffe and Frida Kahlo were also Modernists who didn’t fit within specific art movements either, but at least they have been added back into the history of art. In 2014, a painting by Georgia O’Keeffe broke the record for the most expensive work by a woman ever sold. Jimson Weed/White Flower No. 1 sold for $44.4 million, which is a little over $49 million today when adjusted for inflation. I know this sounds like a lot of money, and I would certainly love it if someone bought one of my paintings for that price, but that record breaking sale pales in comparison to the most expensive painting made by a Modernist man. In 2015, someone paid $300 million for Interchange by Willem de Kooning. If we adjust it for 2021, that is a little over $331 million. It’s just a little disheartening to know that the most valuable painting by a Modernist woman is only worth about 1/7 of the cost of the most valuable painting by a man. The next time someone tells me it’s easier for women in the art world, I’m going to punch them in the throat. I’m kidding! I wouldn’t hit anyone, but this lack of inclusion and appreciation of women in the arts is exhausting.
Stay tuned after the break, and I will address the concept of “art for art’s sake.”
[Break]
One of the catalysts for the creation of Modern Art was that artists embraced the philosophy of “art of art’s sake.” This simply means that art itself has intrinsic value. Artists don’t need any other excuse to create. Art doesn’t need to have a function outside of itself, and this is exciting! Artists don’t need to create art for the government, religious leaders, and the art doesn’t have to be functional. I want to note that I’ve noticed some people use this phrase in a slightly different context now that differs from it’s original intent. I have heard others use the phrase “art for art’s sake” as a declaration that everyone is an artist and everything they make is considered art because they say so. The people I encounter who are most adamant of using this phrase tend to not be artists, but rather people who like to melt crayons on canvases with hair dryers or make copies of that one birch tree acrylic painting from Pinterest. Now, I’m not trying to insult people who derive joy from craft projects, because those activities can be fun and have merit. I have many friends who paint, sketch, and collage as hobbies. I just want to reiterate that “art for art’s sake” means that art as a field of study and art itself has value. It doesn’t mean that everything that is handmade is Art with a capital “A.” In the academics of art, it is important to keep in mind that there are certain terms that have specific meanings, and we need to be mindful of the terminology. For example, while I was earning my MFA and delved deeply into the history of Modern Art, I became terrified to use the words “Beauty,” “Truth,” or “Whatever” because I might unintentionally invoke the wrath of the Gods of Past Philosophy and cause art historians to judge me harshly.
Permit me to provide an extremely abridged version of Modernism and list various art movements in a somewhat chronological order. I will begin with Impressionism, which was one of the first art movements that clearly rebelled against the official Salon and art of the academy. The Impressionists hosted independent art exhibitions to show their artwork that depicted modern life as they knew it. Contemporary audiences may see Impressionist paintings as blurry, non-offensive landscapes and cute domestic scenes, but they were quite rebellious when they were new and caused a stir. While Impressionism was happening, the Orientalists depicted their imperialist fantasies of the Middle and Near East. Orientalist painters rebelled against photography, which was black and white at the time, by using vivid colors. Postimpressionism debuted at the last Impressionist exhibition. The Postimpressionists were fascinated with color theory, and their artwork emphasized how the artists could manipulate color to create compositions. The Fauves came next, and they used “wild” unnatural colors. Cubist artists acted as though they were the first people on the planet who realized that paintings were flat, and they represented the world from multiple viewpoints simultaneously. All of these artists were centered in Paris. Suprematism came a little later, and this artwork looks like geometric shapes created with flat colors. This movement developed in Russia. Dadaism is another notable Modern Art movement, and it began during World War I in Switzerland, but it grew in New York and Paris. Surrealism was founded in France, but it also developed in New York.
During the advent of Modernism, Paris was the center of the art world, but there was a shift. According to William V. Dunning in Changing Images of Pictorial Space, “Paris had been the center of world art until the Nazis occupied the city in 1940. An act of war suddenly made New York the new center of world art, and this awareness of being the world leaders in art gave the young modernists the confidence to stop following European artists.” In 1937, nazis in Germany organized the Degenerate Art Exhibition, which was meant to degrade Modern artwork. I don’t want to devote any extra time talking about nazis, but André Breton, Diego Rivera, and Leon Trotsky teamed up to write, “Towards a Free Revolutionary Art” to express their outrage. They observed, “Every progressive tendency in art is destroyed by fascism as ‘degenerate.’” The Degenerate Art Exhibition featured artwork looted by the fascists, and their point was to show Germans how horrible Modern Art was. However, their show had the opposite effect. Two million visitors flocked to the exhibition, and the nazis unintentionally made Modernism more popular.
If you are a person who has a difficult time understanding Modern Art, at the very least you can appreciate it because the nazis hated it. So, the next time you are at a Modernist exhibition and you just don’t understand what you’re looking at, and your friend turns to you and asks what you think of the show, you can always say, “I think Hitler would hate this. Therefore, it is a good example of Modern Art.” You can even carry this over into your personal practice if you’re an artist. Perhaps you’re working on a new series, and you have that moment of self-doubt and wonder if you really are making important artwork or not. Just take a deep breath, and then ask yourself, “Would Hitler hate my art?” As long as you’re making something that doesn’t promote fascism and genocide, then congratulations! You’re making good artwork!
Fortunately, the promoters of Modernism in the United States weren’t nazis. That wasn’t the smoothest transition, but I want to make sure that I fully shift the course of the narrative. The United States got its first true taste of Modernism thanks to Mary Cassatt encouraging collectors to purchase Impressionist artwork, and then Jo van Gogh-Bonger created an audience for Postimpressionism. The 1913 Armory Show in New York also shook things up in the United States, and these many factors helped increase New York’s profile in the art world. Many artists, critics, and historians like to claim that the pinnacle of art is Abstract Expressionism, which developed primarily in New York during the 1940s-50s. Pop Art emerged shortly afterwards in the 1950s and ‘60s. There are several other Modernist movements that I skipped, but Postmodernism arose around the 1970s as a rejection against Modernism. Are we still in the era of Postmodernism? Who knows? Most likely not. I’ve heard some artists and educators describe that we are in Post-Postmodernism or even Post-Post-Postmodernism. Some very sarcastic artists that I know enjoy seeing how many “posts” they can say when describing that we are in the era of Post-Post-Post-Post-Post-Post-Postmodernism.
Modern Art, overall, can be confusing and complex. Modernism began in late 19th century France, and it was rebellious when it was new. Modern Artists pushed back against the establishment in Paris, and they started to paint in ways that looked less like the actual world but the artists claimed that their depictions were more realistic. They also made declarations that their work was universal, even though it wasn’t. There were many different art movements within the overarching classification of Modernism, but not all artists from this era fit within specific categories. Each movement varied based on when and where the art was made and what it looked like, and it feels as though each new genre had to rebel against what preceded it. Even though “modern” means “now,” Modernism with a capital “M” is from the past. If that isn’t perplexing enough, keep in mind that Postmodernism arose about 50 years ago and is already over.
[Music]
Thank you very much for joining me to dive into the concept of Modernism. I appreciate you sharing your time with me, and I hope you’ll join me in the future to learn about Fauvism.
You can find a transcript of this episode, the resources I consulted, or become a patron, when you visit klairelockheart.com and click on the “Media” tab. That’s K-L-A-I-R-E-L-O-C-K-H-E-A-R-T dot com. Find me on Instagram @klairelockheart to see what I’ve been up to, or you can follow me on Facebook by searching for Klaire A. Lockheart.
The History of Modern Art with Klaire was created by me, Klaire Lockheart. This podcast was recorded with equipment provided by Aaron C. Packard of Aaron C. Packard Productions. Check out his Post-Post-Post-Post-Postmodern artwork at aaronpackard.com, spelled A-A-R-O-N-P-A-C-K-A-R-D dot com.
I am grateful for your support and positive feedback. Please remember to subscribe so you won’t miss future episodes. Thank you!
Resources
“About Hilma af Klint,” Hilma af Klint Foundation, https://www.hilmaafklint.se/en/about-hilma-af-klint/
Torey Akers, “What Is Masculinity In Art, And Do We Have To Care?” Artspace, November 23, https://www.artspace.com/magazine/interviews_features/in_depth/what-is-masculinity-in-art-and-do-we-have-to-care-56336
Alfred H. Barr, Jr., Catalogue for Cubism and Abstract Art, (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1936).
André Breton, Diego Rivera, and Leon Trotsky, “Towards a Free Revolutionary Art,” in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 532-535.
Mark Brown, “Georgia O’Keeffe flower painting sells for record-breaking $44.4m,” The Guardian, November 20, 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/nov/20/georgia-okeeffe-painting-world-record-price-art-woman
Ben Davis, “Why Hilma af Klint’s Occult Spirituality Makes Her the Perfect Artist for Our Technologically Disrupted Time,” Artnet, October 23, 2018, https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/hilma-af-klints-occult-spirituality-makes-perfect-artist-technologically-disrupted-time-1376587
“Degenerate Art,” MoMA, July, 2017, https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3868
William V. Dunning, Changing Images of Pictorial Space. (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1991).
Halina Dyrschka, Hilma af Klint: Beyond the Visible (2020; New York, Zeitgeist Films).
Michael Findlay, The Value of Art. (New York: Prestel, 2014).
Julia Halperin & Charlotte Burns, “Museums Claim They’re Paying More Attention to Female Artists. That’s an Illusion,” Artnet, September 19, 2019, https://news.artnet.com/womens-place-in-the-art-world/womens-place-art-world-museums-1654714
“Hilma af Klint: Paintings for the Future,” Guggenheim, October, 2018, https://www.guggenheim.org/exhibition/hilma-af-klint
Peter Kalb, ed., H. H. Arnason History of Modern Art, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc, 2004).
Rosalind Krauss, “A View of Modernism,” in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 976-979.
Patina Lee, “Everything We Know About the Most Expensive Painting Ever Sold,” Widewalls, August 13, 2016, https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/the-most-expensive-painting-ever-sold
Sam Phillips, …isms: Understanding Modern Art. (New York: Universe, 2013).
Benedetta Ricci, “The Shows That Made Contemporary Art History: Nazi Censorship And The ‘Degenerate Art’ Exhibition of 1937,” Artland, https://magazine.artland.com/the-shows-that-made-contemporary-art-history-the-degenerate-art-exhibition/
Rosemary Radford Ruether, Religion and Sexism. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974).
Benedetta Ricci, “The Shows That Made Contemporary Art History: Nazi Censorship And The ‘Degenerate Art’ Exhibition of 1937,” Artland, https://magazine.artland.com/the-shows-that-made-contemporary-art-history-the-degenerate-art-exhibition/
Meilan Solly, “Study Shows U.S. Museums Still Lag When It Comes to Acquiring Works by Women Artists,” Smithsonian Magazine, September 20, 2019, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/survey-us-museums-reveals-few-gains-female-artists-past-decade-180973190/
Balasz Takac, “The Influence of Art for Art’s Sake on History,” Widewalls, January 06, 2021, https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/art-for-arts-sake
Torey Akers, “What Is Masculinity In Art, And Do We Have To Care?” Artspace, November 23, https://www.artspace.com/magazine/interviews_features/in_depth/what-is-masculinity-in-art-and-do-we-have-to-care-56336
Alfred H. Barr, Jr., Catalogue for Cubism and Abstract Art, (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1936).
André Breton, Diego Rivera, and Leon Trotsky, “Towards a Free Revolutionary Art,” in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 532-535.
Mark Brown, “Georgia O’Keeffe flower painting sells for record-breaking $44.4m,” The Guardian, November 20, 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/nov/20/georgia-okeeffe-painting-world-record-price-art-woman
Ben Davis, “Why Hilma af Klint’s Occult Spirituality Makes Her the Perfect Artist for Our Technologically Disrupted Time,” Artnet, October 23, 2018, https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/hilma-af-klints-occult-spirituality-makes-perfect-artist-technologically-disrupted-time-1376587
“Degenerate Art,” MoMA, July, 2017, https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3868
William V. Dunning, Changing Images of Pictorial Space. (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1991).
Halina Dyrschka, Hilma af Klint: Beyond the Visible (2020; New York, Zeitgeist Films).
Michael Findlay, The Value of Art. (New York: Prestel, 2014).
Julia Halperin & Charlotte Burns, “Museums Claim They’re Paying More Attention to Female Artists. That’s an Illusion,” Artnet, September 19, 2019, https://news.artnet.com/womens-place-in-the-art-world/womens-place-art-world-museums-1654714
“Hilma af Klint: Paintings for the Future,” Guggenheim, October, 2018, https://www.guggenheim.org/exhibition/hilma-af-klint
Peter Kalb, ed., H. H. Arnason History of Modern Art, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc, 2004).
Rosalind Krauss, “A View of Modernism,” in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 976-979.
Patina Lee, “Everything We Know About the Most Expensive Painting Ever Sold,” Widewalls, August 13, 2016, https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/the-most-expensive-painting-ever-sold
Sam Phillips, …isms: Understanding Modern Art. (New York: Universe, 2013).
Benedetta Ricci, “The Shows That Made Contemporary Art History: Nazi Censorship And The ‘Degenerate Art’ Exhibition of 1937,” Artland, https://magazine.artland.com/the-shows-that-made-contemporary-art-history-the-degenerate-art-exhibition/
Rosemary Radford Ruether, Religion and Sexism. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974).
Benedetta Ricci, “The Shows That Made Contemporary Art History: Nazi Censorship And The ‘Degenerate Art’ Exhibition of 1937,” Artland, https://magazine.artland.com/the-shows-that-made-contemporary-art-history-the-degenerate-art-exhibition/
Meilan Solly, “Study Shows U.S. Museums Still Lag When It Comes to Acquiring Works by Women Artists,” Smithsonian Magazine, September 20, 2019, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/survey-us-museums-reveals-few-gains-female-artists-past-decade-180973190/
Balasz Takac, “The Influence of Art for Art’s Sake on History,” Widewalls, January 06, 2021, https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/art-for-arts-sake