Movement Research (#3)

Modernism is a complex umbrella term for a wide array of poets, artists, writers, architects, and others. Despite the vagueness of the term, there does appear to be distinct commonalities among the various subgroups of modernism. Modernism, at its base, calls into question the functions of all institutions and facets of society. The evaluation of each part of society could be either positive or negative. At times, the modernists reject a part of society, as did the Marxists with the capitalist economic system. At others, the modernists exalt a part of society, as did the Futurists with technological advances. European modernists, though consisting of varied subgroups, were primarily defined by their painstaking inspection of the world around them—often without judgment. This subject minutia went as far as poems like C.P. Cavafy’s “An Old Man,” which features an old man reflecting on his life before becoming overwhelmed or Pessoa’s “I Know, I Alone” that delves into the nature of feeling. I use minutia not to suggest insignificance, but to suggest thoroughness of subject choice. By inspecting everything, the modernists were able to pave the way to setting up a better society—their driving force.


I primarily read poems by C.P. Cavafy and Fernando Pessoa’s himself heteronym. These poems were true to modernist philosophy in both form and content. In form, the poems were very direct, with brevity and substance intertwined. To accomplish this concision, the poems employ sophisticated techniques of metaphor, imagery, personification, and figurative language. They also have an iambic, non-rhyming (except the occasional rhyme for generally ironic effect) structure, adding to the informality, directness, and quick pace of the poems. The content of the poem, as mentioned before, consisted of the evaluation of everything, from the loftiest to the most quotidian and humdrum.


In reading the poems, I have come to respect and admire the modernist philosophy. It is a noble effort, a practical effort, and one that is enjoyable to experience. I am usually disheartened when an artist tries to directly tackle such intense things as love, hatred, or society as a whole. These gestalt attempts at discovering truth often fail in a labyrinth of clichés and convoluted language. The modernist edict, in contrast, is one of pithiness and thoroughness; each facet of society is examined. By doing this, the modernists can get at the loftier things such as love, hatred, or society as a whole in an indirect way that is relatable and more valid. “No ideas but in things” is proven repeatedly by the skill and masterpiece of the modernist poems that I read. I think that literature should act in this way; it is uninteresting to see literature attack itself and it appears illegitimate in attempting to directly define grand ideals. Modernist literature gets me what I want—an examination of society or humanity that is valid and genuine.