On modernism

I often taut my works as modern. What does that truly mean, to me, or to anyone else. To some degree, and to some people, this could mean the period of rocket inspired furniture and art that came about in the 1950's. This has always seemed presumptious to me. Every age considers itself modern, and for the 50's to claim their age as the ultimate in design, that nothing new would come, or perhaps, that their age would never end, that they had found the precise forms and patterns that no one could deviate from or build upon, is a highly ludicrous theory that, in many ways, characterized that age. True, the 50's were a moment in time that shall be remembered, for good or ill. As the war faded into history, and america, now recovered from its pre war economic calamities, could now embrace the power and technology of an emerging and wealthy new society. This obviously came at a serious cost we are only now beginning to acknowledge, but it speaks to the optimism of that age.

What bothers me about that age is that we now have to struggle with words to differntiate ourselves from the 50's modern movement. We toy with post-modernism, which is as foolishly labled as the modernism that it both acknowldedgs and moves away from. If modern means, as it does, pertaining to present time, what does this make post modern? Pertaining to a future time we havent come into yet. That, it seems, is even more presumtious and pretentious than to name a movement modern. This would mean that we are designing and creating based on the societial influence of an age that doesnt exist yet. Pretty arrogant, i believe.

The other label we can use is contemporary. This is essentially a synonym to modern, but a lot more unweildy to handle. And again, cannot really be the name for our current time any more than modern was for the 50's. And whats worse, what would future society call itself? Post contempary? If we continue in this style, the thesaurus would quickly run out of synonyms. Besides, most ages are not names during their own time, but by the history makers who reflect on it. Therefore, the error was not on the 50's themselves. They could correctly and passably call themselves modern, as every age can and should. The fault lies on the history book writers who, for lack of a better idea on what to call that period, dubbed it forever, and foolishly, modern.

So i believe I am correct in labeling my work modern. It is a reflection inevitably of the time i live in. It is made using the materials, methods, and forms, known to the society of which i am a part. If I were to look into my work for the influences of my modern age, there would be many. First, I use the tools of my time, scrollsaws, concrete mixers, and synthetic rubbers. Many of these items are the result of a global interconnectedness that makes these materials not only readily available, but also affordable to the small scale production. There are, i know, much easier ways for me to make my originals. These include CNC machines, and photocopiers that take my designs from a computer model, and fuse dust into a solid object I can pick up and hold. These methods exist, but, due to their cutting edge development, are still quite out of reach of the average artisan. So the tools I use are indicative of the time I live in.

Also of influence on my work, and this cannot be underestimated in its importance, is the internet. Though I dont go in for works that are blocky representations of 1's and 0's, I spend a large amount of time peruseing the works of other artists. Not stealing their work, but looking at the way someone thought about something a little differently, and letting that idea germinate in my own head until i can make something completely unlike the original, but based on the originals idea. This is the best and greatest way to grow. No man is an Island, and neither should be the artist.