FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2039793243> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2039793243 endingPage "784" @default.
• W2039793243 startingPage "771" @default.
• W2039793243 abstract "The Boom Novel and the Cold War in Latin America Neil Larsen (bio) I One of the collateral if perhaps somewhat fortuitous benefits of the current preoccupation with postmodernism in the humanities is that it has now become much more difficult to sustain what for decades was the dominant mode of apology for modernism itself, and the underlying ideology of its canonicity: the idea that modernism and modernity were consubstantial categories, that modernism was somehow already precontained in the raw and immediate experience of contemporary life. To defend, say, the Joycean interior monologue or the surrealist principles of montage, it was once necessary only to declare the fidelity of the aesthetic device to modern life itself. Modernism had succeeded, for a time at least, in laying ideological claim to being the realism of our (or its) time. Given this fundamental premise, one might or might not concede the existence of a modernist politics. But even supposing one did, such a politics tended to be viewed as likewise consubstantial with modernity rather than, say, as the expression of some particular group or even class interest. Above all, one thinks here of the Adornian and generally left-formalist theory of aesthetic negation as constituting a new sphere for emancipatory activity after the decline of politics in its traditional modes. Although one can still find serious efforts to attribute to modernism both a lived immediacy and a kind of teleological necessity (see, for example, Marshall Berman's All That is Solid Melts into Air), this sort of thinking must now confront the sense among intellectuals and cultural consumers generally that modernism has failed to keep its utopian promises—and that contemporary experience may not after all be of a piece with [End Page 771] modernist aesthetics. For some, no doubt, the same premise of consubstantiality now restates itself, mutatis mutandis, as the relationship of postmodernism to postmodernity. But modernist burn-out has also made it easier to begin to think about the politics of modernism without in turn feeling obliged to erect modernism into a metapolitics with its own unique pertinence to contemporary experience. Perhaps, after all, modernism did serve the interests of some while effectively thwarting those of others. And perhaps there were, or are, other modernities, unexpressed and unsuspected in canonically modernist aesthetic categories and practices. In any event, the relation of modernism to both modern experience and to other aesthetic and cultural practices has come increasingly to be seen as hegemonic and exclusionary rather than transparent and totalizing. One of the many areas opened up for critical investigation by this line of thinking is the historical connection between modernism and the anti-Communist politics of the Cold War. (In precise fact, this connection was already being drawn by, among other Old Left intellectuals, the Lukács of the early 1950s [see, inter alia, The Meaning of Contemporary Realism and the epilogue to The Destruction of Reason]). But the—as one might put it—one-two punch of Cold War thinking itself, together with the generally promodernist stance of the New Left, had until recently kept this question outside the limits of acceptable discourse.) Serge Guilbaut, in his 1983 How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art, argues, for example, that the rise of Abstract Expression in the U.S. after World War II was less the result of some spontaneous shift of aesthetic sensibility on the part of artists and critics than the product of a self-consciously political drive to decanonize the old Popular Front realism of the 1930s and replace it with a depoliticized art compatible with the U.S. imperial elite's new image of itself as the guardian of aesthetic culture. A similarly political connection is uncovered in Lawrence H. Schwartz's Creating Faulkner's Reputation. Here Schwartz analyzes the shift in Faulkner's literary fortunes from relative obscurity in the 1930s and early 1940s to the super stardom of the 1950s and after as a function of the same Cold War cultural campaign to delegitimize the Left-leaning social and proletarian realism that thrived in the pre-Cold War United States through the creation of a new..." @default.
• W2039793243 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2039793243 creator A5007730956 @default.
• W2039793243 date "1992-01-01" @default.
• W2039793243 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2039793243 title "The Boom Novel and the Cold War in Latin America" @default.
• W2039793243 cites W1485031425 @default.
• W2039793243 cites W1517272018 @default.
• W2039793243 cites W1586461047 @default.
• W2039793243 cites W1863346585 @default.
• W2039793243 cites W1900061039 @default.
• W2039793243 cites W1969295050 @default.
• W2039793243 cites W2083493786 @default.
• W2039793243 cites W2130982863 @default.
• W2039793243 cites W2797789006 @default.
• W2039793243 cites W2801668922 @default.
• W2039793243 cites W2802099212 @default.
• W2039793243 cites W584833720 @default.
• W2039793243 cites W639787000 @default.
• W2039793243 cites W92054086 @default.
• W2039793243 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/mfs.0.0275" @default.
• W2039793243 hasPublicationYear "1992" @default.
• W2039793243 type Work @default.
• W2039793243 sameAs 2039793243 @default.
• W2039793243 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2039793243 countsByYear W20397932432016 @default.
• W2039793243 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2039793243 hasAuthorship W2039793243A5007730956 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConcept C158071213 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConcept C2776242748 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConcept C2778682666 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConcept C509535802 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConceptScore W2039793243C107038049 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConceptScore W2039793243C111472728 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConceptScore W2039793243C124952713 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConceptScore W2039793243C138885662 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConceptScore W2039793243C142362112 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConceptScore W2039793243C144024400 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConceptScore W2039793243C158071213 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConceptScore W2039793243C17744445 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConceptScore W2039793243C199539241 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConceptScore W2039793243C2776242748 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConceptScore W2039793243C2778682666 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConceptScore W2039793243C509535802 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConceptScore W2039793243C94625758 @default.
• W2039793243 hasConceptScore W2039793243C95457728 @default.
• W2039793243 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2039793243 hasLocation W20397932431 @default.
• W2039793243 hasOpenAccess W2039793243 @default.
• W2039793243 hasPrimaryLocation W20397932431 @default.
• W2039793243 hasRelatedWork W2003610548 @default.
• W2039793243 hasRelatedWork W2064637931 @default.
• W2039793243 hasRelatedWork W2307794496 @default.
• W2039793243 hasRelatedWork W2366331292 @default.
• W2039793243 hasRelatedWork W2377041967 @default.
• W2039793243 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2039793243 hasRelatedWork W2752342884 @default.
• W2039793243 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2039793243 hasRelatedWork W563973319 @default.
• W2039793243 hasRelatedWork W2605852464 @default.
• W2039793243 hasVolume "38" @default.
• W2039793243 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2039793243 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2039793243 magId "2039793243" @default.
• W2039793243 workType "article" @default.