According to most of its exponents, the defining characteristic of modernism was its
novelty. Unlike traditional art, which was valued according to how much it resembled the
work of other accepted masters, modern art was valued by how much it rejected
everything that had come before. This rejection was led by a small elite band, the self-
consciously avantgarde, who courageously ventured into as yet unexplored possibilities
of artistic expression ahead of others, despite lack of approval from the conservative
masses. However, once a new and avantgarde style had gained wide acceptance, it
necessarily became conventional and was therefore rejected as ‘passé’. Consequently, the
history of modernism is marked by a succession of short-lived movements. Moreover,
since the avantgarde made such a point of rejecting the past, many modernist artists were
self-taught, and technical skill itself was not considered necessary.
Modernism, like social Darwinism, claimed a logic of progression. The past should be
rejected because it was the past and therefore, by definition, not as up to date as the
present, whereas the present was valuable of itself and would lead to a better future. At its
extreme, modernism could lead to totalitarianism. So, for example, although Hitler
detested abstract art, the state he created was thoroughly ‘modern’, supported by the
latest technology and guided by scientific planning, stripping away of all superfluous
ornament and traditional (i.e. non-modern) humanist emotion in an overriding adherence
to modern, abstract values.
Yet modernism outlived Hitler. After the Second World War, new suburbs and
apartment blocks sprang up. By the 1960s, major Italian cities had their outgrowth of
residential towers, justified by their designers according to the modernist mantra of
Walter Gropius and the Bauhaus in which ‘form follows function’. Rejection of the past
fitted conveniently with the commercial needs of the developers. Individuality,
craftsmanship and decorative effect were abandoned as old fashioned, in favour of mass
production and uniformity It is ironic that the features of modernist architecture and
design, which at first seemed so rebellious, were cheap to produce and to reproduce and
so came to be repeated everywhere: monochrome concrete, curtain walls, rectangular
forms and an absence of eaves or, indeed, of any relieving detail.
By the end of the 1960s, modernism had reached a crisis point in many of its forms. In
art and literature, it appeared that the possibilities for innovation had been exhausted.
More significantly, the myth of the value of progress was shattered by widespread student
and worker protests. Western culture had delivered material gains, but failed to satisfy
other human needs. In architecture, millions had been housed in the new quarters, but in
conditions which, at their worst, were social disasters. Italy, in the past home to the
world’s greatest architecture, now also boasted some of the poorest. Simplicity and
repetition crushed any sense of individuality out of the occupants. Where planned variety
was introduced, it was sterile, and could not match the organic richness of cities which
had evolved over centuries.
‘Postmodernism’ thus began to be used as term to indicate a new way of thinking in
which style did not have to be new, the past could be revisited, elements from different
codes could be mixed, and progress was not a linear trajectory. Architecture was quick to
articulate such a style, which borrowed at will from many sources. Postmodern buildings
are thus typically eclectic and a pastiche of elements, such as a tower block with a touch
of Greek temple on top. In what Charles Jencks referred to as dual coding, buildings
could speak on two levels: one to the general public, in terms of their immediate appeal,
Entries A–Z 659