By Zahra Abdi
Introduction
At the start of the 20th century, the impact of war, economic crises, colonial competition, and skepticism about progress led many artists to move away from content-driven art and embrace formalism, sparking the rise of modern art. By the 1920s, however, avant-garde artists renewed their interest in socially engaged art, which is essential in addressing the era’s socio-political challenges (Scheunemann, 2005; Clark, 1997). In the 1920s and 1930s, artists addressed issues like poverty, housing, war, executions, and workers’ strikes. However, as the economy improved and the art market grew, the question of art’s autonomy led to a divide between art and life (Roberts, 2014). Modern art, with its formalist focus, dominated the art world until the postmodern era. In postmodernism, art shifted back to social discourse. After 1960 in France, a rebellion against consumerism sparked critical art, and by the 1980s, figurative painting became a platform for addressing social issues. Social movements, feminism, and themes of gender, race, and identity then became central to cultural studies and artistic works (Smythe, 2015).
This research aims to answer the key question of how the discourse of socially committed art evolved within Western art during the 20th century, shaped by historical developments. It also seeks how this art is commodified in a capitalist society. The objective of this research is to examine how socially committed art—as a tool for resistance and social critique—has evolved in its expression and purpose, and to analyze how capitalist systems transform this critical art into consumable products, often stripping away its oppositional potential. To address this, the research adopts a descriptive-analytical method, beginning with a review of the trajectory of socially committed art during two first decades of the 20th century, extending through the rest of the century and into postmodernism, then applying Theodor Adorno and Horkheimer’s theory of the Culture Industry to explore how capitalism affects art and culture.
Socially committed art in the first two decades of the 20th century
To fully grasp 20th-century art and the development of modernism, it is essential to contextualize them within the broader political, social, and technological changes of the time1 (Berlin, 1997). At the beginning of the century, many Europeans and Americans were imbued with an optimistic belief in societal progress, driven by the expansion of democracy, capitalism, innovation, and technology (Marx & Mazlish, 1996). However, the competitive nature of colonialism and capitalism introduced deep instability within Europe and its political allies, ultimately leading to widespread skepticism regarding the notion of progress. The concept of progress posits that history unfolds as a continuous process of improvement, with all societies contributing to a collective evolutionary trajectory. According to this framework, if one perceives history as a definitive path toward advancement, Western civilization becomes positioned as the apex of this developmental pathway (Castoriadis & Murphy, 1985). Hegel, in his metaphysical narrative, proposed that the driving force of history lies in the birth and evolution of ideological maturity. He argued that this ideological shift occurs when a new idea emerges within the confines of an established one, eventually superseding it. In his philosophy of history, Hegel maintained that any reflective individual analyzing historical events must accept that suffering is an integral part of progress, thus embedding the concept of colonialism within the broader framework of historical advancement (McLangy, 2024).
In the latter half of the 19th century, the notion of an organic society diminished, and conflict came to be seen as the foundation of life in industrialized Western society. This view was reflected by Marx and Engels in the early Communist Manifesto, which can be seen as a seminal modernist statement advocating a radical break from the past. Modernist writers and artists were influenced by this perspective, striving to depict the alienation of urban life. The shift toward abstraction in avant-garde art is also interpreted as a reflection of this social alienation2 (Childs, 2017). The incorporation of Marxist ideas into 20th-century art, prior to the Russian Revolution, led to the creation of movements like Futurism and Constructivism, where machine played a central role. This often led to the development of abstract expressions. These artists created a significant break from traditional art forms, embracing avant-garde techniques to merge industry and production with art. By defamiliarizing common processes, they aimed to elevate critical cultural awareness (Versari, 2009). In addition to philosophical influences, the rise of avant-garde art movements was closely tied to the events surrounding World War I (Cárcel, 2023). The outbreak of the war in 1914 drastically altered global dynamics. Prior to the conflict, collaboration among European artists was widely accepted, but the war’s onset and divergent views on it caused these relationships to collapse, ushering in a new phase of European art. During this period, many artists, either voluntarily or due to obligation, joined the front lines, with some subsequently glorifying war while others strongly opposed it (Becker, 2020). It seems that the glorification of war by avant-garde artists stemmed more from their anti-bourgeois stance than from any commitment to patriotism. This avant-garde viewpoint aimed to destruction of all systems influenced by the bourgeoisie. Among European avant-garde groups, the Italian Futurists, led by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, were the most captivated by war (Storchi, 2015).
The first Futurist manifesto, issued by Marinetti in 1908, declared that only by becoming free of the stinking gangrene of… “professors, archaeologists, touring guides, and antique dealers” only by burning libraries and flooding museums, could Italy save itself. The new world of speed and technology required a new language of forms derived not from the past but from the future. A second manifesto declared that by denying its past could art correspond to the intellectual needs of our time. Tradition was reactionary, Modernism alone was revolutionary and progressive (Gablik, 2004).
These artists displayed a fragmented chaos that represented the 20th century—a century that was increasingly and technologically undergoing transformation (Salter, 2010). For the Futurists, war was viewed as an inspiring, progressive, and even beautiful phenomenon. However, this fascination was not universally shared among artists; for some, enthusiasm was replaced by profound hatred. In France, André Breton, who would later lead the Surrealist movement, expressed his reluctance toward the glorification of war, while artists such as Marcel Duchamp distanced themselves by leaving their homeland (Re, 2004). By mid-1915, the violence, suffering, and perceived futility of the war compelled many pro-war artists to reevaluate their positions. They sought to use their art to denounce and critique the war. In post-World War I Europe, the anxiety stemming from the conflict prompted some artists to memorialize the victims, not to celebrate military heroism, but to condemn the political underpinnings of war and the prevailing culture of forgetting (Cork, 1995).
Amid World War I (1916), the Dada movement emerged with its revolutionary critique of war and bourgeois society, followed by Surrealism in 1924, which embraced an anti-war stance (Rubin, 1968). By the 1920s, the postwar generation of Dadaists had grown increasingly skeptical of society’s mercenary nature. The catastrophic consequences of the war had shattered any remaining faith in a rational and peaceful future. In their view, a civilization that tolerated such atrocities was unworthy of art’s consolations, having lost its legitimacy. Consequently, the public was confronted with meaningless, aggressively absurd object (Gablik, 2004). Avant-garde modernism emerged as an artistic movement protesting the existing social order while seeking individual freedom. The war’s catastrophic effects shattered faith in progress and disillusioned artists with past ideologies, leading them to embrace absurdity. Dadaist and Surrealist artists aimed to dismantle established patterns, yet the disharmony and fragmentation of their works mirrored individuals’ loss of control and societal harmony (Childs, 2017). This loss of centrality once again led artists to reconsider the relationship between art and society from a new perspective.
Socially committed art from 1920 to postmodernism
In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the presence of humans, either as a source of evil or as an oppressed and threatened identity, became increasingly prominent in artworks3 (Wosk, 1986).
Even though the social thought and function of art around the 1880s gradually gave way to a phase of avant-gardism, which remained influential until about 19204, but during that period, the intensification of art’s autonomy through the aesthetic movement facilitated the avant-garde’s recognition of the inherent lack of social impact in autonomous art. As a logical consequence, there emerged a concerted effort to reintegrate art into the domain of social action. The fundamental transformation that arose from the transition from aestheticism to the avant-garde movement was rooted in art’s awareness of its role within bourgeois society—or, more precisely, its comprehension of its own social standing. Avant-garde artists believed that the integration of art into life was possible, provided they created unfinished works that remained open to audience reactions. This approach began its activities in 1920s5, when streets replaced galleries as venues for artistic expression, emphasizing the connection between life and art more than ever before (Burger, 1984). Alongside radical movements, the resurgence of realism in post-war European painting cannot be overlooked. The psychological impact of the war fostered a revival of realism, as artists, driven by a heightened sense of responsibility, became more attuned to their social and human obligations, seeking to contribute to the betterment of society (Lucie-Smith, 2020).
The formation of social realism in the 1920s and 1930s was inspired by the belief that art could serve as a weapon to combat the exploitation of workers under capitalism and halt the rise of international fascism (Whitfield, 2022). The painful experience of war drove German artists such as Max Beckmann and Käthe Kollwitz to create works with themes of war, suffering, and grief. However, while Kollwitz’s work can be considered part of social realism, Max Beckmann is associated with Neue Sachlichkeit. The ‘New Objectivity’ movement, which emerged in the 1920s, was an artistic response to the war and the political and social upheaval of the Weimar Republic, often characterized by a critical, detached, and sometimes satirical portrayal of contemporary life and politics in Germany (Pound, 2018). In addition to European art, American art during this period exemplified the return of art to social action. The Harlem Renaissance, which unfolded between the end of World War I and the mid-1930s, marked significant cultural, social, and artistic transformations in Harlem. Although initially driven by a literary movement led by writers and poets, this period gradually attracted artists, photographers, and musicians, establishing Harlem as a cultural hub. The Harlem Renaissance revitalized Black pride and contributed to changing perceptions of African Americans and their roles within the cultural framework of the United States (Stephens, 2006). According to Art Hazelwood, citing Gorky6, despite the significant socio-political movement in the art world, the powerful political art of the 1930s was sidelined. During this time, elitism reemerged with the economic recovery and the decline of the Great Depression. Many curators, gallery owners, and artists participated in this pronounced shift away from political art, which had previously symbolized solidarity among artists in the 1930s. Economic improvement, evolving artistic practices, the revitalized commercial art market, fatigue from political engagement, and a sense of futility surrounding political art were all noted as reasons for the decline of political art (Hazelwood, 2017).
The return of art to social commitment: Postmodernism
Postmodernism presents both opportunities for the resurgence and expansion of cultural politics and the risk of its neutralization. A significant focus of postmodern aesthetic theory is the rejection of the modernist distinction between art and other social activities. It seeks to reclaim the suppressed political dimensions inherent in aesthetic and cultural practices. As culture permeates all areas of life, there is a growing aestheticization of social, political, and economic spheres (Connor , 1989). The resurgence of political and social consciousness, along with the re-engagement of art in political discourse, was most prominently visible in France. In 1960s France, a rebellion against consumerist society emerged at a time when art was often seen merely as entertainment. This upheaval provided a renewed platform for critical art. Although abstract painting dominated the artistic landscape and gained significant traction in educational institutions, the resistance to mainstream art forms led artists to incorporate everyday objects, including discarded materials, into their work. This shift positioned them as commentators on social movements, reflecting broader critiques of contemporary culture (Foster, et al., 2005).
With the ongoing production of socially themed artworks, a new vitality emerged in painting from the early 1980s. This revival followed the marked isolation and unprecedented withdrawal that the medium had experienced during the 1960s and 1970s in response to innovative experiments beyond the traditional canvas framework. Notably, this renewed energy in painting was expressed not through abstraction, but primarily through figurative art (Cork, 2002). During this period, it is noteworthy that Marxist and socialist interpretations of art, which gained significant influence after World War I, contributed to the emergence of a movement known as the social history of art by the mid-20th century. This movement emphasized the reciprocal relationship between society and art. Over time, Marxist art history evolved into social art history, integrating with competing methodologies such as feminism, psychoanalysis, and studies of gender and race. This shift resulted in a diverse and interdisciplinary body of work, often referred to as “modern art history. Simultaneously, approaches associated with “cultural studies” increasingly gained prominence within the realm of sociological art studies (Doy, 1998). Alongside the expansion of social art studies, a wave of global artistic events emerged, spotlighting artists of diverse nationalities, ethnicities, and cultures who had been overlooked for years. Moreover, the rise of multiculturalism coincided with the end of the Cold War, exemplified by two exhibitions that challenged the institutional dominance of white artists in Paris and London (Stallabrass , 2006).
One of these two exhibitions was “Magicians of the Earth7” at the Georges Pompidou Center. This event was pivotal in decentralizing the main cultural and artistic hubs of the world and distributing art across international centers. Selecting half of the works from Asian and African countries, aimed to present a more global discourse on art, integrating local characteristics while fostering dialogue within a broader international context. During this time, new artistic movements with social objectives emerged. Conceptual and thematic art, which gained prominence in the late 20th century, transformed aesthetic perceptions and accompanied art with a form of aggressive ethics. However, the radical advancement of new artistic expressions faced significant resistance both within and beyond the art world, prompting many artists to redefine art in a figurative space. During this period, there was a widespread effort to address social issues, focusing on inequalities related to class, race, gender, and ethnicity, especially for those facing discrimination, violence, exploitation, or invisibility. What was once a marginal issue in the modern era became central in postmodernism. The emphasis shifted towards exposing both overt and hidden forms of discrimination, reshaping social images becoming a dominant approach in contemporary art.
Commodification of socially committed art
Adorno and Horkheimer’s theory of the Culture Industry indicates how cultural products, initially created for expression and intellectual development, are commodified and mass-produced for capitalist markets (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2012). Culture and capitalism have been deeply intertwined since the Industrial Revolution, leading to the separation of culture from everyday life. This separation resulted in an undemocratic culture, where art and culture became commodities (Childs, 2017). Commodification refers to the process through which symbolic forms—cultural products with significant intellectual, aesthetic, or emotional content—are produced, distributed, and consumed as commodities within capitalist systems (Scott, 2011). These products, which may serve as tools for entertainment, communication, or social positioning, are transformed into goods for profit within market exchanges which is one of the main concerns of culture industry theory (Scott, 2011; Horkheimer & Adorno, 2012). In the context of art, commodification refers to the process by which creativity, or any form of expression is transformed into a marketable product, valued primarily for its potential to generate profit, rather than for its intrinsic or affective qualities (Anonymous, 2017). The profit derived from exclusive control over unique, non-replicable resources—such as a work of art— is referred to as monopoly rent, which can extract value from it by capitalizing on its uniqueness as discussed by Harvey (2001). Capitalism seeks to appropriate local differences, cultural variations, and aesthetic meanings to generate monopoly rents leading to the commodification of cultural products, often at the expense of their original authenticity and political meaning. Walter Benjamin and Theodor Adorno argue that art has the power to disrupt capitalist ideologies as it serves as a bearer of truth by revealing hidden social and historical truths often obscured by dominant power structures. However, they stress that art’s autonomy—its ability to remain independent of market or political pressures—is fragile. Autonomous art retains its critical edge, but when absorbed by the creative industries and commodified, it risks losing this independence and its capacity for critique (Lijster, 2017). Art can also criticize capitalism and its effects, offering a platform for resistance. Malik (2008) argues that the art market uses critique as a moral justification to appear distinct from overtly commercial practices, yet both primary and secondary markets ultimately reinforce capitalist accumulation. The values of “artist critique”—creativity, autonomy, and resistance to commodification—have been co-opted by neoliberal management. These values, once used to challenge capitalism, are now integrated into its operations, making critique part of the system and weakening its oppositional power (Chiapello, 2004).
The paradox of socially committed art lies in the fact that, while it seeks to challenge and critique the very systems of oppression and commodification inherent in capitalism, it is not immune to the forces of commodification itself. Activist art, a form of socially and politically engaged art that aims to provoke change by raising awareness about injustices, encouraging dialogue, and mobilizing communities for social action (Gupta, 2021; Himada, 2014), is the prime example of this contradiction. This form of art transcends mere aesthetic appeal, using emotion (affect) and strategy (effect) to foster a deeper understanding of systemic issues and catalyze social transformation (Gupta, 2021; Sholette, 1998). Although activist art challenge societal norms, criticize power structures, and address issues such as racism, gender inequality, environmental degradation, and human rights violations (Hackney, 2016), yet, like much creative productions, it often finds itself co-opted by the same market forces it critiques. As Lippard (1984) notes activist art can act as a Trojan horse, appearing within the structures of the art world but containing subversive messages aimed at disrupting power structures. However, when this form of art is commodified, its critical edge can be dulled, turning a tool for resistance into a marketable product for public consumption. The commodification of art, especially within the context of public spaces or cultural institutions, raises questions about the authenticity of its message and the ability of such works to maintain their political impact. Street art as a type of activist art, once a form of urban resistance and critique, has also been co-opted into the very capitalist frameworks. This transformation of public art into a tool for urban branding reflects the idea of co-optation in a broader trend of “creative city” paradigms (Pavoni, 2019), where this aesthetics are incorporated into mainstream advertising, tourist attraction, and increasing property values. What began as a form of cultural opposition to the urban decay and marginalization has been turned into a commercial product that facilitates gentrification processes while maintaining structural inequalities by excluding residents from decision-making and alienating them(Raposo, 2023; Ian Ross, et al., 2020).
On the other hand, the sense of alienation felt by people or communities in this system, resulting from commodification, can lead to resentment and opposition toward the capitalist system. This aligns with Adorno’s concept of negative dialectics, where alienation creates the possibility for resistance, even within systems of oppression (Sherman, 2016). Besides, considering capitalism needs cultural differences and their uniqueness to generate monopoly rents and maintain the illusion of authenticity, this can create openings for resistance. Alternative forms of cultural production and political organization are another form of resistance to commodification. Socialist movements and other radical political forces can use culture as a tool for opposition, reclaiming creativity and authenticity from capitalist exploitation. By focusing on collective empowerment and redirecting cultural production toward social and communal values rather than profit, these movements can challenge the dominance of capitalism while preserving cultural uniqueness (Harvey, 2001). Serafini believes community-centered art practices as resistance for this commodification. She draws on Herbert Read’s essay “To Hell with Culture” (1941), where Read critiques how capitalist systems commodify art and hinder the democratization of culture. She argues by engaging people in radical politics and social change rather than institutions through community centered art we can maintain art’s autonomy and preserve its critical potential outside the constraints of institutionalization and market pressures (Serafini, 2015). Adorno’s concept of autonomy in art, which emphasizes its separation from market logic, can be also seen here as another model for preserving the integrity of socially committed art. Read advocates for a radical shift towards a democratic model of cultural production. He argues that under capitalism, art is produced primarily for profit, leading to an elitist and undemocratic culture that is disconnected from the everyday lives of people. To counter this, it should be a system where all production is for use, not for profit, with an emphasis on function and fulfillment as the defining qualities of art, rather than its marketability. He calls for the collective ownership and control of the means of production, including artistic industries, ensuring that cultural output serves the common good rather than capitalist interests. Furthermore, Read envisions a society where art is fully integrated into everyday life, breaking down the separation between culture and work that was caused by the Industrial Revolution. In this model, artists are no longer isolated as unique geniuses but are part of a collective workforce, contributing to the democratic and functional culture that serves society as a whole (Child, 2015).
In conclusion, the commodification of socially committed art under capitalism poses a paradox: while this art form seeks to challenge and critique oppressive systems, it often becomes absorbed into the very market forces it opposes. As critical art is transformed into consumable products, its oppositional potential is frequently diluted, turning acts of resistance into marketable commodities. However, opportunities for resistance remain, as artists and communities continue to explore alternative models of cultural production that preserve the integrity of socially engaged art and challenge its commodification within capitalist frameworks.
References:
- Anonymous, A. A., 2017. Political art without words: Art’s threat of emergence, and its capture within signification and commodification. Ephemera, 17(4), pp. 877-894.
- Becker, A., 2020. 1913, between peace and war. In: . E. Rentzou & A. Benhaïm, eds. 1913: The year of French modernism. Manchester: Manchester University Press , pp. 174-192, https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526145031.00019.
- Berlin, I., 1997. The proper study of mankind : an anthology of essays. 1st ed. London: Pimlico.
- Berlin, I., 2018. The Pursuit of the Ideal. [Online] Available at: https://isaiah-berlin.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-09/Bib.196%20-%20Pursuit%20of%20the%20Ideal%20by%20Isaiah%20Berlin_1.pdf [Accessed 1 October 2024].
- Burger, P., 1984. Theory of the avant-garde, Translation from the German by Michael Shaw. 1st ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- Cárcel, J. a. r., 2023. World War I as a Cause of Ephemeral Hope in the Artistic Avant-Gardes. Society, 61(1), pp. 1-11.
- Castoriadis, C. & Murphy, J., 1985. Reflections on ‘rationality’ and ‘development’. Basil Blackwell, 4(4).
- Chiapello, E., 2004. Evolution and Co-optation The ‘Artist Critique’ of Management and Capitalism. Third Text, 18(6), pp. 585-594.
- Child, D., 2015. To Hell with (the contemporary commodification of) Culture!. Anarchist Studies, 23(2).
- Childs, P., 2017. Modernism. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
- Clark, T., 1997. Art and Propaganda in the twentieth century, the political image in the age of mass culture. 1st ed. London: The Everyman Art Library.
- Connor , S., 1989. Postmodernist Culture: An Introduction to Theories of the Contemporary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
- Cork, R., 1995. A Bitter Truth: Avant-Garde Art and the Great War. Art Journal, 54(3), pp. 98-101.
- Cork, R., 2002. New spirit, new sculpture, new money : art in the 1980s. 1st ed. London: Yale University Press.
- Doy, G., 1998. Materializing Art History. 1st ed. Oxford: Berg.
- Foster, H., Krauss, R., Bois, Y.-A. & Buchloh, B. H. D., 2005. Art Since 1900 Modernism · Antimodernism · Postmodernism. 1st ed. London: Thames & Hudson.
- Gablik, S., 2004. Has Modernism Failed. 2nd ed. London: Thames & Hudson.
- GAIE, Ș., 2021. The Radical Avant- Garde and the Obsession for a New Beginning. Papers in art and humanities, 1(1), pp. 44-55, https://doi.org/10.52885/pah.v1i1.44.
- Gupta, J., 2021. ART ACTIVISM: NOT JUST VISUAL APPEAL BUT A CATALYST FOR SOCIAL CHANGE. International Journal of Advanced Research(IJAR), 9(08), pp. 1021-1046, DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/13356.
- Hackney, L. D., 2016. ACTIVIST ART VS. PUBLIC PERFORMANCES AS SOURCES OF ACTIVISM FOR BLACK. Johannesburg: Wits University.
- Harvey, D., 2001. The Art of Rent: Globalization, Monopoly and the Commodification of Culture. In: D. Harvey, ed. Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography . Oxford: Routledge, pp. 394-411.
- Hazelwood, A., 2017. Art, Artists and Activism– 1930s to Today. [Online] Available at: https://www.artbusiness.com/art-artist-activism-protest-history-demonstration.html [Accessed 30 September 2024].
- Himada, N., 2014. Activist Passion: Art, Philosophy, and the Political. Quebec: Concordia University.
- Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. W., 2012. The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. In: K. B. Anderson, ed. Karl Marx. London: Routledge, p. Chapter 22.
- Ian Ross, J., Lennon, J. F. & Kramer, R., 2020. Moving beyond Banksy and Fairey: Interrogating the co-optation and commodification of modern graffiti and street art. Visual Inquiry: Learning & Teaching Art, 9(1&2), pp. 5-23, https://doi.org/10.1386/vi_00007_2.
- Lijster, T., 2017. Benjamin and Adorno on Art and Art Criticism. 1st ed. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
- Lippard, L. R., 1984. Trojan Horses: Activist Art and Power. In: B. Wallis, ed. Art after modernism : rethinking representation. Boston: New Museum of Contemporary Art, pp. 341-358.
- Lucie-Smith, E., 2020. Movements in Art Since 1945. 2nd ed. London: Thames & Hudson.
- Lynton, N., 1980. The story of modern art. 1st ed. Oxford : Phaidon.
- Malik, S., 2008. Critique as alibi: moral differentiation in the art market. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 7(3), pp. 283-295, DOI: 10.1386/jvap.7.3.283_1.
- Marx , L. & Mazlish, B., 1996. Progress: Fact or Illusion. 1st ed. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
- McLangy, M., 2024. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Online] Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/ [Accessed 30 September 2024].
- Pavoni, A., 2019. Speculating on (the) urban (of) art: (un)siting street art in the age of neoliberal urbanisation. Horizontes Antropológicos, Volume 55, pp. 51-88, https://journals.openedition.org/horizontes/3692.
- Pound, C., 2018. Artsy. [Online] Available at: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-new-objectivity-artists-
- exposed-decadence-hypocrisy-german-society [Accessed 1 October 2024].
- Raposo, O. R., 2023. Street Art Commodification and (An)aesthetic Policies on the Outskirts of Lisbon. Contemporary Ethnography, 52(2), pp. 163-191, ps://doi.org/10.1177/08912416221079863.
- Roberts, J., 2014. Revolutionary Pathos, Negation & the Suspensive Avant Garde. In: M. J. Léger, ed. The Idea of the Avant Garde And What It Means Today. 1st ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 138-145.
- Rubin, W. S., 1968. Dada, Surrealism, and their heritage. 1st ed. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.
- Salter, C., 2010. Entangled: Technology and the Transformation. 1st ed. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
- Scheunemann, D., 2005. Theorising the Avant-Garde. In: K. Beekman, ed. AVANT GARDE CRITICAL STUDIES. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 15-48.
- Scott, A. J., 2011. Capitalism, cities, and the production of symbolic forms. Wiley, 26(1), pp. 11-23.
- Serafini, P., 2015. Beyond the Institution: Community-Centred Art Activism Against the Commodification of Culture. Anarchist Studies, 23(2), pp. 68-88.
- Sherman, D., 2016. Adorno’s Negative Dialectics: Adorno’s Negative Dialectics. Philosophy Compass, 11(7), pp. 353-363, DOI:10.1111/phc3.12328.
- Sholette, G., 1998. News from nowhere: Activist art and after. Third Text, 13(45), pp. 45-62, DOI: 10.1080/09528829808576764.
- Singsen, D., 2020. The Historical Avant-Garde from 1830 to 1939: l’art pour l’art, blague, and Gesamtkunstwerk. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.26597/mod.0154 [Accessed 1 October 2024].
- Smythe, L., 2015. Modernism Post-postmodernism: Art in the Era of Light Modernity. Modernism/Modernity, 22(2), pp. 365-379, DOI:10.1353/mod.2015.0033.
- Stallabrass , J., 2006. Contemporary Art: A Very Short Introduction. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Stephens, J. L., 2006. The Harlem Renaissance and the New Negro Movement. In: B. Murphy, ed. The Cambridge Companion to American Women Playwrights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 98-117.
- Storchi, S., 2015. Ardengo Soffici’s “Rete mediterranea”: The Aesthetics and Politics of Post-war Modernism. Annali d’Italianistica, Volume 33, pp. 321-340 , https://www.jstor.org/stable/43894808.
- Versari, M. E., 2009. Futurist Machine Art, Constructivism and the Modernity of Mechanization. In: G. Brghaus, ed. Cover Futurism and the Technological Imagination. Netherlands: Avant-Garde Critical Studies, Volume: 24, pp. 149-175.
- Whitfield, T., 2022. whitfieldcollection. [Online] Available at: https://whitfieldcollection.com.au/blogs/bulletin/social-realism-new-masses-diego-rivera?srsltid=AfmBOori1Tltu9j3FM_qPvTn_jpR31OdUzGjN_hLir2OoxvTbyRP2lab [Accessed 1 October 2024].
- Wosk, J. H., 1986. The Impact of Technology on the Human Image in Art. Leonardo, 19(2), pp. 145-152, https://doi.org/10.2307/1578279
Footnotes
Culture Weekly 