Review of Daniel Albright. 2000. Untwisting the Serpent: Modernism in Music, Literature, and Other Arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

In their introduction to Modernism: 1890-1930, Malcolm Bradbury and James McFarlane acknowledge the inevitable limitations of studies on early twentieth-century literature: "Perhaps the most any account can offer," they warn, "is a personal or at least partial version of an overwhelm...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Ruth Longobardi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Columbia University Libraries 2002-09-01
Series:Current Musicology
Online Access:https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/currentmusicology/article/view/4915
id doaj-854667769ac74edf811a2dc9a0aa79ab
record_format Article
spelling doaj-854667769ac74edf811a2dc9a0aa79ab2020-11-25T03:36:09ZengColumbia University LibrariesCurrent Musicology0011-37352002-09-017410.7916/cm.v0i74.4915Review of Daniel Albright. 2000. Untwisting the Serpent: Modernism in Music, Literature, and Other Arts. Chicago: University of Chicago PressRuth Longobardi In their introduction to Modernism: 1890-1930, Malcolm Bradbury and James McFarlane acknowledge the inevitable limitations of studies on early twentieth-century literature: "Perhaps the most any account can offer," they warn, "is a personal or at least partial version of an overwhelmingly com-plex phenomenon, an individual selection from the infinity of detail" (1991:21). Numerous other scholars have shared the conviction that Mod-ernism should not be fixed within definitive parameters. The literary critic Linda Hutcheon, for example, describes the term Modernism as "a cultur-ally limited and limiting label" (1980:2-3; italics in the original). Art histo-rian Richard Sheppard devotes a chapter of his book on the European avant-garde to the problem of defining Modernism, which he understands as "a deeply and multiply fissured movement" (2000:5-6). And Jonathan Kramer warns against such reductions as "modernist vs. postmodernist" in the field of music. "Artistic movements," he argues, "refuse to be reduced out of existence by critics who draw arbitrary distinctions" (1984:345). https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/currentmusicology/article/view/4915
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ruth Longobardi
spellingShingle Ruth Longobardi
Review of Daniel Albright. 2000. Untwisting the Serpent: Modernism in Music, Literature, and Other Arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Current Musicology
author_facet Ruth Longobardi
author_sort Ruth Longobardi
title Review of Daniel Albright. 2000. Untwisting the Serpent: Modernism in Music, Literature, and Other Arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
title_short Review of Daniel Albright. 2000. Untwisting the Serpent: Modernism in Music, Literature, and Other Arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
title_full Review of Daniel Albright. 2000. Untwisting the Serpent: Modernism in Music, Literature, and Other Arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
title_fullStr Review of Daniel Albright. 2000. Untwisting the Serpent: Modernism in Music, Literature, and Other Arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
title_full_unstemmed Review of Daniel Albright. 2000. Untwisting the Serpent: Modernism in Music, Literature, and Other Arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
title_sort review of daniel albright. 2000. untwisting the serpent: modernism in music, literature, and other arts. chicago: university of chicago press
publisher Columbia University Libraries
series Current Musicology
issn 0011-3735
publishDate 2002-09-01
description In their introduction to Modernism: 1890-1930, Malcolm Bradbury and James McFarlane acknowledge the inevitable limitations of studies on early twentieth-century literature: "Perhaps the most any account can offer," they warn, "is a personal or at least partial version of an overwhelmingly com-plex phenomenon, an individual selection from the infinity of detail" (1991:21). Numerous other scholars have shared the conviction that Mod-ernism should not be fixed within definitive parameters. The literary critic Linda Hutcheon, for example, describes the term Modernism as "a cultur-ally limited and limiting label" (1980:2-3; italics in the original). Art histo-rian Richard Sheppard devotes a chapter of his book on the European avant-garde to the problem of defining Modernism, which he understands as "a deeply and multiply fissured movement" (2000:5-6). And Jonathan Kramer warns against such reductions as "modernist vs. postmodernist" in the field of music. "Artistic movements," he argues, "refuse to be reduced out of existence by critics who draw arbitrary distinctions" (1984:345).
url https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/currentmusicology/article/view/4915
work_keys_str_mv AT ruthlongobardi reviewofdanielalbright2000untwistingtheserpentmodernisminmusicliteratureandotherartschicagouniversityofchicagopress
_version_ 1724550836595458048