PopModernism.
Noise and the Reinvention of the Everyday
by Juan A. Suárez
The University of Illinois Press, Chicago
and Urbana, IL, 2007
321 pp. Trade, $60.00; paper, $25.00
ISBN: 0252031504; ISBN: 0252073924.
Reviewed by Jan Baetens
University of Leuven
jan.baetens@arts.kuleuven.be
In many studies the conviction still prevails
that pop and modernist
are antagonistic and incompatible terms.
Seen from the perspective of modernism,
popular culture continues to be dismissed
as commercial, manipulative, superficial,
and female, for few cultural movements
have been so gender-sensitive as modernism.
And seen from the viewpoint of pop culture,
modernism is still accused of being formalist,
elitist, arrogant, and conservative (certainly
in comparison with the historical avant-garde,
more relaxed in matters of high and low.
Yet the example of Walter Benjamin, as
the major theoretician of XXth Century
modernism, as well as that of Surrealism,
as its main an most globalized artistic
representative, should have warned us
against such a strict opposition, which
is not only wildly overgeneralizing, but
also and most crucially erroneous. As
Juan A. Suárez convincingly demonstrates
in his brilliantly written and very well
informed yet unfortunately poorly
illustrated study, the mutual presence
of the popular and the modern, far from
being a marginal or exceptional phenomenon,
was at the very heart of American culture
in the modernist era (1910-1960, roughly
speaking).
PopModernism actually makes a double
claim. First, that modernism has in all
its forms, however diverse they may be,
always a dark side, a hidden dimension,
an unknown continent, which has to do
with the popular, the latter being defined
as a mix of low and mass
media culture. Second, that the
very evidence of this fact, which may
seem to have become so obvious and all-pervasive
in recent years, has been dissimulated
by modernisms self-definition as
high, sophisticate, individual, and non-industrial
culture, as much as by later dichotomist
views of post modernism as the opposite
of modernism (and since postmodernism
used to be associated with the popular,
the need for a thorough revaluation of
the popular within modernism was almost
inexistent). Yet Juan A. Suárez
does much more than just calling our attention
to the unnoticed or at least largely
undertheorized presence of what
he calls the popular. He also proposes
a renewed definition of this mass-mediatized
pop culture, and this conceptual reframing
transforms his book in a vital conceptual
and intellectual contribution to the study
of modernism itself.
For Juan A. Suárez popmodernism
is less the simple addition of high and
low, of elite and mass, of individual
experiment and industrial streamlining,
than the mutual contestation of these
poles, which appear to be systematically
intertwined in the modernist era. The
concept of noise does not
designate the introduction of impure popular,
mechanical, commercial forms in modernisms
aspirations toward pure form and toward
purity in general; it is not just the
clash of the real world and
the world of art but a much
more radical interrogation of what the
relationship of world and
art may imply. In the encounter
between the popular and the modern, the
popular resists incorporation: There is
no dialectical Aufhebung of
the popular in the modern; the popular
appears by definition as that what remains
opaque, obscure, decentred, unlabeled,
even meaningless, permanently adrift.
And corollarily, in this encounter the
modern the modern is not what serves as
the antipode of the popular as noise;
it becomes instead noise itself, incapable
of maintaining the clarity and order it
wants to impose.
PopModernism tells this story of
contestation and disintegration in a short
introduction and eight case studies, respectively
on Vachel Lindsays theory of film,
Paul Strand and Charles Sheelers
Manhatta, John Dos Passoss
USA trilogy, T.S. Eliots
The Waste Land, Joseph Cornells
boxes, pictures, and films, Charles Henri
Ford and Parker Tylers The Young
and Evil, Zora Neale Hurstons
Tell My Horse, and, finally, the
film In the Street by James Agee,
Janice Loeb, and Helen Levitt. In suggesting
that these chapters can be read in any
order, and that each of them comes back
on the same issues, the author is too
much modest, however. Not only is the
ordering of the chapters masterfully directed,
but the author has managed in foregrounding
in each study one period, one medium,
and genre, and one specific theoretical
viewpoint of framework, which makes this
book a wonderfully applied synthesis of
the best of critical medium theory as
well as the best of cultural history.
The references range from McLuhan to kittler,
from Macherey to Clifford, form Sedgwick
to Hansen, from Brown to Kracauer, and
it is a pleasure to underline moreover
the extreme richness of the bibliography
gathered in the footnotes (unfortunately
this wealth is hardly reflected in the
index which is, in comparison, a little
skinny).
All the eight close reading by Juan A.
Suárez are to be praised without
any exception or restriction. The analyses
are always sharp and clear, written with
dash, enthusiasm and a perfect sense of
rhythm. The contextualization is well-balanced
(i.e. perfectly instructive and useful,
never gratuitously accumulative). And
last but not least: Juan A. Suárez
succeeds in many cases to change our view
of works, objects, authors, and practices
we thought we knew. The best chapter in
this regard is undoubtedly the one Joseph
Cornell, in which Juan A. Suárez
achieves the double goal of his important
enterprise: to free us from conventionalized
views of modernism (in this case the aesthetic
and biographical interpretations of the
boxes), and to make us hear the terrible
noise underneath (in this case the proximity
betweens Cornells objects as senseless
things and the Surrealist
reuse of the mass media of their times).
In short, this is a great book, and one
can only hope that it will be as much
discussed as Andreas Huyssens After
the Great Divide or, more recently,
Michael Norths Camera Works.