Even though post-modernism has by now moved deep into artistic arteries all over the world, the confusion over what is modern or contemporary in art, literature or any other creative activity, refuses to go away from the minds of the people. Much of this confusion results not merely from the wide-ranging philosophical-intellectual conflicts that the concept of modernity throws up, a great difference also exists in the understanding of the concept corresponding to different places and eras in which ‘modernity’ is said to have taken root. Its definition cannot be given in a nutshell with a fair degree of simplicity, while an all-inclusive discussion is also not quite possible in a confined space for giving a complete picture of what the concept truly stands for. Much of this confusion is created by the meaning of the term. The most common of the numerous views holds that the term modern stands for what is happening at present – an improvisation of what has existed in the preceding period. But the problem as regards what truly circumscribes what exists at present replacing the traditional, adds to this confusion.

The beginning of modernity in human civilisation cannot be pinpointed on any particular year, but it is generally accepted that the modern era started to take shape in mid-19th century Europe, which was a period of great social, political and economic upheavals. New ideas, discoveries and inventions significantly altered the image that man had held of himself, and all these forces gave him the courage to break away from tradition. A new consciousness began to grow psychologically among the masses, gradually leading to what we understand today as the beginning of the modern era. Like other fields of creative activity, this sweeping change in mindset affected the artist, too. He was no longer restrained by the limiting pull of the nobility and other sources of patronage. There was a new-found freedom to create and a new horizon opened up before him. The courage to break free from the Renaissance tradition was most visible in the works of Delacroix, a reclusive giant of the time when romanticism was dominant in art and poetry. Although the invention of the camera made outright reproduction of Nature redundant and led to impressionism, it was the courage shown by Delacroix that greatly inspired the impressionists. This was why Paul Cezanne once remarked: “We are all in Delacroix”. The modernist spirit in art thus, began with impressionism and what followed were a series of ‘isms’ – fauvism, expressionism, symbolism, cubism, dadaism, surrealism, abstract art, so on and so forth.

All modern artists are directly and indirectly indebted to Cezanne, the father of modern art, as he showed the way with a profound knowledge of things and his zeal to ‘recreate’ Nature. There was since then a constant search for form and expression and that has been the prime continuing characteristic of modern art even today.

It must be kept in mind that modernity does not denote a particular style or technique, nor does it require the artist to imitate what has been considered as modern, in order to be counted as a modern! Modernity is not homogeneous; in fact, there is extraordinary variety in modern styles and the search for new directions is a continuous process. The heterogeneity owes a lot to the differences with regard to time and place. That is why there is a difference between the modern art that flourished in Europe and the Indian contemporary that developed at a later period.

It is debatable what really constitutes modernity and it is difficult to circumscribe its origins, growth and influences. The 20th century movements in Europe come under the common umbrella of modern art, and collectively, the early part of the previous century is considered to be the modern period in the West, because it grew out of a mental environment that was primarily and intrinsically Western. Yet, its influence spread to other parts at different times and at different paces, which is why modern art is so heterogeneous in nature. There are also areas like Mexico, where the European art had been ‘resisted’ with its indigenous culture that was very much modern in spirit. In India, too, although the strains of European movements are visible even today, modern art evolved differently in India and there are some points on which Indian art traditions seemed to parallel the contemporary art movements in Europe. In fact, significantly, some of the folk-based art forms in India have a strong modern flavour. It would be a Herculean task to even briefly talk about the inter-mingling – spontaneous or otherwise – between strains of European modern art and folk styles in places like India. In Assam, modern art evolved much later than Indian contemporary art, which established the fact that modernity is not place or time-specific.

All modern art movements have contributed to the birth of new ideas and rhythms in art in various places. But the question that comes to our mind is – is this process still continuing? It’s difficult to say whether modern art, as a collective movement, has become obsolete. To some, the modern period already fizzled out around the 70s and post-modernism took its place, but it is still debatable whether post-modernism is really a pronounced departure, or just an off-shoot of modern art.

Debashish Bezbaruah