The Age of Isms and Capitalism

The German word "Zeitgeist" became popular in the early 20th century. Literally translated, it means "spirit of the times." Before that, it was used to refer to a national spiritual culture, but at some point, it came to denote the dominant ideology or mood covering a certain era.

If the spires piercing the heavens were the symbol of the Baroque spirit, what was the spirit of the 20th century? Intellectuals of the time were captivated by the temptation posed by that question. The word became so widely used in English that there must have been an atmosphere somewhere that sought a pedantic and weighty sound. It was an era that tried to find new forms in the world by thinking.

For example, if glass-walled skyscrapers are the symbol of the modern city, the late 19th and early 20th centuries were the period when the skyscrapers that would become their precursors began to appear in New York. In that landscape, the rise of pragmatism, which emphasizes reality, can be said to be a truly American zeitgeist.
In Europe in 1914, the architect Le Corbusier announced a method of house construction using reinforced concrete called the "Dom-Ino House." "A house is a machine for living in"—this modernist's words perfectly tell the story of the 20th-century spirit that emphasized functionality and rationality.

With this era as a turning point, artificial landscapes never seen before spread across the world, transforming society. Perhaps people felt the signs of that change in the air of the times and wanted to somehow grasp the phantom-like thing called the Zeitgeist.

Looking back, the 20th century was the age of isms.
In the early 1900s, a young André Derain, who pioneered Fauvism with Henri Matisse, was scraping by drawing illustrations for pornographic novels. Maurice de Vlaminck, also a Fauvist, painted during the day and played the violin at night to make a living. Around the same time, Pablo Picasso discovered Cubism as he tried to rethink flat paintings in terms of space.

From this point on, numerous isms appeared in various fields such as art, architecture, philosophy, literature, film, music, dance, fashion, and political economy. Futurism, Dada, Surrealism, Fordism, Stalinism, Fascism, Abstractionism, Minimalism, Nouvelle Vague, Existentialism, Structuralism, Post-modernism, Neoliberalism—even just listing them as they come to mind, there would easily be 20 or 30.
An ism is a movement that attempts to break down the existing system and create a new trend.
Isms are also in the background of wars and revolutions. They sprout in the soil of poverty, inequality, oppression, and dissatisfaction—in other words, asymmetry. Eventually, they find differences within themselves, and one ism splits. From singular to plural. Some isms are forgotten by time, while others gain overwhelming support from people for some reason and show explosive growth. The zeitgeist of the 20th century was transformation, and at the same time, it was proliferation.

Among these isms, the one that swept the world with the most intense force was capitalism.
Whether they agreed or rebelled, it can be said that there was no existence outside of its influence. Even tribes living in the depths of the Amazon could not remain completely unrelated as the rainforest was being eroded with intense force.

The reason capitalism had such a great influence was because of its energy for proliferation. It is capital that proliferates, and for that, the space called the market is indispensable. This market first infiltrates the domestic sphere, creating a consumer society. Eventually, it spreads across national borders, swallowing up different social forms and cultures. Those that started first gain an advantageous position, and like water flowing from a high place, they soak into the late-developing countries and regions.

I would like to pose one question here.
What is an ism? Is it a rebellion against the existing order, or is it the inevitability of a new era? It is probably both. However, there is another way of looking at it.
Is an ism not a performance?

When Derain called himself a "Fauvist" while drawing illustrations for pornographic novels, and when Vlaminck talked about "revolutionary colors" while making a living playing the violin at night, was there only pure artistic necessity there? The city of Paris was looking for novelty. The market was looking for surprise. The stage called capitalism was waiting for the next performer.

Isms read the air of the times and appear in a form that meets those expectations. Rebellion, too, is an expected rebellion. Overcoming is also a performance wearing the costume of overcoming. Thinking of it this way, the swarm of isms that proliferated in the 20th century could be said to have been an endless series of performances in the giant theater of capitalism.
By performing, something changes. Is that a real change, or is it an illusion of change? That question will likely return, changing its appearance several times throughout this chapter.

In the autumn of 1907, in a room in an old apartment building called the "Bateau-Lavoir" on the hill of Montmartre in Paris, Picasso painted "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon." It is considered the moment of the birth of Cubism.
The place was a dim, wooden building with a leaking roof and drafts blowing in. Days were spent without money to buy art supplies or coal to keep warm. Why was a "revolution" that would repaint 20th-century art born from the midst of such poverty and chaos?
Not from abundance, but from lack. Not from stability, but from anxiety. That mystery is not easily solved.
And this mystery casts a strange light on thinking about the relationship between capitalism, performance, and desire. Next time, let's talk about that.

(Chapter 1: The Desire of the "Performing Age" 1/15)