Failed Canons: Ferdinand Avenarius and Katharine Schäffner
In the early twentieth century, critics writing about European modern art vied to categorize increasingly diverse artistic positions, name emerging artists, and define future directions. One such critic was Ferdinand Avenarius, who promoted Katharine Schäffner as the first artist to probe the possib...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Tahiti (Helsinki) 2024-12, Vol.14 (2–3) |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 2–3 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Tahiti (Helsinki) |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Boddy, Jane |
description | In the early twentieth century, critics writing about European modern art vied to categorize increasingly diverse artistic positions, name emerging artists, and define future directions. One such critic was Ferdinand Avenarius, who promoted Katharine Schäffner as the first artist to probe the possibilities of non-imitative art. Yet, despite his efforts, Schäffner finds herself conspicuously absent from the broader art-historical narratives today. This paper aims to explore the reasons behind this comparative neglect by examining a power struggle between Avenarius and Julius Meier-Graefe, influential critics who harbored conflicting visions of modern art. |
doi_str_mv | 10.23995/tht.152083 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_23995_tht_152083</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_23995_tht_152083</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-crossref_primary_10_23995_tht_1520833</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYBA2NNAzMra0NNUvySjRMzQ1MrAwZmLgNDIyMdI1MDMzZUFiczDwFhdnGRgYGJlbmBhamHIy8LolZuakpig4J-bl5xXzMLCmJeYUp_JCaW4GbTfXEGcP3eSi_OLiotS0-IKizNzEosp4Q4N4sKXxQEvjIZYak6YaAAcOMSE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Failed Canons: Ferdinand Avenarius and Katharine Schäffner</title><source>EZB Free E-Journals</source><source>Directory of Open Access Journals</source><creator>Boddy, Jane</creator><creatorcontrib>Boddy, Jane</creatorcontrib><description>In the early twentieth century, critics writing about European modern art vied to categorize increasingly diverse artistic positions, name emerging artists, and define future directions. One such critic was Ferdinand Avenarius, who promoted Katharine Schäffner as the first artist to probe the possibilities of non-imitative art. Yet, despite his efforts, Schäffner finds herself conspicuously absent from the broader art-historical narratives today. This paper aims to explore the reasons behind this comparative neglect by examining a power struggle between Avenarius and Julius Meier-Graefe, influential critics who harbored conflicting visions of modern art.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2242-0665</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2242-0665</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.23995/tht.152083</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>Tahiti (Helsinki), 2024-12, Vol.14 (2–3)</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0009-0009-0542-9520</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Boddy, Jane</creatorcontrib><title>Failed Canons: Ferdinand Avenarius and Katharine Schäffner</title><title>Tahiti (Helsinki)</title><description>In the early twentieth century, critics writing about European modern art vied to categorize increasingly diverse artistic positions, name emerging artists, and define future directions. One such critic was Ferdinand Avenarius, who promoted Katharine Schäffner as the first artist to probe the possibilities of non-imitative art. Yet, despite his efforts, Schäffner finds herself conspicuously absent from the broader art-historical narratives today. This paper aims to explore the reasons behind this comparative neglect by examining a power struggle between Avenarius and Julius Meier-Graefe, influential critics who harbored conflicting visions of modern art.</description><issn>2242-0665</issn><issn>2242-0665</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpjYBA2NNAzMra0NNUvySjRMzQ1MrAwZmLgNDIyMdI1MDMzZUFiczDwFhdnGRgYGJlbmBhamHIy8LolZuakpig4J-bl5xXzMLCmJeYUp_JCaW4GbTfXEGcP3eSi_OLiotS0-IKizNzEosp4Q4N4sKXxQEvjIZYak6YaAAcOMSE</recordid><startdate>20241217</startdate><enddate>20241217</enddate><creator>Boddy, Jane</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0542-9520</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20241217</creationdate><title>Failed Canons</title><author>Boddy, Jane</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-crossref_primary_10_23995_tht_1520833</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Boddy, Jane</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Tahiti (Helsinki)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Boddy, Jane</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Failed Canons: Ferdinand Avenarius and Katharine Schäffner</atitle><jtitle>Tahiti (Helsinki)</jtitle><date>2024-12-17</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>2–3</issue><issn>2242-0665</issn><eissn>2242-0665</eissn><abstract>In the early twentieth century, critics writing about European modern art vied to categorize increasingly diverse artistic positions, name emerging artists, and define future directions. One such critic was Ferdinand Avenarius, who promoted Katharine Schäffner as the first artist to probe the possibilities of non-imitative art. Yet, despite his efforts, Schäffner finds herself conspicuously absent from the broader art-historical narratives today. This paper aims to explore the reasons behind this comparative neglect by examining a power struggle between Avenarius and Julius Meier-Graefe, influential critics who harbored conflicting visions of modern art.</abstract><doi>10.23995/tht.152083</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0542-9520</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2242-0665 |
ispartof | Tahiti (Helsinki), 2024-12, Vol.14 (2–3) |
issn | 2242-0665 2242-0665 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_23995_tht_152083 |
source | EZB Free E-Journals; Directory of Open Access Journals |
title | Failed Canons: Ferdinand Avenarius and Katharine Schäffner |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T16%3A56%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Failed%20Canons:%20Ferdinand%20Avenarius%20and%20Katharine%20Sch%C3%A4ffner&rft.jtitle=Tahiti%20(Helsinki)&rft.au=Boddy,%20Jane&rft.date=2024-12-17&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=2%E2%80%933&rft.issn=2242-0665&rft.eissn=2242-0665&rft_id=info:doi/10.23995/tht.152083&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_23995_tht_152083%3C/crossref%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |