[964] There is a type of mind, conservative as well as radical, which has a stereotyped conception of new ideas in art. The conservative indiscriminately condemns; the radical as indiscriminately praises. There is another type, more grotesque still,—the man who traces new ideas in art and literature to pathologic causes. Disciples of this "pathologic" or "physiologic" interpretation are many, even among Socialists. The social milieu, which determines ideas and movements, seems to these folks a closed book or a mere figure of speech.
The New Art, of which Cubists and Futurists are the most characteristic representatives, is being interpreted in this pathologic spirit. This art is said to be the product of abnormal, pathologic brains; of men who suffer from neurosis and downright degeneracy. But even if we assume that "decadent" manifestations in art are pathologic, does this account for their form of expression, for the movement itself? Was Francois Villon's art identical with that of Paul Verlaine or Oscar Wilde? "Degenerate" artists never cease; if at a given moment they produce movements, it is because they express a cultural urge conditioned by the social milieu.
[965] Art reflects life; it is social and not individualistic. Therein lies the value of art and literature to the student of history. Vital art expresses the vital urge of its age. Aspirations continually change with changing social conditions; art changes in harmony therewith, not only in spirit but also in methods. Art appears deadly opposed to pouring the wine of new aspirations into the bottles of old methods
Considered in this light, the New Art expresses capitalism.
Well okay, so the Sick Society is merely standing in for the Sick Individual in the pathologic theory of art, the same theory which was rejected in the very first paragraph?
The aggressive, brutal power of Cubism and Futurism is identical with the power and audacity of capitalism, of our machine-civilization.
I guess we are all done taking account of form of expression.
The New Art is as typical of capitalism as the architecture of the sky-scraper. Paul Lafargue somewhere says that machinery induces in the worker a disbelief in God, while the mechanism of stock exchange operations develops a sort of fetichistic religion in the bourgeois. If machinery affects such a spiritual matter as religion, small wonder that the spirit and power of machinery should transform art.
Fair enough point. Don't hate the player, hate the game of transformation instead. But perhaps art effects a transformation too, depending on its form of expression, at which point the lumping together of Cubism and Futurism is, at least in hindsight, a bit of a stretch.
Cubism...is the art of capitalism dominant; Futurism the art of capitalism ascending, struggling for ascendency. This accounts for the Cubists having a definite technique, while Futurists are vague and indefinite... Futurism paints the spirit of machinery,—energy, motion, aggression. Cubism does more. Cubism transfers the technique of machinery, so to speak, to the canvas.
As always, I wonder if no one who has actually tried to really paint, as opposed to just paint, could possibly think up this part. Who's to say whether the sender or receiver of a painting is in a worse position to pronounce upon what has actually been done? Who has more blind spots and who has more insight? Is it any stranger to just look at something and on that basis alone find a transfer of the technique of machinery to the canvas than it is to deny that any such thing has been done simply because that was not your conscious intent?
As for the rest of the article, the explication of just why "Futurism is the product of peculiar and transitory political and economic conditions in Italy" seems more worth taking seriously. As does the notion that "When social conditions take the bottom out of the movement, Futurism, as a movement, will doubtless disappear. For it is a wild, social passion of the moment, a storm worn out by its own fury." "Cubism" didn't last too long either, at least as a living art practice, but with the benefit of hindsight surely it is more than an arbitrary accident of history that the "Cubists" have now garnered a wildly disproportionate amount of attention (of various kinds!) in respect to their number, the duration of their movement, and especially (here's the rub!) their "Social Significance."