Explosive Propositions: Artists React to the Atomic Age

Science in Context 17 (4):579-609 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Argument“How should a modern artist react to the atomic age?” Time magazine posed this question in 1952 to open a review of an exhibition of paintings inspired by the “explosion of the atomic bomb” and by the “discovery of nuclear energy.” The energetic paintings of the Italian Spatial Movement were, according to Time, “almost as explosive as the bomb itself.” “Explosiveness” was a defining feature of much 1950s art, whose main impulse, gestural abstraction, has previously been understood as the urgent expression of the artist's subjectivity. This paper argues that explosiveness in art can also be seen as an “expression” of the realities of the nuclear era. Postwar artists were ambivalent about the explosive forces, both liberating and devastating, that lay within the atom. Toward the end of the 1950s, no longer content merely to represent atomic disintegration, some artists went so far as to propose the outright self-destruction of the work of art as the only fitting means of expression in the atomic age.One must – and this is not an exaggeration – keep in mind that we are living in the atomic age, where everything material and physical could disappear from one day to another, to be replaced by nothing but the ultimate abstraction imaginable.– Yves Klein 1958

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Domains, plural truth, and mixed atomic propositions.Jeremy Wyatt - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 166 (S1):225-236.
Wittgenstein and the naming relation.Paul D. Wienpahl - 1964 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 7 (1-4):329 – 347.
Artists' intentions and artwork meanings: Some complications.Stephen Davies - 2013 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (2):138 - 139.
Atomic Propositions.A. J. Ayer - 1933 - Analysis 1 (1):2 - 6.
Gappy propositions?Seyed N. Mousavian - 2011 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 41 (1):125-157.
If Tropes.Anna-Sofia Maurin - 2002 - Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Are There Atomic Propositions?Fred Sommers - 1981 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6 (1):59-68.
Atomic theory and the description of nature.Niels Bohr - 1934 - Woodbridge, Conn.: Ox Bow Press.
On fineness of grain.Jeffrey C. King - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 163 (3):763-781.
On cogito propositions.William J. Rapaport - 1976 - Philosophical Studies 29 (1):63-68.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-27

Downloads
28 (#553,203)

6 months
3 (#1,023,809)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

What is British nuclear culture? Understanding Uranium 235.Jeff Hughes - 2012 - British Journal for the History of Science 45 (4):495-518.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references