Buy this book

Nicky Charlish
posted 15 February 2007

It's a common cliché that nostalgia ain't what it used to be, and it's one that this book attempts to demonstrate by looking at some of the artistic revivals of the last century. Does it do so effectively? Let's see.

Retro - the revisiting and adoption of past artistic and architectural styles - has become an established part of Western culture during the past 40 years, a period which seems to have been a revolving door of revivals. Guffey - associate professor of art and design at the State University of New York at Purchase - seeks to unearth its real motives and objectives. She examines the Art Nouveau revival of the mid-1960s (whose knock-offs were never as good as the real thing), and the Art Deco one which followed a few years later. From the 1970s she looks at Mode retro (a revival of 1940s French style), and the revival of Russian Modernist Constructivist art, which had flourished in the early years of the Russian Revolution, only to become a favourite style with punk artists and on the record sleeves of bands like the German electro outfit Kraftwerk. Unfortunately, the examples of these styles shown in the book are only given in black and white, although the references, bibliography and filmography suggest plenty of follow-up material.

For Guffey, however, retro isn't simply nostalgia. Building on the way the word entered the popular imagination during the space exploration of the 1960s (from retro rockets, which were designed to counter the forward propulsion of a space capsule), she considers that the rise of retro amounted to ambivalence about modernity and a rejection of Modernism. She thinks that 'retro's non-seriousness should be distinguished from frivolity'.

But is this the whole story? For some, engaging in a certain form of revival may have been loaded with a particular meaning - French Mode retro has obvious political baggage from the Vichy years that it's difficult to ignore - or a desire to raise two fingers to the all-powerful Modernist establishment. For others, though - the majority, one suspects - following a particular revival has been a matter of going with the fashionable flow or even simply choosing what seems to be visually attractive. How many Art Nouveau enthusiasts, for instance, thought deeply about its background - the last decade of the 19th century - with its young men who sported green carnations, cruised the Café Royal, dabbled with diabolism or converted to Catholicism. This 'decadence' may have been shocking or surprising to the liberal middle classes of that period - indeed it did have serious intentions - but seems pretty tame today, after the century that gave us the Somme and Stalingrad, the camps and gulags.

As Guffey reminds us, 'Traditionally, Modernity had been seen as a destination, rather than a way-station that had been passed by, returnable to only through revival. The work of Modernist artists, architects, and designers was intended to be timeless and morally uplifting.' Reading this book, it's difficult not to feel that Guffey has an unshakeable attachment to Modernism's self-image, which causes her to misunderstand retro altogether. She doesn't consider that people may have rejected Modernism in the plastic arts not because of any dislike of modernity as such, but because it's boring and unattractive. When they have been graciously consulted by academics, planners and the like, ordinary people - most of whom are probably car-owners and whose homes are awash with every available 'modern' appliance - have almost always given it the thumbs-down. Rather than evincing optimism, people have found Modernism profoundly boring, if not depressing, and have adopted other, more visually appealing styles.

Guffey also misses the chance to explore and explode the idea that an artistic style has a single, inherent meaning. In fact, Classical architecture, for instance, was adopted by the Founding Fathers of the United States, as well as Mussolini and Hitler, despite their widely varying political programmes. (Incidentally, Modernist styles were used in the Third Reich for factories, warehouses and bridges, presumably because of their practicality.)

After remarking that recent scientific developments such as those in quantum and information sciences and bio and nanotechnology have done little to capture the popular imagination, Guffey declares that retro 'is a symptom, rather than an end: we are pulled to the past because our visions of the future remain unformed.' Arguably it's the other way round: Modernism is a symptom of what happens when artists wilfully neglect the lessons of the past - an error no careful scientist would commit - and adopt the mantle of a socially prophetic or priestly role. And that, perhaps, is the real message of this book, even if it is an unintended one.