Talk:Modernism

message: 1. The term "modernism" is initially used in the nineteenth century to describe a reformist movement in the Catholic Church and later adopted by others. The article, until recently,  has ignored this. 
2.There is also no discussion of the relationship between ideas about sexuality and modernism, especially in relation to literature and the struggle of modernist writers with censorship.
Rwood128 (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the article needs to discuss these usages more explicitly. The standard and Catholic usages of the term are different, but do have similarities, especially that both leverage science in some capacity and are trying to respond to rapidly changing times. I do not think it would be wise, though, to conflate the two without sufficient evidence. As a practicing Catholic with a moderate interest in theology, I've only ever seen this conflation called out and corrected when it is brought up. In my opinion, conflation might follow a radical-traditionalist point of view, but not a more normative Catholic one. Marisauna (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion; Sexology 

message: The is little discussion of the role science played in cultural changed and artistic innovation. Rwood128 (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Science

message: Thanks for all the responses. I realized that my revisions lacked citations and were done too hastily, by a tired (old) brain. However, I was reacting to the poor (vague) quality of the lede. Maybe I should have done more work on the body of the text first? This is an important, and interesting topic, so I hope some younger editors can work on this. I will work on restoring my "subjective" lede, with proper documentation, as well as well as developing further, in the body of the article, the subjects mentioned there.  Rwood128 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored some deleted sentences, which as fat as I can tell are supported by the body of the article/citations. The term "radical break" was deemed too subjective but it is used to describe modernism. Are quotation marks and a citation really required? Rwood128 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent (2/5/24) edits to lede. 

message: Maybe it's just me but I find the structure of this article confusing/incoherent/illogical. So I have moved the sections "Definition" and "Modernism, Romanticism, Philosophy and Symbol" to the very end for now into an "Appendix". They may contain useful ideas that can be incorporated later into other sections. rwood128 142.167.29.248 (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: Does the source for this part specifically describe modernism as "traditional", as opposed to merely describing certain ideas used by a given artist or another?
From my knowledge the postmodernists are usually the ones staking claim to this sort of recombination of old and new, as seen in their use of the terms bricolage and remixing, this type of wording could be pretty controversial if not supported with a specific quote. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Both revolutionary and traditional"