Cosmopolitan Modernism and the Harlem Renaissance

Introduction: The Article and Its Context

The article "A Cosmopolitan Modernism" from The Nation, by Rachel Hunter Himes, published on April 15, 2024, discusses the Harlem Renaissance as a cosmopolitan expression of modernism. It examines the transatlantic exchanges that influenced Black society and art in the 1920s and 1930s, while also addressing the Met Museum's attempts — successful and otherwise — to present this period and its art in recent exhibitions.

The Relationship Between Modernity and Modernism

Modernity refers to the historical period marked by the transition from traditional to modern industrial society. This transition was made possible by an increasingly technological society and the economic incentives that opened up after the end of World War I. In a sense, WWI marked the end of the old-world traditional social order. In the United States, people experienced the Roaring Twenties, which marked the dawn of a new modern era and a reinvention of identity — men became dandies and women became flappers, to use the jargon of the times. The period was heady, fun-loving, and forward-looking.

Modernism, on the other hand, is an artistic and cultural response to modernity. Artists looked for new ways to express themselves, since the world of their day seemed cut off from the world of before. The old styles and perspectives could no longer reflect what was happening around them, and something new was needed. Artists like Picasso invented new styles — such as cubism — to reflect the modernity unfolding around them. Overall, modernism can best be described as a conscious artistic break with the past and with traditional approaches, in pursuit of something new, evocative, provocative, and reflective of contemporary life.

In Himes's article, the relationship between modernity and modernism is visible through the Harlem Renaissance. Himes argues that the Harlem Renaissance was about the self-expression of the Black artist — and whether that expression pleased anyone did not matter, as Langston Hughes noted (Himes, 2024). This disregard for the viewer's response is itself a marker of modernism: just as Picasso was indifferent to critics and admirers regarding the new forms he created, the artists of the Harlem Renaissance were indifferent to the audience. Their focus was on self-assertion at a moment when a new world of modernity seemed to be opening up.

Modernity existed in Harlem in a way that was distinct from elsewhere. Harlem attracted well-to-do white visitors seeking a thrilling alternative to the buttoned-up society of the past. Harlem functioned as a disruptor — a jarring leap from the old world into the new world of modernity. As Hughes suggested, its people were indifferent to the past, to the present, and even to the future. Their focus was on the Self — the self-expression of the Black artist. The Renaissance's poetry was new and innovative, as was its visual artwork. It was distinctly its own thing. As Himes suggests, African American artists and intellectuals engaged with and represented modernity by creating works that were new to the American scene: they reflected Black experiences, Black urban life, and Black identity — and yet there was something global and universal about it all, perhaps because everyone has a Self, everyone has a desire to be seen and heard, and almost everyone's life tells a story about pain and hope.

Antinomy in Modern and Modernist Education

An antinomy related to modernist education that emerges in the article is the opposition between a specific culture — Black society and art in Harlem during the Harlem Renaissance — and the universalizing approach of the Met Museum's exhibitions. Himes points out that the Met initially produced an exhibit about the Harlem Renaissance that displayed zero works by Black artists from that era. Instead, the museum opted for spectacle, displaying old photographs literally of Harlem — the city and its people — but none of the artwork produced by those people. Himes wanted to know where the art was. What she saw in that first exhibit was a universalist approach to modernity, not a modernist one. The museum appeared to be stripping the Black experience and Black culture out of the Black Harlem Renaissance and making it something generalized.

However, the Harlem Renaissance grew out of the very specific experiences of Black Americans in that very specific place. At the same time, it was a movement that engaged with universalisms, because it was the Black Self confronting the ideals, ideas, and movements of the modern era at large. Antinomy is evident both in responses to celebrating the Harlem Renaissance and in the movement itself — in the way it asserted the particular (the Black Self) in the face of the general or universal.

Conclusion

Both Baker (1987) and Himes (2024) appreciate that Harlem was like a spotlighted part of the stage — but the stage was wider than Harlem. The antinomy between the specific Black experience and universalist framing continues to shape how the Harlem Renaissance is received, honored, or diminished. Himes's argument ultimately affirms that the movement's modernist principles remain alive and relevant — and that how institutions choose to engage with them says as much about the present as it does about the past.

References

Baker, H. (1987). Modernism and the Harlem Renaissance. University of Chicago Press.

Himes, R. H. (2024). A cosmopolitan modernism. The Nation. Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/met-museum-harlem-renaissance/