Beauty, Autonomy, and the Making of Modern Art
Beauty, Autonomy, and the Making of Modern Art: From Winckelmann to Duchamp – Aesthetic Philosophy and the Shifting Grounds of Artistic Value
Reading Beauty and Art: A Philosophical Journey Through Modern Aesthetic Thought
Recently, I have been reading Beauty and Art 1750-2000 by the art historian Elizabeth Prettejohn, part of the Oxford History of Art series. The book provides a fresh perspective on the trajectory of Western art from the modern period onwards. It became clear that the development of modern Western art cannot be understood merely as a sequence of stylistic changes or aesthetic fashions; rather, it reflects a sustained and often contentious dialogue among philosophers, critics, and artists concerning the nature of beauty, the purpose of art, and the criteria that define artistic value.
From Platonic idealism to Kantian disinterest, from Winckelmann’s classicism to the writings of Baudelaire and Fry, artists have continually responded to, and sometimes rebelled against, the prevailing critical theories of their time. To understand the emergence of movements such as Impressionism, Cubism, Dadaism, and Duchamp’s readymades, works which continue to challenge and perplex contemporary audiences, we must consider the aesthetic ideas that shaped their intellectual climate.
Traditionally, art history focuses on the what, the artist and their works, while often overlooking the why. Prettejohn’s work redirects attention to the philosophers and critics who helped shape the intellectual scaffolding of modernism. Her account reveals the modern art as a layered and cumulative project, less a linear progression than a structure built, Lego-like, upon the aesthetic enquiries of the past. Modern artists, rather than simply rejecting tradition, redefined the terms of artistic engagement, sometimes by embracing the confrontational, the abstract, or the anti-beautiful.
This article offers an introductory exploration of how the trajectory of modern Western art was marked by the ongoing dialogue between artistic practice and evolving currents in aesthetic philosophy and criticism. It does not attempt to cover all major movements or figures in depth; influential developments such as the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, Symbolism, and Cubism are not addressed directly. For those movements that are discussed, such as Neoclassicism, Aestheticism, and Post-Impressionism, the emphasis lies not on the movements themselves, but on how they engaged with, responded to, or were informed by contemporary critical thought. Thinkers like Kant, Winckelmann, and Charles Baudelaire are introduced through key ideas rather than exhaustive analysis, with attention to their influence on artistic production and interpretation. The intention is to highlight the interplay between artistic innovation and evolving notions of beauty and meaning—how theory-informed practices challenged and redefined the boundaries of beauty and art. The discussion concludes with the radical intervention of Marcel Duchamp, whose work marks a critical threshold for rethinking the very premises of art and aesthetics.
1. Winckelmann and the Origins of Modern Aesthetic Thought
The discussion begins with Neoclassicism. While many people are familiar with Jacques-Louis David’s Oath of the Horatii (1785), those less familiar with the discipline may not know Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717–1768), often regarded as the father of art history. Winckelmann’s writings marked a decisive shift in aesthetic thought. For him, beauty was not an inherent quality of an artwork but emerged through prolonged contemplation. In other words, beauty was not a precondition of the object, but a result of aesthetic engagement by the viewer.
Winckelmann’s admiration for Greek and Roman art led him to champion what he termed ‘noble simplicity and quiet grandeur.’ He famously asserted: ‘The only way for us to become great, or even inimitable, is to imitate the ancients.’ While this was not a straightforward cause-and-effect formula, his ideas exerted a powerful influence on artists of the late 18th century and provided the intellectual foundation for what we now call Neoclassicism.
Winckelmann reminds us that theoretical frameworks matter, that the critical ideas circulating in a given moment shape not only how art is interpreted, but how it is made. In this sense, the rise of Neoclassicism is not just a stylistic revival but a response to a specific aesthetic challenge: how to recapture the spiritual and moral grandeur of antiquity in a modern age.
2. Kant and the Foundations of Modern Aesthetic Theory
To understand the development of modern art, a basic grasp of Immanuel Kant’s (1724–1804) aesthetic philosophy, particularly as outlined in his Critique of Judgement (1790), is essential.
Disinterestedness and the Judgement of Taste
Kant's theory of beauty cannot be regarded as merely a philosophical issue, it had profound repercussions for art theory and practice after him. For Kant, beauty is an entirely subjective feeling of delight experienced by the viewer in contemplation of an object, it does not pertain to the object's properties or any conceptual classification. Hence, each instance of beauty must be judged on its own terms.
By introducing the concepts of disinterest and the judgement of taste, Kant argued that only those objects judged without reference to any interests or purposes, independent of personal preferences, desires, or utility, can be called ‘beautiful’. In such a judgement, even whether the object belongs to the category of ‘art’ is irrelevant. Because the judgement is uninfluenced by personal interest, Kant claimed it to be universal. Kant also drew a clear distinction between aesthetic and logical judgements: determining whether an object conforms to a general rule belongs to the realm of logic, not aesthetics. In contrast, aesthetic judgement resists comparison, classification, or rule-based assessment. Beauty, then, cannot be determined in advance by standards or hierarchies; it must emerge from a direct, singular encounter.
Challenging Hierarchies: Beyond Genre and Rule
This had a radical impact on art. First, evaluating artworks according to set criteria, such as Winckelmann’s admiration for ancient sculpture, becomes a logical, not aesthetic, judgement. Second, academic preferences, such as the privileging of history painting over still life, collapse under the Kantian model, which denies the relevance of genre or category in evaluating beauty. Kant’s framework thus opened the door for a rethinking of what art could be, paving the way for abstract painting, conceptual art, and works that defy traditional forms. As Prettejohn observes, Kant’s aesthetics helped clear the way for modern art by detaching artistic value from established rules and conventions.
Free vs. Dependent Beauty and the Problem of Intentionality
Kant opened another crucial avenue of aesthetic inquiry with his distinction between free beauty and dependent beauty. The former refers to a pure judgement of taste without conceptual constraints or external purposes, allowing the free play of imagination and understanding. The latter, however, involves non-aesthetic considerations—moral, symbolic, or sociopolitical—our response is influenced by meanings beyond mere aesthetic delight. Paradoxically, many of the objects we most highly esteem, such as human figures, ideal forms, or classical sculptures, fall under the category of dependent beauty, because our appreciation of them is influenced by prior associations or conceptual frameworks.
This leads to what is known as the problem of intentionality. The very act of creating an artwork typically involves intentional design, skill, and purpose, qualities seemingly at odds with the notion of free beauty. Kant attempted to resolve this by introducing the concept of genius and aesthetic ideas, but the paradox continued to inspire generations of artists. As Prettejohn suggests, movements like Impressionism (with its emphasis on spontaneity), Symbolism (with its dream-like irrationality), Cubism (with its ‘found objects’), Duchamp’s readymades, and the Surrealists’ automatic techniques can all be seen as efforts to reduce or bypass artistic intentionality.
This Kantian problem explains why many modern and contemporary artworks, often dismissed by the general public as incomprehensible or trivial, make sense in a theoretical framework that questions the artist’s control and the necessity of conscious intent. While these movements may not be direct responses to Kant, his theories opened a floodgate of inquiry into artistic autonomy, inspiration, and authorship. They helped shift art from mimesis (classical imitation) to invention and experimentation.
Genius and the Rise of Originality
The third major contribution of Kant’s aesthetic lies in his resolution of the apparent contradiction between intentional artistic creation and the free beauty. To address this, Kant proposed the concept of genius—an innate, unteachable talent unique to the artist, which allows for the production of works that express aesthetic ideas. These ideas emerge from the free play of imagination and understanding in the artist’s mind and, crucially, evoke a corresponding free play in the viewer’s mind. More importantly, genius does not follow pre-existing rules, it transcends them.
This concept helped legitimise originality as a core value in modern art. Kant’s theory rejects the idea that beauty could be taught, codified, or derived from academic standards. Instead, art arises from individual imagination and innovation. In this way, Kant demolished earlier doctrines and undermined the authority of academic system that privileged imitation and adherence to classical norms. He opened the way for a new artistic ideal, one that values not perfection according to external rules, but genuine originality and expressive freedom.
Some critics have described Kant’s notion of genius as elitist. Yet his emphasis on originality set the stage for Romanticism and later movements that opposed institutional authority. The Pre-Raphaelites, Impressionists, Dadaists, Fluxus artist, and others carried forward this Kantian legacy. They sought to demonstrate originality and challenge academic or societal conventions, a tendency rooted in Kant’s elevation of genius as the mark of true artistic value.
Kant’s Lasting Impact on Art Theory
Kant initiated a critical revolution in aesthetics that made the experimentalism and diversity of 19th-century and modern art possible. By dissolving the authority of pre-existing rules and hierarchies, he allowed artists and critics to explore beauty, meaning, and form without constraint. The clock could not be turned back.
Yet this does not mean that one must agree with Kant or like every form of modern or contemporary art. His theories remain controversial. How can beauty be both subjective and universally valid? How do we distinguish free from dependent beauty? Is the notion of genius helpful or problematic? These debates continue today.
Nonetheless, when we hear people question why artists no longer paint like the Old Masters, or criticise modern artworks for being abstract or obscure, we can point to this pivotal moment in Western art theory—when Kant’s aesthetics severed the link between artistic value and academic rules. It was a rupture that redefined art and remains central to how we understand and debate art to this day.
3. French Idealism and the Foundations of Modern Aesthetic Independence
Following the emergence of German aesthetics, two significant 19th-century French philosophers, Germaine de Staël (1766–1817) and Victor Cousin (1792–1867), further developed Kantian philosophy in a French context.
Staël’s Introduction of Kantian Aesthetics to France
Staël was pivotal in introducing Kantian aesthetics to France through her influential book De l’Allemagne (1813). Despite misrepresenting certain aspects of Kant’s philosophy and conflating it with Platonic theory to suit her anti-utilitarian and anti-doctrines agenda, her work left a lasting impact on 19th-century French and modernist art theory.
First, De l’Allemagne was widely read and popular, going through 25 French editions over seventy years, and served as a crucial channel for transmitting German aesthetics to France and beyond. Second, Staël notably extended Kant’s argument by opposing the imposition of moral precepts on art. She argued that the moral element compromises aesthetic experience and limits the imagination. Her statement that the fine arts ‘ought to elevate the soul and not indoctrinate it’ significantly influenced the belief in art’s independence, which would become foundational for modernist aesthetics. Third, Staël’s distinction between two types of beauty—one transient, the other eternal—also had a strong impact on subsequent French thought. A clear visual manifestation of this idea, as shown in Prettejohn’s book, is Ingres’s The Vow of Louis XIII (1824), which visually distinguishes earthly (transient) and heavenly (eternal) zones, reflecting the dual conception of beauty found in Staël’s and later Cousin’s philosophy.
Cousin and the Idea of L’art Pour L’art
Victor Cousin (1792-1867), meanwhile, is known for formulating the influential idea of l’art pour l’art (art for art’s sake). His aesthetic theory synthesises various philosophical strands. His advocacy for the separation of art from religion and morality draws from Platonic notions of ideal beauty and is loosely informed by Kant’s distinction between the beautiful and the good. Cousin argued that the goal of art should not be to imitate nature (a standard rejection in idealist aesthetics), nor should it aim to stir emotions like pity or terror for moral edification (reflecting Kant’s separation of aesthetic and other human experiences). Instead, he asserted, ‘the aim of art should not be to serve religion or morality—art should not try to make us better or to elevate us to God.’ Rather, art should possess intrinsic value equivalent to that of religion or morality.
It is important to note that Cousin’s concept of l’art pour l’art does not equate to ‘form for form’s sake,’ nor is it a response to the increasing commercialisation of art and literature after the 1830s. Instead, he sought to detach art from moral or religious functions, placing it in the realm of the absolute, akin to religion. While Cousin saw God as the ultimate ideal, he positioned art as a kind of spiritual vehicle, a ‘pure’ art that could ultimately lead to spiritual transcendence. The full realisation of this idea, art pursued purely for its own sake, would later emerge more explicitly in English Aestheticism.
Though Cousin’s philosophy may differ from contemporary secular interpretation of art for art’s sake, his argument for the intrinsic value of art and human activity, against utilitarianism and instrumentalism, was both radical and foundational. He advanced beyond Staël by insisting not only art’s independence from utility but also from religion and moral obligation. His ideas significantly influenced subsequent thinkers and artistic movements such as English Aestheticism, Symbolism, and Formalism, demonstrating how philosophical discourse has shaped artistic practices and propelled the evolution of modern art.
Today, the concept of art for art’s sake is often perceived as emerging in isolation; however, it is better understood as the cumulative result of philosophical debates across time. As this discussion suggests, the development of modern and contemporary art is not simply a reaction to immediate social or historical contexts, but rather an ongoing dialogue—layered like Lego blocks—with each new idea building upon its predecessors. Understanding modern art thus requires more than contextual analysis of individual works; it requires tracing the intellectual and aesthetic continuities that inform them.
While neither Staël nor Cousin is directly associated with the French Neoclassical art movement, their idealist philosophies significantly influenced the intellectual terrain in which Neoclassical aesthetics evolved.
4. Neoclassicism and Romanticism: Competing Visions of Art and Beauty
The artistic rivalry between Neoclassicism and Romanticism in 19th-century France was, at its core, a philosophical debate about the nature of beauty, the purpose of art, and the role of the artist. This divide is epitomised by two central figures: Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (1780–1867), a pupil of Jacques-Louis David and a pillar of French Neoclassicism, and Eugène Delacroix (1798–1863), the leading figure of the French Romanticism.
Ingres and the Neoclassical Ideal
Ingres’s works embodies the Neoclassical ideal, rooted in the Renaissance tradition and Enlightenment values. In paintings such as The Vow of Louis XIII (1824), he upheld classical notions of beauty defined by symmetry, simplicity, harmonious colour balance, and refined execution. The beauty shown in Ingres’s works anchored in the Platonic pursuit of ideal forms and moral order. His commitment to balance and precision reinforced the belief that art should reflect rationality, dignity, and an idealised vision of the world.
Delacroix’s Romantic Challenge
In stark contrast, Delacroix’s Scenes from the Massacres of Chios (1824) exemplifies a Romantic break with classical restraint. His use of complex figure groupings, contorted poses, and energetic brushwork reflects a radically different conception of beauty—one grounded in emotional intensity and dramatic effect. This shift resonates with Victor Hugo’s redefinition of the ‘grotesque’ as a modern aesthetic form, which replaces the uniform beauty of classical antiquity with variety and expression, challenging the dominance of idealist proportion and serenity.
Originality and the Redefinition of Beauty
Delacroix’s significance lies not only in his Romantic style and subject matter, but in his rethinking of what beauty is. His journal writings reveal a Kantian outlook: painting, he suggested, is ‘the bridge between the mind of the artist and that of the beholder,’ highlighting a shared contemplative process rather than adherence to objective standards. In his commentary on Théodore Géricault’s Study of Truncated Limbs (c. 1818–19), Delacroix championed originality as the essence of artistic value, asserting that it is the artist’s ‘personal ideal’, not the subject matter itself, that determines beauty of a work.
This notion of beauty signalled a fundamental change in 19th-century art, fostering a growing conviction that art should not simply reproduce nature or the human figure, but should reflect the artist’s originality and artistic innovation. While Delacroix did not advocate an abstract form of beauty, his groundbreaking assertion that painting need not rely on specific subject matter, and that it is the artist’s aesthetic personality that truly matters, laid essential groundwork for future developments in modern art.
His critique of imitation also reflects a synthesis of Platonic idealism, which devalues the material world in favour of transcendent forms, with German aesthetics, which celebrates artistic genius and subjective originality. Once again, we see how artistic movements emerge through an ongoing dialogue with the philosophical ideas that shape their foundations.
New Values for a Changing Society
The opposition between Neoclassicism and Romanticism reveals not just aesthetic preference, but a deeper philosophical divergence about the nature and function of art in a world undergoing rapid political and cultural transformation. As France moved through revolution and the aftermath of Napoleonic rule, Romantic artist rejected the rational order and restraint of classical ideals in favour of emotional intensity, subjective experience, and imaginative freedom. Their embrace of the sublime, the dramatic, and even the grotesque challenged the authority of tradition and opened up new possibilities of what art could convey about the human experience.
The new aesthetic provoked strong reactions. Paintings like Géricault’s The Raft of the Medusa (1818–19) and Delacroix’s Massacres of Chios (1824), with their unflinching portrayals of human suffering and distorted forms, were condemned by some as ‘ugly’. Yet these criticisms underscore a deeper cultural reckoning, not simply with beauty, but with the expanding role of art in expressing the psychological and political complexities of modern life.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Romantic works are ‘ugly’, but what they represent in their departure from classical ideals. Romantic artists were not rejecting beauty outright, but redefining it—as something grounded in emotion, individuality, and lived experience. Their work was a deliberate experiment in new forms of visual expression, and exploration of human suffering, imagination, and psychological truth, and often a rebellion against the academic conventions and moral ideals inherited from antiquity. Thus, the contrasting visions between Neoclassicism and Romanticism articulate an evolving dialogue about the role of the artist in a changing society—between idealism and subjectivity, order and emotion, permanence and change. In doing so, they reflect how aesthetic values are not fixed, but constantly reshaped by intellectual, cultural, and historical forces.
5. Mid- to Late 19th-Century: Social Realism and Aesthetic Autonomy
The artistic conflict later shifted from Neoclassicism versus Romanticism to a new opposition: between social art, closely associated with French Realism, which focused on representing modern life, including the mundane or even the ‘ugly’ when necessary, and pure art (or art for art’s sake), which distanced itself from ideological objectives and aimed solely to pursue beauty.
Courbet and French Realism
French Realism in the 19th century emerged as an artistic movement that rejected the idealised forms of academic classicism and the exotic, emotionally charged themes of Romanticism. Realists advocated for art grounded in direct observation, striving to present an unembellished, objective view of contemporary life. Realist artists were frequently criticised for producing works deemed ‘ugly’. One of the most notable among them was Gustave Courbet (1819-1877), a staunch proponent of social art who openly rejected the idea of art existing for its own sake.
His painting A Burial at Ornans (1850), which portrayed ordinary people in an unidealised, provincial funeral scene, drew strong reactions. The absence of heroic or religious themes and the straightforward, unglamorous representation of its subjects prompted divided responses, praised by advocates of humanitarian art for its contemporaneity but condemned by others as deliberately ugly. While I do not consider Courbet’s work ugly, it is important to note that many of these works, and later modernist pieces, were intentionally provocative. They sought to challenge dominant artistic norms, particularly those of the Salon, which privileged uplifting, idealised art and disdained representations that merely imitated nature.
The Rise of Aestheticism in Victorian England
The moral dimension of art was not only prominent in France but also held considerable sway in Victorian England. Paradoxically, it was within this morally stringent environment that the Aesthetic Movement, also known as art for art’s sake, emerged. This movement prioritised beauty and sensory pleasure over social or moral messages.
In the 1840s–50s, the dominant English art theory remained rooted in moral didacticism. The leading critic of the time, John Ruskin (1819–1900), championed art that engaged with the external world through narrative, visual realism, and moral instruction. However, a shift began in the 1860s. Ruskin himself developed an interest in Venetian Renaissance paintings, and began to value sensuous experience more explicitly from 1858 onwards.
In 1859, his close friend and Pre-Raphaelite painter Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1828–1882) produced Bocca Baciata, an experiment in recreating the sensual style of Venetian painting. With no apparent moral or narrative aim, the work celebrated sensual pleasure for its own sake. This marked a turn towards a purely aesthetic mode of art. Rossetti’s stylistic and theoretical experiment quickly influenced his circle, including Frederic Leighton (1830–96), Simeon Solomon (1840–1905), and photographers such as David Wilkie Wynfield (1837–87) and Julia Margaret Cameron (1815–79). Even Courbet’s Jo, the Beautiful Irishwoman (1865–66) in France reflects this aesthetic influence.
English Art for Art’s Sake
This artistic turn was soon reinforced by critical writings that developed a more systematic defence of art for art’s sake. The theoretical foundations of the English version of this philosophy were laid by critics such as Algernon Charles Swinburne (1837-1909) in William Blake (1868) and Walter Pater (1839-1894) in his essay on Winckelmann (1867). Their views surpassed the French formulation of l’art pour l’art. While French thinkers such as Victor Cousin, Théophile Gautier, and Charles Baudelaire maintained a spiritual or transcendental dimension to pure art, Swinburne and Pater insisted that art’s value resides entirely within itself—within the moment and the manner of its execution, not in reference to any higher authority or purpose. Art, for them, need not point beyond itself. Elizabeth Prettejohn even describes their philosophy as a “rediscovery of the delights of ‘free’ beauty after a massive loss of faith in a formerly authoritative religious doctrine.”
Painting as Music: Whistler and Visual Autonomy
Concurrently, a group of English painters began to explore a more extreme conception of purity in art, aiming to generate meaning through visual means alone, eschewing narrative and literary subject matter. Leighton, Albert Moore (1841–93), and James McNeill Whistler (1834–1903) developed a compositional method analogous to musical form, employing principles such as rhythm and proportion instead of conventional representation. One key example is Whistler’s Symphony in White, No. 3 (1867).
Among Whistler’s most debated works is Arrangement in Grey and Black: Portrait of the Painter’s Mother (1871–72). Even today, many viewers joke about Whistler reducing a portrait of his own mother to an ‘arrangement’. Yet, Whistler had a deliberate point to make. In his 1878 essay ‘The Red Rag,’ Whistler explained his use of titles such as ‘arrangements’ and ‘harmonies’ as a rejection of any ideological interpretation. He famously wrote that ‘art should be independent of all clap-trap,’ distancing it from associations with patriotism, love, and devotion, reading that is incompatible with the principle of art for art’s sake.
Instead, Whistler advanced a formalist reading of art, concerned purely with form and colour, a view also advocated by the English critic Sidney Colvin (1845-1927) in 1867, long before Roger Fry. By naming the work Arrangement in Grey and Black, Whistler invited viewers to engage with it as one might a piece of instrumental music: appreciating its beauty independent of the subject matter. The double title, Arrangement in Grey and Black: Portrait of the Painter’s Mother, suggests a dual awareness: that beauty can be found in both form and content together.
Whistler and the Foundations of Abstraction
Whistler’s significance also lies in his pioneering articulation of abstract principles. Prioritising aesthetic experience over subject matter, he became the first artist to formulate a coherent theory of abstract art. This is especially evident in Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket (1875), which captures the fleeting visual effect of fireworks. Here, the subject is secondary to the harmonious composition, a stance that led to a famous libel case when Ruskin criticised the painting.
While Whistler never produced fully abstract work, not even in Nocturne in Black and Gold, some of his earlier paintings, such as Arrangement in Grey and Black, can be read as exhibiting a formal beauty akin to that of later abstract works by Piet Mondrian (1872–1944). Nonetheless, by prioritising harmony, form, and colour over narrative, Whistler helped lay the theoretical foundation for the rise of modernist abstraction in the 20th century.
6. Baudelaire and the Aesthetics of Modernity
One of the most enduring legacies of art for art’s sake is the radical freedom it granted artists. If art need not serve moral, political, or social ends, then artists were free to explore what art could be on its own terms. In the absence of a universal aesthetic doctrine, the answer had to emerge from the specific work itself. This openness encouraged a range of experimental approaches to modern beauty, often rejecting the constraints of academic tradition and classical ideals.
Édouard Manet (1832–83), renowned for his depictions of modern life and widely regarded as a transitional figure from Realism to Impressionism, exemplifies this exploration. During his lifetime, Manet was a controversial figure; many contemporaries found his paintings vulgar or even ugly. One such work, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère (1881–82), expresses a striking modern sensibility through its ambiguous spatial logic, psychological detachment, and everyday subject: a barmaid in a bustling entertainment venue. Its disorienting mirror reflection and emotional opacity mirror the fragmentation and alienation associated with modern urban life.
While not a direct explanation for the current acclaim of such paintings, Charles Baudelaire’s 1863 essay The Painter of Modern Life provides a critical lens through which to understand the shifting artistic values of the time. In this work, Baudelaire urged artists to break away from academic conventions and praised those who captured the vibrancy and energy of everyday Parisian life. He singled out the illustrator Constantin Guys (1802-92) for his rapid, sketch-like style and his ability to capture fleeting moments and convey the sense of modernity. Baudelaire coined the term modernité to describe the transient, contingent experience of urban life. Rejecting Realism’s unfiltered imitation of nature, Baudelaire instead called for a modern art shaped by memory and imagination, an art that responded to contemporary life without merely reproducing it.
Manet’s Music in the Tuileries Gardens (1862) clearly reflects these ideals. Depicting a fashionable crowd in a Parisian public garden, the painting appears glimpsed rather than carefully composed, conveying spontaneity and urban immediacy. Figures dissolve into loose brushstrokes; the paint is rapidly applied, and the central area, veiled in a grey scumble, remains deliberately unresolved. The composition flattens spatial depth, opposing the clarity and finish prised by the Académie des Beaux-Arts. By choosing an ordinary subject and rendering it with such painterly freedom, Manet challenged conventional notions of beauty, subject matter, and artistic refinement.
Baudelaire’s conception of modern art also resonates with the Impressionists, whose works embraced everyday scenes, informal compositions, and visible brushwork. Their aim was not to document modern life objectively, but to capture fleeting sensations and perceptual impressions. Claude Monet’s Impression, Sunrise (1872), from which the movement takes its name, presents a misty harbour in swift, luminous strokes that focus on transient light and atmosphere over narrative clarity. Such works embody Baudelaire’s aesthetic of the ephemeral and the subjective, giving visual expression to the spirit of modernité.
Baudelaire’s writing articulates a critical sensibility shared by many avant-garde artists of the time, one that sought to break from academic doctrine and embrace the contingent experience of modern life. In this light, the legacy of The Painter of Modern Life lies not only in its theorisation of modern beauty but also in its call for an art that actively engages with the present. Manet and the Impressionists, each in their own way, embodied that ethos, redefining beauty as something rooted in the here and now: contingent, transitory, but vividly expressive.
7. Redefining the Aesthetic Agenda
As discussed throughout this article, a number of 19th-century artistic movements and theories sought to challenge the conventions of Western art traditions and explore new definitions of modern beauty. By the turn of the 20th century, these developments gave way to even more radical experimentation. During this period, several artists and critics actively rejected the term beauty, proposing alternatives such as Roger Fry’s (1866–1934) concept of design, Clive Bell’s (1881–1964) significant form, and Barnett Newman’s (1905–1970) sublime.
This shift was partly a response to the emergence of modern artists who deliberately created works that were ugly or confrontational, as well as the growing influence of African and Far Eastern art, where the word beauty was seen as overly mild or inadequate. In 1948, Barnett Newman even declared that ‘the impulse of modern art was [the] desire to destroy beauty,’ which he associated with the European tradition. This reorientation, though rooted in the enthusiasm to legitimise modern art, simultaneously expanded the scope of what could be considered aesthetically valuable and marked a fundamental shift in aesthetic concerns. As Prettejohn notes, the centre question shift from ‘Is x beautiful?’ to ‘Is it art?’
Roger Fry and the Modernist Revaluation of Art
One of the most influential figures in shaping modern artistic discourse was the English painter and critic Roger Fry. He is credited with developing formalist art theory and coining the term Post-Impressionism. In his seminal collection of essays Vision and Design (1920), Fry advanced a formalist approach to art criticism, encouraging viewers to respond to the 'pure form' of an artwork rather than its ‘associated ideas’ or subject matter. For Fry, the value of a painting lay not in the beauty of its depicted object but in the formal relationships within the work itself.
This perspective led him to praise Post-Impressionist artists, particularly Paul Cézanne (1839-1906), for the expressive quality inherent in the pictorial structure. Unlike the Impressionists, who sought to reproduce appearances of the external world, Fry believed Post-Impressionists generated the expressive power of their work from within the picture itself. In in Vision and Design, he celebrated Cézanne’s works such as Still Life with Green Pot and Pewter Jug (c.1869–70) and The Pool at the Jas de Bouffan (1878), later publishing Cézanne: A Study of His Development (1927). Fry's influence was profound; Kenneth Clark (1903-83), then Director of the National Gallery in London, famously remarked that ‘taste can be changed by one man.’ Even if one disagrees with Fry’s formalism or does not share his admiration for Cézanne, it is now possible to understand the historical context of such high valuation.
In addition to his critical writings, Fry is also remembered for curating the pivotal 1910 London exhibition Manet and the Post-Impressionists, which marked a foundational moment in modernist art. Using Manet as a historical anchor, Fry introduced the British public to contemporary French art that defied traditional notions of beauty. As Prettejohn notes, the infamous shock provoked by this exhibition helped establish the idea, pervasive throughout the 20th century, that modern art should confront established norms. To challenge or even repel the audience became a hallmark of artistic originality and vitality.
This sentiment manifested in the works of early 20th-century artists who employed formal experimentation and drew upon non-Western influences to reject prevailing European tastes. For instance, Pablo Picasso’s Cubism fractured the solidity of Renaissance form into multifaceted planes; Kazimir Malevich’s Black Square (1915) abandoned recognisable subject matter entirely; Wassily Kandinsky’s Composition VI (1913) used colour to generate form without reference to objects; and perhaps most radically, Marcel Duchamp’s readymades redefined the art object itself.
Duchamp and the Limits of Modernist Theory
Duchamp’s Fountain (1917), a porcelain urinal signed “R. Mutt”, can be interpreted as a direct response to the formalist theories of Roger Fry and Clive Bell, who aimed to differentiate art objects from ordinary ones. By submitting a mass-produced item, which could ironically still satisfy Fry’s formalist criteria, to a New York art exhibition in 1917, Duchamp questioned the legitimacy of such distinctions. His intervention rigorously and playfully tested the limits of art and taste, exposing the inherent flaws in the attempt to make objective separations between art and non-art. In doing so, he implicitly reintroduced a Kantian aesthetic, where beauty resides in the subjective delight of the observer’s contemplation rather than in the object itself.
In this light, the development of modern art can be understood as an ongoing dialogue and critical response to earlier artistic theories and traditions. Modernist movements not only redefined the boundaries of beauty and art but also attempted to dismantle the dominance of Western aesthetic norms.
Conclusion
This article has explored how the evolution of modern Western art is shaped by the interplay between artistic experimentation and evolving aesthetic thought. Far from marking a clean break with the past, modern and contemporary art emerged through a gradual, reflective dialogue with preceding traditions. Beginning in the 19th century, artists and critics started to challenge inherited ideals of beauty, laying the groundwork for more radical departures in the 20th century. Thinkers like Fry and Bell shifted attention toward form and design, while artists such as Cézanne, Picasso, and Duchamp stretched or overturned the frameworks through which art had long been understood. These developments did not abandon aesthetics but reoriented them around new questions: not only is it beautiful? but is it art?
In embracing abstraction, conceptualism, and global perspectives, modern art expanded its remit, often in unsettling but intentional ways. This expansion reflected not chaos, but a sustained engagement with the possibilities and limits of art itself. By foregrounding the dynamic between innovation and interpretation, this article has aimed to illuminate how theory-informed practices challenged and redefined the boundaries of beauty and art, and why their provocations continue to resonate today.
This article is inspired by Elizabeth Prettejohn’s Beauty and Art, 1750-2000 (Oxford History of Art). Much of the historical and philosophical content is based on her work. While the interpretative framing is my own, the arguments are developed through engagement with her ideas.