One of the obvious difficulties in developing a general account of art since 1945 is its closeness to the contemporary period. As yet art historians have not settled on an overarching label for the period (as with terms such as the Renaissance or the Romantic era). One of the most-useful ways of thinking about the period since World War II, however, is in terms of notions of Modernism and postmodernism. Before embarking on a historical survey, it will therefore be useful to sketch out the implications of these key terms.

The term modernism poses an immediate problem because it is used in two distinct ways. When employed with a small m (i.e., modernism, modernist), it signifies a broad impulse in the arts toward reflecting the accelerating pace of social modernization and toward producing a form of art adequate to the nature of modern experience. This understanding of the modernist attitude had been current since the late 19th century, with Charles Baudelaire’s essay of 1863 “The Painter of Modern Life” being one of its earliest expositions. Much of the self-consciously avant-garde art produced in the early 20th century—the art, that is, of the Cubists, the Dadaists, the Surrealists, and the Constructivists, among others—can be described as “modernist” in attitude.

When used with a capital M, however, the term has a rather different inflection. In the highly influential writings of the American art critic Clement Greenberg, the most significant of which were published between 1939 and 1965, the term was loaded with specific historical and evaluative connotations. In historical terms, Modernism was understood to constitute a stringently self-critical and self-purifying tendency in the various art forms that had reached a culmination, in terms of painting, in the resolutely abstract canvases of certain of the American Abstract Expressionists of the 1940s and ’50s (see below). Such paintings were understood to take issue with properties intrinsic to painting, such as the relationship between implied depth and the unavoidably flat nature of the picture’s support, rather than borrowing the effects of other artistic forms. (Greenberg saw 19th-century academic art as severely compromised by its reliance on “literary effects,” as in Victorian narrative painting.) From this the evaluative dimension of the term Modernist can be appreciated. A Modernist work of art can be defined as one that participates in an ongoing refinement of art’s means, shedding outworn or extraneous conventions in the service of disciplinary purification.

Greenberg’s Modernism constitutes an important theoretical touchstone for post-1945 art in western Europe and the United States, and his writings were enormously influential, at least until the mid-1970s. Whereas much painting and sculpture of the period 1945–65, in the United States in particular, can be seen as actively engaged with the idea of Modernism, a large swath of the ambitious visual art of the late 20th century equally can be seen as opposed to it. If Greenberg and his artistic followers understood Modernism to be the ultimate ratification of art about art, numerous artists involved in movements such as Pop and Conceptualism, or in trends such as performance art and body art, felt that his critical project was too narrow and restrictive in its parameters. Such artists believed that art should be more closely bound to human experience, particularly the experience of the body. They also felt that it should be more socially engaged, reflecting, for instance, the remarkable expansion of commodity capitalism and the rise of reproductive technologies after World War II; in a sense, therefore, they continued to be modernists rather than Modernists.

The reaction against Greenberg’s Modernism, which was at least in part the legacy of the ex-Dadaist Marcel Duchamp (who had moved permanently to the United States from his native France in the early 1940s), is one of the defining features of the development of art from 1945 to the1980s. It can thus be defined as counter-Modernist or post-Modernist. The latter term offers a second framing concept for the art of the late 20th century. As with modernism, however, the term has a dual inflection. To talk of post-Modernism in strictly aesthetic terms, as a reaction against Greenbergian dogma, is to ignore the fact that historians have seen Western culture at large entering a postmodernist phase since about the late 1960s. This perception is in line with the thinking of social and political historians who argue that the 1970s saw a major shift in the organization of the capitalist economies in the West. After an economic “golden age,” which had existed since about 1950, an era of instability set in when rising oil prices forced European economies to become inflated. As a consequence, significant shifts in social organization occurred; companies started to expand internationally, bringing into being the now familiar “global economy.” All in all, this phase of so-called “late capitalism” could be seen as coextensive with a postmodern shift in culture at large.

This latter notion of “postmodernism,” as a cultural sea change, has been expounded most eloquently by the American literary theorist Fredric Jameson in his book Postmodernism; or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1991), but it is not necessary to define it in any detail here. Suffice it to say that, in terms of visual art, postmodern artifacts are thought to differ from their modernist—and Modernist—predecessors by virtue of a concern with surface rather than depth. Rather than aiming to uncover some essential disciplinary “essence” (as with Modernism) or conveying an ethical response to modern experience (as with modernism), postmodern works of art are thought to deal with the coded nature of representation; today’s image-heavy culture requires an aptitude for reading signs and has made “authentic” meanings increasingly fugitive entities. In this situation artistic “originality,” once a central plank of modernist ideology, has been replaced by a conception of the artist as someone who appropriates and rearranges existing imagery, implicitly accepting his or her role in a culture of reproduction rather than production. All of this can be seen as occurring hand in hand with the decline of the modernist model of the avant-garde. As artists and the structures in which they operate become increasingly merged into late-capitalist consumer society, so it is more and more difficult to think of the artist as having a position “outside” society.

In the largely historically oriented sections that follow, the terminology of modernism/Modernism and postmodernism/post-Modernism will often be used in accordance with the above definitions. Once again, though, it is important to stress that this is a provisional model. The lack of distance from the post-1945 period makes it difficult to characterize with total confidence. Certain historians, for instance, see “postmodernism” as a red herring, arguing that modernism is still the dominant cultural paradigm of the current age. For the purposes of a general account, however, it is hoped that the usefulness of the terms will become clear.