IF Barzun’s characterization of the post-1920 serious visual artist is accurate . . .
And IF the type is an angry and willful agent of change, being antagonistic and hostile . . .
THEN what does it feel like to walk in the creative life of such a type? What are the experiences of such a vocation? What are the outlooks for such a career?

Jacques Barzun probably posed the modernist “artist” as a type or as one among many in a class. To do otherwise would mean that he omitted the role of wider theories and of broader creative movements. There are, however, plenty of examples (of individual artists and movements) to support the accuracy of his characterization—agents who intended to humiliate or cleanse or harm or educate their audience. Barzun’s conclusion seemed to be that artists who assumed this role tended to be short-sighted, ineffective, and not particularly thoughtful.

Another assumption probably built into Barzun’s critique is that the “artist” he wrote about was an exceptional talent, or the kind of blue-chip artist that attracts critical attention (in an age where the critic is as much the creative genius as the artist.) Barzun was poking at the mainstream critical/historical spectrum. Outside the glare and attention devoted to this status, imagine what the life of a serious artist becomes. Being existentially alone and angry is not healthy or flourishing. Most people can’t sustain isolation and antagonism over the long haul of life without being consumed by its ills and traumas.