qais assali

“A story we might call “Art History”—is still relevant, especially if it becomes apparent that art as a category can only be defined within this story. Instead of being perceived as the story, Art History should become a story. Similarly, the work of art should be treated as an artifact, as a product of a certain kind of Western culture rooted in the Enlightenment and shaped by Romanticism.” — Walter Benjamin

In 1936, The Museum of Modern Art in New York City boasted the beginning of Modern Art by showing one of the most historically valuable pieces that became and is still used as one of the most important educational pieces in the history of Modern Art, a poster titled “Cubism and Abstract Art”. The main purpose of this diagram poster is to show the invention of Abstract art and its starting point from European neo-impressionism and Paul Cézanne. Designed by the first American director of MoMA Alfred Barr, The poster has not only been treated as a tool of advertising but also as a piece of art itself. It was exhibited inside the exhibition as an artwork. In other words, the poster also reproduces Barr’s original piece, reinforcing the notion of “his invention” as a definitive framework. Designed in black and red, the diagram visually maps the trajectory of modern and avant-garde art from 1890 to 1935—one year before the exhibition—asserting a structured, linear progression of artistic movements.

Black typeface shows the western art movements that culminated the invention of Abstract art. The four non-western influences marked in red include Japanese prints (1890), Near-Eastern Art (1903), Negro Sculpture (1905), and the Machine Esthetic (1909). The red typeface against the isms of the western art movements shows the non-western alien. An alien influence can’t be considered a movement or even art in its full western meaning. It doesn’t contain the western secret recipe, as what Greenberg would say. It’s important to mention that all these descriptions are based on western values that decide the exact value of each artistic gesture.

According to Barr’s poster, Near-Eastern art (in relation to Europe) was registered in 1903. This date does not mark the origin or significance of Near-Eastern art itself but rather the moment when it was acknowledged within a Western historical framework—when a Western artist decided to incorporate an otherness object into their work. This act of appropriation gains value only through the Western artist’s gaze, often framed as a "discovery" made during their journey to the Orient, reinforcing a Eurocentric narrative of influence and legitimacy.

This parallels Picasso’s appropriation of so-called “primitive” African masks in his work, which stripped them of their symbolic power and social significance. By repurposing these cultural artifacts, Western artists erased their original contexts, reducing them to mere aesthetic influences. The appearance of “otherness” in modern art often serves to fill historical gaps and construct a dialectical presentation that reinforces Western artistic narratives. As Edward Said notes, "the case of Orientalism in the American case is more abstract." Orientalism has never been concealed; rather, it has been positioned on equal footing with the most refined Western artistic traditions, not to acknowledge its intrinsic value, but to sustain a Eurocentric framework of influence and artistic legitimacy.

In other words, Barr’s process of making this diagram poster could be defined and explored by the western artist when he took the journey looking for a tool to be used as an inner [element] in his product. This pursuit of an “invention” later led to the emergence of movements or new isms. This is the lineage of such movements as the great Cubism and/or the great Abstract Art inventions. The idea of mentioning these influences is not only to present the West as the inventor; rather, they exist solely within the context of the West inside Barr’s poster frame, giving a graphical balance to his two-color design.

The Cubism and Abstract Art poster provided us with a western curriculum to understand Modern art; it fills few gaps in the art history by Barr’s eye and perspective. But why should I understand and learn about “Neareastern art” and “Negro sculpture” only to understand Expressionism, cubism or any of the other art isms? Why should I understand and learn about Japanese culture only to understand the American pioneer John Cage and his “influences” by Buddhism? Just as another western product to boast about? Such a curriculum that decides the narrative of art history and the exact “otherness” that should be mentioned. The Western design curriculum mustn't continue to resist diversity. primary goal of a design for social change is to criticize or intervene.

“We all know that textbooks express the point of view of those who write and publish the books.” I'm not only interested in Art History, but also in its curriculum; the way we retell the story of art history. Is teaching art history site specific? I mean how we could understand each region’s art story, instead of building a curriculum that reflects only specific regions as center stage?

Barr could celebrate the invention of Abstract art in 1936 while it existed already a hundred years before by otherness such as abstraction art in both the Indian and Islamic art “Near and Far-Eastern”. Such a generalization necessarily depends upon ignorance of the non-western art that obeys the prevention against representation in art. An argument for the uniqueness of modern abstraction dismisses Islamic and Indian Abstract art as “decorative.” How did Orientalism shape the past? If I say “did”, does that mean it doesn't shape the present?