Hispanic -American Modernism And Current Traits

Hispanic -American modernism and current traits

Introduction

Hispano -American modernism is not a literary school. Today, there are no works capable of highlighting a complete panorama of this movement. However, there are studies explaining some features of this current. On the one hand, Claudio Corn explains modernism in his article called ‘Hispano -American modernism, diverse expressions of a rejection in 2007. On the other hand, Emilio Carilla highlights this movement in ‘The doctrine of Latin American modernism’ in 1988.

Developing

Despite this, analysts have discovered some characteristics of this movement. For example, they try to highlight the period of Latin American modernism. They have discovered and approved aesthetic characteristics. Most of these advances have been made thanks to the study of the main authors (Carilla: 163). However, secondary writers also helped the analysis of this movement. Although it is not a recent discovery, few studies exist on the importance of modernism in the Latin American doctrinal trajectory. The theme of modernity returns with different aspects several times in Hispanic -American literature. It is unrealizable to maintain a thorough record and criticize the actuality of this trend.

It has been tried to demonstrate in various ways that Hispano -American modernism is a literary school. Originally it was not considered as a school because he has no teachers or disciples. It is evident that words are used as ‘trend’ or ‘movement’.

From 1896, thanks to Rubén Darío and other great writers, Hispano -American modernism becomes a true literary movement. The poet has an important role in the popular change of Latin American modernism (Carilla: 166-167).

Some modernizers maintain that it is better to forget the above and the old and look to the future. However, there are still ‘identity’. These people face the other group because they think that there are imhibited things and that they do not have to change (corn, 98).

The complication of modernity in the Spanish-speaking area can only be observed as a rarity of double face: modernity and identity seem to be part of the same plot. One seems unavoidably to the other. Let’s see some reasons for this modality to be feasible. Therefore, the only way to observe modernity is to see the as if it had double face. On the one hand, there is modernity and, on the other hand, there is an initial and ancient identity.

The novelist presents the dilemmas between adopting the novelty of the modern and giving the old customs. This means that there is an opposition between the ‘new’ and the ‘ancient’ (corn: 99).

Julio Ortega says that Hispano -American modernism would be nothing, if the Atlantic did not cross. For Hispano -Americans, Spain remains the place where it is possible to investigate the past. While, for the Spaniards, Latin America helps to recognize their history. It also helps them get an idea about their own destiny (corn: 100).

In sum, rupture and opposition to modernism, a new classicism that recovers premises of the lost literary tradition, objectification of reality for a new humanism, formal premises of neat subjection of the word constitute the creed of the aesthetic and ideological program.

To summarize, there is a strong break and opposition to modernism. This rupture forms a kind of new classicism that recovers the initial literary tradition that was lost, objectification of reality for a new humanism, formal premises of neat subjection of the word constitute the creed of the aesthetic and ideological program.

It is already known that there is no homogeneous critical body about the meaning of modernism. Methods, literary theories, critical schools and political ideologies intersect – and even contradict – in modernism studies.

It is possible to study modernism from different points of view. For example, this movement can be analyzed using national literature or using the few analyzes existing. A symmetry can be made between the image that is disseminated from this movement and the disinterest of the social and political of this era. According to what Ricardo Gullón says, it is possible to say that modernism is, on the one hand, an opposition to the materialization of art and life. On the other hand, however, it is not the same in modernism. The impossibility of highlighting a uniform doctrine of modernism is certain. However, it is possible to do it with antimodernism (corn: 102).

Comparison

The panorama described by Claudio Corn is one full of skepticism, on the one hand, the panorama described by Claudio Corn is full of skepticism because it rejects the famous movement of modernism. On the other hand, Emilio Carrilla, as the title says, describes the doctrine of the famous Spanish -American tendency in its article. Details it and at the same time try to define this movement. Rubén Darío is seen how this movement. Carilla gives this movement a start and an end.

Indeed, corn thesis expresses a perspective of rejection regarding this movement. Declares that this trend has an effect on Spain and America. Use some authors like Litvak to present modernism as decadent. To defend his point of view, corn highlights five characteristics of ‘antimodernism’. Unlike corn, Carilla is breaking down and explaining the doctrine behind Modernism. Exemplifies the ‘liric value’ of this trend.

There is a greater difference between both editors. It is the idea that Hispano -American modernism is or is not a school. On the one hand, according to what corn declares, Latin American modernism does not have the structure of a school. On the other hand, Carilla argues that this movement is an ‘atypical school’ but, according to his opinion, it is better to call it ‘movement’, ‘trend’ or ‘era’.

These two authors express their opinions from different perspectives. Corn expresses an antimodernist philosophy and how modernism affects the nation. Carilla explains the doctrine of this movement. Each one shows and structures this movement in their own way. One relates this movement to the nation and another describes internally.

conclusion

Despite this blurred movement, where their definitions vary from the doctrinal or non-doctrinal point of view-depending on almost diffuse perspectives-some referring to the discipline of aestheticism, its complex classicist relationship and art of beautiful in the lyrical genre;All its fusion of peculiarities or styles – as it wants to be interpreted – with the intention of that local color, anti -American must highlight the difficulties of understanding a style of an era without reducing it. All this trying to expand the vision of Latin American modernism from an extended literary era in space-time without covering the entire movement, hoping to have general importance for many.