Sense of Sincerity: Interpretations of Modernist Manifestos

The modernist manifesto is an enigma in its simultaneous rejection of both the obscure and the mainstream, in favour of its support for the dynamic, progressive, and violent principles of revolutionary thought. Manifestos are highly indicative of the avant-garde attitudes of much of the modernist era, exhibited by authors such as Mina Loy calling for “the unconditional surgical destruction of virginity” (2079) and others like Lewis dismissing the entire Victorian era in just a sentence: “Blast the years 1837 to 1900” (2074). Modernist art manifestos therefore, such as Wyndham Lewis’ Blast, can be defined as “public declarations of the intentions, motives, or views of an artist or artistic movement” (Greenblatt 2056), with critics such as Hanna regarding the definition of a manifesto as “something scarcely tangible; a sense of its own occasion, perhaps.” (302). Movements such as futurism, imagism, and the short-lived vorticism, can therefore be viewed most accurately and sincerely through the energetic rhetoric of the manifesto, especially in Wyndham Lewis’ Blast and Mina Loy’s Feminist Manifesto.

“Long Live the Vortex” (2072) screams Lewis’ controversial, and distinctly fascist Blast, founded in 1914 and first published one month before Great Britain entered World War I. It is vastly modern in its powerful rejection of futurism, naturalism, and impressionism, asserting itself as a defiantly vorticist manifesto, supported by the likes of Ezra Pound after his rejection of imagism in favour of the dynamic vortex: “the point of maximum energy.” (Greenblatt 2070). With regard to the sincerity of the rather pessimistic yet curiously comical propaganda of the vorticists, their paradoxical musings of the modern world—if to be read candidly—are shocking, provocative, and callous, in their descriptions of the poor as “detestable animals” (Lewis 2073) and the rich as “bores without a single exception.” (2073). Hanna too raises the issue of sincerity and interpretation when he questions the relationship between the manifesto as a political tract, and the art manifesto: “Is the art manifesto a mere parody of its more serious cousins? Or does it represent a sincere attempt to lend to artistic debate the weight and gravitas often associated with matters of politics, law, and religion?” (306). In answer to the question of how one should interpret such a provocative manifesto as Blast, Hanna acknowledges that “the avant-garde or modernist manifesto represented precisely the aggressive and paternalistic ‘mansplaining’ tendencies against which Woolf was fighting” (311) suggesting the sentiments expressed in Lewis’ vorticist manifesto to be highly reflective of the patriarchal art-world of the 1900s, and therefore sincere in its desire to witness such things as “the unconsciousness of humanity” (2072).  Therefore, one can conclude that the purpose of modernist manifestos such as Blast is to shock, explaining the liminal ambiguity of the blur between sincerity and sarcasm so characteristic of the genre. 

The rhetorical flair of the modernist manifesto contributes too to this desire to shock, excite, and offend, and Blast particularly is unique in its use of bold print, capitalisation, and divergent structure. This style of dramatic rhetoric utilised by Lewis gives us a glimpse into his own personality; his desire to rebel, agitate, and disturb. Hanna writes that Lewis was “considered by many of his peers to be indelicate and overbearing” (133) and that “like the manifesto [he was] something of an anomaly in modernist London…always playing the provocateur.” (133). This characteristic of his, to provoke, compelled by his “violent tendencies and extreme political views” (126) goes some way to explain the alluring rhetoric of Blast and the way in which it “rhetorically and typographically embodies the violent iconoclasm of vorticism” (Greenblatt 2070). The interesting use of the word “we” in much of the manifesto, adds too to its rhetorical flair, highlighting Lewis’ personal recognition of deception as essential to the success of any political movement: “It was essential that people should believe that there was a kind of army beneath the banner of the Vortex. In fact there were only a couple of women and one or two not very reliable men.” (Lewis 306). This interplay between authenticity and rhetoric, therefore, goes some way to explaining the disparity between our interpretation of modernist manifestos and the message they are trying to convey; the purpose they are attempting to serve. 

Mina Loy’s Feminist Manifesto much like Lewis’ Blast is shocking, provocative, and at times crude, in its attempts “to harness for feminism the radicalism and individualism of the avant-garde, calling for nothing less than a revolution in gender relations.” (Greenblatt 2077). In her manifesto, not published till long after her death, Loy seeks to assert a distinctly female identity free from the constraints of the patriarchy, and no longer as a concept relative only to masculine identity. Loy echoes much of the suffragette movements desire for greater freedom, more job opportunities, but, and critically so, rejects the notion of equality between the sexes, and instead asks women to “be Brave and deny at the outset—that pathetic clap-trap war cry Woman is the equal of man—for She is NOT!” (2078). She then—just as Lewis proposes to “convert the king” (Lewis 2073) to vorticism—argues for the “unconditional surgical destruction of virginity throughout the female population” (Loy 2079) in her belief that if women truly wish to realise themselves they “must make sacrifices and the greatest sacrifice you have to make is of your virtue” (2079). The sincerity of these dramatic and radical ideas is called into question by the moderately sarcastic tone underlying the text, exhibited when she asks female readers “Is that all you want?” (2078). However, despite this element of sarcasm and some of her more radical claims, Walter regards Loy’s Feminist Manifesto as a sincere result of her “ambivalence about impersonality,…gender politics, and her complex negotiation of competing cultural ideologies” (Walter 666)—such as Italian futurism with which she was associated despite its misogyny—suggesting the text to be wholly sincere and authentic in its belief that “the feminist movement at present instituted is Inadequate.” (Loy 2078). 

Thus, in conclusion, the extent to which our interpretation of modernist manifestos rests on our sense of their sincerity, and to a lesser extent rhetorical flair, can be explained in that despite their seemingly innate desire to shock and provoke, it is evident that authors such as Loy and Lewis wholeheartedly believed in the movements they were supporting in their manifestos, and are attempting to convince us of the same. The modernist manifesto therefore, serves as a platform for authors to resolve the conflicts within their own belief systems, and in doing so attract like-minded individuals through their controversial propaganda, marking tone and rhetoric as pivotal to the purpose of the manifesto as a genre. 

Works Cited

Hanna, Julian. “Blasting After Blast : Wyndham Lewis's Late Manifestos.” Journal of Modern     Literature, vol. 31, no. 1, 2007, pp. 124–135.

Hanna, Julian. “‘Blast First (from Politeness) England’: The Manifesto in Britain and Ireland.” Modernist Cultures, vol. 12, no. 2, 2017, pp. 297–315., doi:10.3366/mod.2017.0172.

Lewis, Wyndham. “Blast”. The Norton Anthology English Literature, Gen. ed. Stephen     Greenblatt. 9th ed. Vol. F. New York: Norton, 2012, pp. 2313-2472.

Loy, Mina. “Feminist Manifesto”. The Norton Anthology English Literature, Gen. ed. Stephen       Greenblatt. 9th ed. Vol. F. New York: Norton, 2012, pp. 2313-2472.

Walter, Christina M. “Getting Impersonal: Mina Loy's Body Politics from ‘Feminist Manifesto’         to Insel.” Mfs Modern Fiction Studies, vol. 55, no. 4, 2009, pp. 663–692