Within the thread of winter fuel allowances a small distraction can be found where there is a minor but not particularly serious disagreement over the merits or demerits of the Shard, that architectural novelty effectively 'poked' into the middle of London. One of the things that arises in relation to that subtopic and elsewhere is that people explain things away because they are 'modern'. Just how true is that and anyway what does that mean?
As far as I am concerned, here in France Baudelaire coined the term modernité to describe the transitory, short-lived experience of life in an urban metropolis and the way that art has captured that experience. It also tends to refer most specifically to the social relations associated with the rise of capitalism. It may also refer to tendencies in intellectual culture, particularly the movements closely linked to secularism and post-industrial life or which art in all forms is often central. Modern art includes artistic works produced during the period roughly from the 1860s to 1970s, and refers the style and philosophy of particular rather all parts of art produced during that time. Modern architecture is part of that and is generally characterised by the simplification of form and an absence of applied decoration.
So, to say something is 'modern' is to simply say it is of the post-classical period. Even the oldest of us is that by centuries, so perhaps we mean something else. Perhaps 'contemporary' is meant, but that simply means of now albeit with a generous application of what is meant by 'now'. Is it, on the other hand, a way of dodging, duck and weaving out of discussion of a theme by implying it is of a time beyond that which some of us have interest or with which we identify?
I am simply curious. I would like to be enlightened. Or is that a bit old fashioned?