Beginning with an unsolicited letter to Barnett Newman written by the Indian modernist F. N. Souza, this essay seeks to reframe our understanding of the decline of modernism. Art-historical consensus holds that, as the 1960s progressed, modernist art was swept aside by demands for political engagement to which it could not adapt. Souza's letter complicates this. On one hand, it criticizes Newman's latest paintings for expressing modernist values such as autonomy, transcendence, and universality, for amounting to the claim that ‘colour is ethics’. But on the other, rather than abandoning such concepts, as did most advanced art in the 1960s, Souza demands another, political modernism, one capable of grounding itself in reflection on the movement's historical complicity with colonialism and racism. This was a difficult project, and I reject the view that it was inherently progressive; indeed, I draw out the reactionary attitudes to which it could all-too-easily lead. Souza's desire, by 1969, to move beyond these without abandoning the historicity of modernism positions him closer to Newman than his letter suggests. Both proceeded, in ways that refuse the schematic alternatives of traditional art history, by making work that addressed political reality through the reflexive critique of modernism itself.

中文翻译：

---

写给巴尼特纽曼：FN Souza 和现代主义的终结

这篇文章以印度现代主义者 FN Souza 写给 Barnett Newman 的一封未经请求的信开始，旨在重新构建我们对现代主义衰落的理解。艺术史共识认为，随着 1960 年代的发展，现代主义艺术被其无法适应的政治参与需求所扫除。Souza 的信使情况复杂化。一方面，它批评纽曼最新的画作表达了现代主义价值观，如自主性、超越性和普遍性，相当于“颜色就是伦理”的主张。但另一方面，苏扎并没有像 1960 年代最先进的艺术那样放弃这些概念，而是要求另一种政治现代主义，这种现代主义能够以反思该运动与殖民主义和种族主义的历史共谋为基础。这是一项艰巨的工程，我反对它本质上是进步的观点；事实上，我描绘了它很容易导致的反动态度。到 1969 年，苏扎希望在不放弃现代主义历史性的情况下超越这些，这使他比信中所暗示的更接近纽曼。两者都以拒绝传统艺术史的示意性替代方案的方式进行，通过对现代主义本身的反思性批判来解决政治现实问题。