Since Modernism is uniquely related to time, I would like to contrast short-lived publications like Blast or Le Petit Journal des Réfusées with long-standing periodicals like Poetry (which remains viable to this day) in an effort to get closer to a definition of modernism.

In exploring this topic, I'd like to focus my research on the following areas:

1) Why did some magazines last while others didn't? What differentiates these magazines? The creative minds behind them (i.e. the vagaries of a Wyndham Lewis) or the nature of their art?

2) Which did a better job of capturing the heart and soul of the modernist movement--those that lasted or those that didn't? *Did something have to be more conventional to last?

3) How did the magazines' inherently ephemeral nature affect the perception of the art they presented? Were the magazines meant to be discarded or kept? How do advertisements add to or detract from the permanence of the message?

4) Whether collaborative relationships between artists can be seen as the major lasting impact of the modernist movement. If so, perhaps this movement, while contingent on an ephemeral work environment, was more 'permanent' than we might imagine in terms of launching influential literary careers?

In tackling these issues, I'd like to propose a clearer definition of what constitutes modernism. (A departure from the mainstream? A short-lived experiment? A "Blast?") In what way was modernism sustainable--and was sustainability desirable? Taking off on the question "When was modernism?" was modernism's short-lived nature its most essential feature? And lastly, is the movement still alive? In (hopefully) answering these questions, I would also like to draw parallels to contemporary platforms like Youtube which seem more than ever to be presenting perishable art.