Short Essay on Pomo
Obelix
assignment was to describe pomo in 3 pages or less. I thought I'd throw
it up here as well, so that everyone can pick it apart and tell me how
much it sucks (which, admittedly, it does -- fortunately my instructor
doesn't know enough about the subject to do anything about it!)
Peace,
Ob.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Simplifying to the extreme," wrote Jean-François Lyotard, "I
define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives" (1984). This
statement is indeed a great simplification of a complex body of
critical thought, but it will serve well as a starting point. The
metanarratives to which Lyotard refers derive primarily from the
modernism movement, which had shaped society for nearly a hundred years
previously. An inevitable child of Romanticism and the technological
advances of the late 1800s and early 1900s, modernism was characterized
by a need for progress, change, and social revolution. This movement
supposedly exhausted itself somewhere around 1960, and since that time
has only been feigning stability in the form of simulations, or
simplistic recreations of modernist society. Postmodernism represents
the process of taking apart and analyzing the effects that this
movement has had on popular culture; it is a sort of post-mortem
analysis of a now defunct, progress-based society (Jameson, 1983;
Kaplan, 1988; Polan, 1988).
It begins this analysis by doing away with even the most fundamental
processes of the status quo. The traditional Western binarisms
(black/white, male/female, primitive/advanced, etc.), for example, are
brought into question. The "positioning," or categorization according
to race, class, gender, etc., of previously established metanarratives
is destroyed and everyone is assumed to start over from zero (Kaplan,
1988).
One effect of this is that the barriers between "high art" and popular
culture have been eroded to a point where the two areas begin to merge,
and each one takes on the characteristics of the other. This is
particularly disturbing from an academic standpoint, as academia itself
is founded on the binary values of high and low, elitist versus
philistine (Lippard, 1980; Jameson 1983). When these dichotomies are
broken down, we find such things as the so-called Pop Art movement, in
which high art portrays low artistic subjects (or is it that low art is
portrayed using high artistic methods?).
Another traditional binary that is dismantled by postmodernism is that
of society/individual. From a traditional modern/Western/status quo
perspective, society is the norm, and individuals are measured by their
adherence to or divergence from that norm: Authors are remembered for
their literary quirks, painters for their innovative visual styles, and
thinkers for their new ideas. The concept of individuality is central
to modern criticism. Postmodernism, however, removes the distinction
between individual and society, and with it, the idea that an artist's
technique is to be measured against some imaginary norm. If there is
no norm, then there are no longer individual styles, and it is here
that the idea of "pastiche" or "intertextuality" come into play. From
a modern perspective, employing the ideas or methods of another person
is considered either parody or plagiarism; Postmodernism, however,
views this as a perfectly valid way to convey an idea or impression
(Jameson, 1983; Kaplan, 1988). Concepts or techniques are no longer
the property of the originator, to be jealously guarded. Instead they
have become a contribution to art in general, to be used and abused as
anyone sees fit. Within a postmodernist film, for example, one might
find an allusion to Citizen Kane by use of specific camera angles, or
entire lines of dialogue lifted from Chinatown and placed in a new
context. This is neither plagiarism nor parody, but intertextuality;
the recombination of idiosyncratic characteristics of old texts into
new texts, for no other purposes than to evoke/provoke ideas,
sensations, memories, or emotions in the intended audience.
Postmodernism, then, has a sense of nostalgia about it. While this
might seem paradoxical in a critical scheme dedicated to dismantling
popular culture, it is a logical extension of intertextuality. The
texts being referenced, after all, must come from the past. Even
references to the future, as Jameson points out, still ultimately come
from the past; Star Wars was not an idea conjured out of the blue;
aliens, heroes, heroines in distress, laser rays, weapons of mass
destruction and evil villains are all standard characteristics of the
Saturday afternoon Buck Rogers-type serials that were standard fare for
those growing up between the 1930s and 1950s. This sense of nostalgia
often permeates, whether intentionally or otherwise, postmodernist
texts (Jameson, 1984; Polan, 1988).
Postmodernism as a critical system is useful because it allows us to
analyze contemporary texts not from a historical viewpoint, but instead
from a perspective that was developed in during roughly the same time
period (and based entirely on the social, cultural, and intellectual
tendencies of said period). Further, it provides a platform from which
other types of critical analysis (feminism, etc.) may be performed.
Postmodernism helps explain contemporary textual structures and
tendencies, which would be difficult to explain from other
perspectives; This is perhaps its greatest strength.
References
Jameson, F. (1984). Postmodernism and consumer society. Port Townsend,
WA: Bay Press.
Kaplan, E. A. (1988). Postmodernism and its discontents. New York:
Verso.
Lippard, L. (1980). Sex and death and shock and schlock: A long review
of "The Times Square Show." Artforum, 5, 6-15.
Lyotard, Jean-François. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on
knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Polan, D. (1988). Postmodern and cultural analysis today. In E. A.
Kaplan (Ed.), Postmodernism and its discontents. New York: Verso.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> Hey all, this is part of a larger critical analysis that I'm doing. My
> assignment was to describe pomo in 3 pages or less. I thought I'd throw
> it up here as well, so that everyone can pick it apart and tell me how
> much it sucks (which, admittedly, it does -- fortunately my instructor
> doesn't know enough about the subject to do anything about it!)
>
> Peace,
> Ob.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Simplifying to the extreme," wrote Jean-François Lyotard, "I
> define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives" (1984). This
> statement is indeed a great simplification of a complex body of
> critical thought, but it will serve well as a starting point. The
> metanarratives to which Lyotard refers derive primarily from the
> modernism movement, which had shaped society for nearly a hundred years
> previously. An inevitable child of Romanticism and the technological
> advances of the late 1800s and early 1900s, modernism was characterized
> by a need for progress, change, and social revolution. This movement
> supposedly exhausted itself somewhere around 1960, and since that time
> has only been feigning stability in the form of simulations, or
> simplistic recreations of modernist society. Postmodernism represents
You should go read the Introduction by Arthur Drexler to
_Five Architects_ (Oxford Univ. Press?). It's very direct about
the progress postmodernism has made to go beyond the ideology
of progress!
> the process of taking apart and analyzing the effects that this
> movement has had on popular culture; it is a sort of post-mortem
> analysis of a now defunct, progress-based society (Jameson, 1983;
> Kaplan, 1988; Polan, 1988).
> It begins this analysis by doing away with even the most fundamental
> processes of the status quo. The traditional Western binarisms
> (black/white, male/female, primitive/advanced, etc.), for example, are
> brought into question. The "positioning," or categorization according
> to race, class, gender, etc., of previously established metanarratives
> is destroyed and everyone is assumed to start over from zero (Kaplan,
> 1988).
> One effect of this is that the barriers between "high art" and popular
> culture have been eroded to a point where the two areas begin to merge,
> and each one takes on the characteristics of the other.
B-llsh-t! Jenny Holzer gets a lot of money and fame
for doing the kind of stuff I can't get any for -- not
to mention the fate of coal miners in Appalachia, et al....
> This is
> particularly disturbing from an academic standpoint, as academia itself
> is founded on the binary values of high and low, elitist versus
> philistine (Lippard, 1980; Jameson 1983). When these dichotomies are
> broken down, we find such things as the so-called Pop Art movement, in
> which high art portrays low artistic subjects (or is it that low art is
> portrayed using high artistic methods?).
You miss the main dichotomy in academe: Between tenured professors
and everybody else: adjunct faculty, students, janitors....
> Another traditional binary that is dismantled by postmodernism is that
> of society/individual. From a traditional modern/Western/status quo
> perspective, society is the norm, and individuals are measured by their
> adherence to or divergence from that norm: Authors are remembered for
> their literary quirks, painters for their innovative visual styles, and
> thinkers for their new ideas. The concept of individuality is central
> to modern criticism. Postmodernism, however, removes the distinction
> between individual and society, and with it, the idea that an artist's
> technique is to be measured against some imaginary norm. If there is
> no norm, then there are no longer individual styles, and it is here
> that the idea of "pastiche" or "intertextuality" come into play. From
> a modern perspective, employing the ideas or methods of another person
> is considered either parody or plagiarism; Postmodernism, however,
> views this as a perfectly valid way to convey an idea or impression
> (Jameson, 1983; Kaplan, 1988). Concepts or techniques are no longer
> the property of the originator, to be jealously guarded.
Let's publish Derida's books and see if he doesn't sue us for
copyright infringement!
> Instead they
> have become a contribution to art in general, to be used and abused as
> anyone sees fit. Within a postmodernist film, for example, one might
> find an allusion to Citizen Kane by use of specific camera angles, or
> entire lines of dialogue lifted from Chinatown and placed in a new
> context. This is neither plagiarism nor parody, but intertextuality;
> the recombination of idiosyncratic characteristics of old texts into
> new texts, for no other purposes than to evoke/provoke ideas,
> sensations, memories, or emotions in the intended audience.
The deconstruction of boureois norms is a hallmark of high
*modernism". Duchamp is well-known. Hermann Broch deconstructed
"romanticism" (and other things) in his great novel: _The Sleepwalkers_
(1929-32).
> Postmodernism, then, has a sense of nostalgia about it.
Now you're "cooking"! "Nostalgia" wasn't exactly an honorific
in modernism, since modernists disn't consider the past to be
such a great place. Ernst Bloch's _The Principle of Hope_ is
a not so well known but landmark text here (see the epigraph
from Bloch at the top of my homepage:
http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
.) (<-- this is not a "smiley", or a Magritte....)
> While this
> might seem paradoxical in a critical scheme dedicated to dismantling
> popular culture, it is a logical extension of intertextuality. The
> texts being referenced, after all, must come from the past. Even
> references to the future, as Jameson points out, still ultimately come
> from the past;
Wow! Heidegger and Husserl wrote about human temporeity in the
20s and 30s....
> Star Wars was not an idea conjured out of the blue;
> aliens, heroes, heroines in distress, laser rays, weapons of mass
> destruction and evil villains are all standard characteristics of the
> Saturday afternoon Buck Rogers-type serials that were standard fare for
> those growing up between the 1930s and 1950s.
Star Wars: Techno-feudalism in flying fortresses (not B-17s, either!).
The banality of computer science PhD programs....
> This sense of nostalgia
> often permeates, whether intentionally or otherwise, postmodernist
> texts (Jameson, 1984; Polan, 1988).
You don't mean these people really wish they were
modernists, living in an age that still aspired to be modern,
do you? ("The return of the repressed", "Projection", etc.)
> Postmodernism as a critical system is useful because it allows us to
> analyze contemporary texts not from a historical viewpoint, but instead
> from a perspective that was developed in during roughly the same time
> period (and based entirely on the social, cultural, and intellectual
> tendencies of said period).
What time period? Or do you mean that postmodernism
enables us to deconstruct postmodern texts (and their
authors' sources of income)?
> Further, it provides a platform from which
> other types of critical analysis (feminism, etc.) may be performed.
Critical analysis or new orthodoxies? (probably both-and,
but I think more attention needs to be paid to the latter....)
> Postmodernism helps explain contemporary textual structures and
> tendencies, which would be difficult to explain from other
> perspectives; This is perhaps its greatest strength.
Marxism, psychoanalysis, sociology of knowledge and other
tools which were constitutive of high modernism might
also be brought to bear....
As Bruno Latour said: We have never yet been
really modern.
\brad mccormick
[snip]
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / bra...@cloud9.net
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Obelix
new sources as well.
What about pomo did I leave out, and what did I put in that I shouldn't
have?
To everyone else: Please feel free to tear this paper apart as much as
possible...I have a revision of it due in a few weeks, so all the input
I get would be much appreciated! :o)
Ob.
ROBBIE
Obelix
It can actually take quite a lot of work to incorprorate something from
another text into the one that you are creating; More work, at least,
than it would to simply make something up yourself.
The incorporation of elements from a variety of sources is fundamental
to postmodernism. Perhaps it is a result of being bombarded by texts
from the media, a side-effect of progress.
Ob.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
I saw your return address and realized that would
be hopeless. My hypothesis is: anybody who means
to do me harm will probably make the effort to find me
no matter how much I try to disguise myself, but
making it difficult for people to contact me may
cause someone with just a little good will toward
me to *not bother*. Think about it.
Obelix wrote:
>
> That was very helpful...got lots of new ideas flowing, and ideas for
> new sources as well.
You are bewing very clever in getting us all to help
you write a better paper.
>
> What about pomo did I leave out, and what did I put in that I shouldn't
> have?
Well, you might read some stuff, e.g., a *very* shot book:
_Deconstruction in a Nutshell_, by Derrida (John Caputo, editor) (1997).
It's quite interesting (as least it would be for someone on your
assignment).
>
> To everyone else: Please feel free to tear this paper apart as much as
> possible...I have a revision of it due in a few weeks, so all the input
> I get would be much appreciated! :o)
You are a phoenix!
>
> Ob.
\brad mccormick
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> The concept of intertextuality does not derive from "fucking laziness."
> It can actually take quite a lot of work to incorprorate something from
> another text into the one that you are creating; More work, at least,
> than it would to simply make something up yourself.
Write what you feel you need to write. And there
simply is no such thing as "make something up yourself" --
whatever you write will follow the models and examples
of your life's experience with language (which doesn't
mean you can't contribute something "new", but only that
all novelty is re-new-al, not groundless creation ex
nihilo).
>
> The incorporation of elements from a variety of sources is fundamental
> to postmodernism. Perhaps it is a result of being bombarded by texts
> from the media, a side-effect of progress.
Modernism incorporated elements from various sources, too.
There was a lot of Japanese influence on European modernism, e.g.
Or Picasso's (and others') interest in African art around the
turn of the last century....
I listened to a taped lecture today by someone who
tried to make Derrida sound like Gadamer....
ROBBIE
Obelix wrote in message <000b8d9b...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>...
>The concept of intertextuality does not derive from "fucking laziness."
>It can actually take quite a lot of work to incorprorate something from
>another text into the one that you are creating; More work, at least,
>than it would to simply make something up yourself
Rubbish
.
>
>The incorporation of elements from a variety of sources is fundamental
>to postmodernism. Perhaps it is a result of being bombarded by texts
>from the media, a side-effect of progress.
>
>Ob.
ROBBIE
Brad, as the Beatles said: 'yeah, yeah, yeah'
But, and here's where me and modern art diverge
Some people 'Make things up' better than others.
Herman Melville 'made up' 'renewed' or 'wrote' or recycled his experiences
with language and the metanarrative better than John Grisham.
Rembrandt ditto better than installation artist.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote in message <381F7F...@cloud9.net>...
>Obelix wrote:
>>
>> The concept of intertextuality does not derive from "fucking laziness."
>> It can actually take quite a lot of work to incorprorate something from
>> another text into the one that you are creating; More work, at least,
>> than it would to simply make something up yourself.
>
>Write what you feel you need to write. And there
>simply is no such thing as "make something up yourself" --
>whatever you write will follow the models and examples
>of your life's experience with language (which doesn't
>mean you can't contribute something "new", but only that
>all novelty is re-new-al, not groundless creation ex
>nihilo).
>
>>
>> The incorporation of elements from a variety of sources is fundamental
>> to postmodernism. Perhaps it is a result of being bombarded by texts
>> from the media, a side-effect of progress.
>
WinnerEJ
>with language and the metanarrative better than John Grisham.
>
>ROBBIE
Yes, it is a curiosity that Melvile's writing is often more "off the wall" and
"out there" than much - actually all - of what calls itself fiction today. The
"post-modern" ought to mean being able to experience rality from a multiplicity
of perspectives, as theorists like Deleuze suggest - which is what Melville
accomplished... Yet the po-mo masses seem more and more to demand similitude...
By the way, one of the few people to take 'intertextuality" seriously as a
creative act happens to be Paul Metcalf, Melville's grandson. He takes old
(19th c.) newspaper and journal articles and cuts-and-pastes them into single
narratives. When a friend of mine asked him why he did this he said he had
tried writing fiction, found it boring, and developed his style as a kind of
literary collage which was simply more fun, while helping him understand the
historical mind a little better.
- winner
AJ Irons
WinnerEJ wrote:
Burroughs cut-up experiments just need to be mentioned here.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
Speaking of the relations between great writers, their progeny, and
language, the son of the person I consider the greatest writer
of this century -- Hermann Broch -- earned his living as a
*simultaneous translator*.
Solomon Buccola
: Some people 'Make things up' better than others.
: Herman Melville 'made up' 'renewed' or 'wrote' or recycled his experiences
: with language and the metanarrative better than John Grisham.
: Rembrandt ditto better than installation artist.
I think to understand the idea you shouldnt compare Melville and Grisham.
Instead compare one of the originators of abstract art with some of its
contemporary practicioners. There are a lot of good artists these days
(more than ever before in my opinion), but they arent doing something
revolutionary such as abandoning representation. Once we stop continually
rejecting past understandings and modes of communication, cases start to
arise in which what someone else has said or made is the right thing to
say or make. In such cases it is appropriate to quote so that we are
reminded of continuity/stasis.
The problem with Grisham, I suppose (I havent read him), is not that he
doesnt recreate very much or that he imitates too much, its that he doesnt
say very much at all.
Did I get the argument right?
WinnerEJ
>Instead compare one of the originators of abstract art with some of its
>contemporary practicioners. There are a lot of good artists these days
>(more than ever before in my opinion), but they arent doing something
>revolutionary such as abandoning representation. Once we stop continually
>rejecting past understandings and modes of communication, cases start to
>arise in which what someone else has said or made is the right thing to
>say or make. In such cases it is appropriate to quote so that we are
>reminded of continuity/stasis.
>
>The problem with Grisham, I suppose (I havent read him), is not that he
>doesnt recreate very much or that he imitates too much, its that he doesnt
>say very much at all.
>
>Did I get the argument right?
Yeah, I think that's been the point of the thread all along. Obelix's reading
of post-modernity is pretty much on the money, at least given the academic
setting he places it in; but the issue that arose was whether post-modern
"intertextuality" is *inherently* a valuable strategy, and I think you were
pointing out that it is not. It is simply *A* strategy that might have its
value or might not, given the assumptions and (for lack of a better word)
talents of the artist. And I agree.
But consider the case of Stephen King: a friend of mine, who in the '80's
happened to write horror fiction for a living, pointed out that whenever the
"scary thing" happened, King drops a line like: "Remember when you were a kid
and watching the karloff 'Frankenstein' for the first time on TV and he
appeared at last in the doorway, and how frightened you were?" (not a direct
quote, but I have no King on hand at the moment). In otherwords, King
shamelessly references the previous work of horror fiction and horror films and
pop-cultural experiences per se, not to create an insight, but simply to direct
the responses of his readers - "this is how you should feel" is the implicit
suggestion of such a reference - and it is cheap, and it is lazy. (One reason
King is so prolific, his books are actually easy to write, since they simply
manipulate prior pop-cultural experiences of his audience.)
And similarly we find such "intertextuality" among academics - books
quoting books about books, simply to get the tenure, with no particular insight
to offer.
But as you admit and I think I tried to imply and brad tried tried to
clarify, since "intertextuality" is simply another strategy, it is entirely
possible to use it honestly and refreshingly.
What post- modernity has added to the mix - contrary to Obelix's optimism
- is a cynical irony in respect to creative thinking or writing. In other
words a committed "post-modernist" in the academy might really hold that honest
and refreshing writing is impossible now, that all we can do is pile quote upon
quote... That's the attitude that Obelix recognizes as "nostalgia" - such
cynicism is based on the assumption that what came before is always better than
what we have today.
Well, maybe it was in some respects; in others maybe not. I finally
overcame nostalgia by accepting difference non-judgmentally. For instance, a
campy satire of Victorian melodrama doesn't effect me any more because I allow
that the Victorians lived in their world, and we live in ours. This acceptance
doesn't need the cynical irony/nostalgia of academic "post-modernism". It just
needs an open mind.
-ej winner
Obelix
> Yeah, I think that's been the point of the thread all along.
> Obelix's reading of post-modernity is pretty much on the money, at
> least given the academic setting he places it in; but the issue that
> arose was whether post-modern "intertextuality" is *inherently* a
> valuable strategy, and I think you were pointing out that it is not.
> It is simply *A* strategy that might have its value or might not,
> given the assumptions and (for lack of a better word) talents of the
> artist. And I agree.
My impression of the concept of intertextuality is not that it is
necessarily a techniqued employed by artists/writers/whatever, but that
it is a natural development of what might be called the "postmodern
condition." The PC, as well as I have been able to understand it,
seems to be the result of modernism burnout. All the progress, all the
technological developments have been bombarding us with a plethora of
widely varying, even often contradictory messages. Our brains have
become a jumble of vaguely (or un-) related ideas. This comes out in
many works created in the so-called postmodern period. It's the MTV
mentality, I guess you might say. Rapidly changing, unrelated images
replace vast metanarratives. Where once a person might sit down to read
a novel for several consecutive hours, they now sit down to watch three
or four sitcoms, all with different characters and stories, and all
broken up by commercials having nothing to do with anything. We have
become accustomed to this state of reality, this postmodern condition,
and because our brains have adapted to it we now (consciously or
unconsciously) incorporate it into nearly everything we do.
Intertextuality is most obvious when it is used consciously (an example
would be a movie like _the Matrix_), but in some way it is present in
nearly every work created in the past fifty or so years. It is simply a
reflection of how we think, not a technique to be employed for dramatic
effect.
> But consider the case of Stephen King: a friend of mine, who
> in the '80's happened to write horror fiction for a living, pointed
> out that whenever the "scary thing" happened, King drops a line
> like: "Remember when you were a kid and watching the
> karloff 'Frankenstein' for the first time on TV and he appeared at
> last in the doorway, and how frightened you were?" (not a direct
> quote, but I have no King on hand at the moment). In otherwords,
> King shamelessly references the previous work of horror fiction and
> horror films and pop-cultural experiences per se, not to create an
> insight, but simply to direct the responses of his readers - "this is
> how you should feel" is the implicit suggestion of such a reference -
> and it is cheap, and it is lazy. (One reason King is so prolific, his
> books are actually easy to write, since they simply manipulate prior
> pop-cultural experiences of his audience.)
Pop culture is vital to postmodern analysis, because it is from this
"low culture" that we get most of our ideas, beliefs, and emotions. One
of the many premises of postmodernism is that there is nothing really
"real" left...everything is simply a simulation of some ideal past that
we have invented. Because of this, there can never really be a new,
innovative text; It's just a rehash of texts from the past, because
this is all we have left to draw upon.
Few people still know what nature is like, for example. When you read
a novel with a beautiful description of the forest, it usually comes
from some guy living in L.A. whose real experiences with nature don't
go beyond the local poorly-maintained city park. Instead, that
description is based on previous descriptions, which in turn were based
on previous descriptions. The authors who actually write what they
experience are few and far-between; Nearly everyone is simply adding to
the simulation, and further distancing it from reality. The reader, who
has likely never seen nature either, doesn't know the difference, and
in fact may come to *prefer* the simulation (which is familiar) to
reality.
Have you ever eaten at a European McDonald's? Their hamburgers are
completely different because they don't buy into the same simulations
as do Americans. A British Big Mac is much less greasy, less salty than
an American one. One could attribute this to varying tastes and then
dismiss it, but it goes a little further: The American hamburger can
no longer ever be hamburger meat on a bun. It has to be more. It has to
be greasier, saltier, more savory; It has to be a simulation of the
real thing, because nobody knows what the real thing is like anymore.
> And similarly we find such "intertextuality" among academics
> - books quoting books about books, simply to get the tenure, with no
> particular insight to offer.
This is disturbingly true, I have noticed. The people who are
determining what we consider to be "true" are old guys sitting in their
offices all day combining ideas from other old guys who sat in their
offices all day, who did the same thing, and so on and so forth.
Academic reality is a simulation as well. Who knows what lies outside
those campus walls, outside of charts and data tables?
> But as you admit and I think I tried to imply and brad tried
> tried to clarify, since "intertextuality" is simply another strategy,
> it is entirely possible to use it honestly and refreshingly. What
> post- modernity has added to the mix - contrary to Obelix's optimism
> - is a cynical irony in respect to creative thinking or writing.
Hehehe I didn't think I was being particularly optimistic :o) But oh
well...
Still, I hold that intertextuality is not so much a strategy as it is a
quality or characteristic of writing that has emerged as a result of
the effects of modernism.
> In other words a committed "post-modernist" in the academy might
> really hold that honest and refreshing writing is impossible now,
> that all we can do is pile quote upon quote... That's the attitude
> that Obelix recognizes as "nostalgia" - such cynicism is based on
> the assumption that what came before is always better than
> what we have today.
And this can be found not only in literary or artistic circles, but
like almost all other aspects of postmodernism, is simply a reflection
of society in general. The tendency to talk about the "family values"
of the past is a good example of this; Families were never wonderful,
happy units -- this is just the simulation based on media
interpretations of the past, which now (as far as everyone is
concerned) is the reality....
> Well, maybe it was in some respects; in others maybe not. I
> finally overcame nostalgia by accepting difference non-judgmentally.
> For instance, a campy satire of Victorian melodrama doesn't effect me
> any more because I allow that the Victorians lived in their world,
> and we live in ours.
Likewise I overcame nostalgia (at least partially) by actually
researching the past and realizing that it was completely different
from what most people accept it as being. It is very, very hard to see
through the simulation, but once you do, you begin to realize how
terrifyingly fake everything is.
> This acceptance doesn't need the cynical irony/nostalgia of academic
> "post-modernism". It just needs an open mind.
Is acceptance the best thing, though?
ROBBIE
Solomon Buccola wrote in message ...
>ROBBIE (NI...@NICKBOOTH.FREESERVE.CO.UK) wrote:
>
>: Some people 'Make things up' better than others.
>
>: Herman Melville 'made up' 'renewed' or 'wrote' or recycled his
experiences
>: with language and the metanarrative better than John Grisham.
>
>: Rembrandt ditto better than installation artist.
>
>
>Instead compare one of the originators of abstract art with some of its
>contemporary practicioners. There are a lot of good artists these days
I can't agree with that. Contemporary art is in a completely parlous
condition. The reason for this is *maybe* we are moving into a world where
art, as it has always been defined, is no longer necessary. We live in such
an over designed, over packaged landscape, that people don't need aesthetic
thrills from art. They've got their cars, with perfectly flowing lines, they
got T.V they got, PCs , they got graphics. Art galleries are popular, but
not because of an interest in art, it's just because it's in vogue.
Installation art, abstract art, figurative art, the whole lot, is just
wallowing around in the dog days of the fag end of modernism. The ideas are
getting smaller, more puerile. Art will have to get back to the grand themes
and the metanarratives if it's gonna survive. At the moment it's hardly
worth talking about.
>(more than ever before in my opinion)
Well, we can thank Andy Warhol for that. I like Warhol's take on it all, but
I don't like the shit that's come after.
, but they arent doing something
>revolutionary such as abandoning representation. Once we stop continually
>rejecting past understandings and modes of communication, cases start to
>arise in which what someone else has said or made is the right thing to
>say or make. In such cases it is appropriate to quote so that we are
>reminded of continuity/stasis.
>
>The problem with Grisham, I suppose (I havent read him), is not that he
>doesnt recreate very much or that he imitates too much, its that he doesnt
>say very much at all.
The novel is also in it's dog days.
WinnerEJ
to Robbie; Talk about lazy intertextuality!
I agree with everything Obelix has written up to the point where
>One
>of the many premises of postmodernism is that there is nothing really
>"real" left...everything is simply a simulation of some ideal past that
>we have invented. Because of this, there can never really be a new,
>innovative text; It's just a rehash of texts from the past, because
>this is all we have left to draw upon.
If I buy into that premise, as I think Obelix is, then I would see our
situation as an entrapment; culture has so exhausted itself and lied to us,
that there is nothing further but the ruins to rummage through.>I overcame
nostalgia (at least partially) by actually
>researching the past and realizing that it was completely different
>from what most people accept it as being. It is very, very hard to see
>through the simulation, but once you do, you begin to realize how
>terrifyingly fake everything is.
>
I'm reminded of the closing scene of the film "Falling Down" where Robert
Duval's retiring cop at last confronts the gone-over-the-edge divorcee Michael
Douglas. Duval wonders how Douglas got-that-a-way, and Douglas says because
society is nothing but a tissue of lies; to which Duval responds: "That's it?
you're angry because they lied to you? Hell, they lie to everybody!"
Duval's character remains sane, despite the growing insanity of his own
wife, let alone the world around him, because he understands that lying is the
quasi-ontology of contemporary culture, there's no way to avoid it and remain
pure, you simply let it roll off your back and keep going, because the
alternative is insanity or death.
Is acceptance the solution? no, especially if you mean resignation. But
accepting the fact that the "they" of this world will simply lie to you in the
current era, is a starting point.
Perhaps the real issue here is our two differing approaches to the
problem. I think Obelix is still trying to come to grips with the post-modern;
I'm more concerned with surviving it, and retaining my values and sense of
dignity in the process. Thus every move on the playing field becomes a
strategy or tactic; no matter what is claimed, there is no necessary impulsion
to proceed in anyone direction. There is no "no alternatives" here,
- that's one of the lies, remember?
- ej winner.
Obelix
> If I buy into that premise, as I think Obelix is, then I would see
> our situation as an entrapment; culture has so exhausted itself and
> lied to us, that there is nothing further but the ruins to rummage
> through.
I think that there *is* a reality left, but we just have to work on
breaking through the illusion to get at it (which is a difficult
process, and often leaves us in a world that is unfamiliar from the one
to which we've grown accustomed). Marriage will always be real, even if
"Marriage" is a media-generated illusion. Religion will always concern
humans, even if "Religion" fails to satisfy us. And a Hamburger will
always be a tasty sandwich, even if "Hamburgers" are giving people
heart attacks on a regular basis. :o) The situation isn't hopeless, by
any means, just difficult; Life with quotation marks is so tempting, so
easy....
> I'm reminded of the closing scene of the film "Falling Down" where
> Robert Duval's retiring cop at last confronts the gone-over-the-edge
> divorcee Michael Douglas. Duval wonders how Douglas got-that-a-way,
> and Douglas says because society is nothing but a tissue of lies; to
> which Duval responds: "That's it? you're angry because they lied to
> you? Hell, they lie to everybody!"
> Duval's character remains sane, despite the growing insanity
> of his own wife, let alone the world around him, because he
> understands that lying is the quasi-ontology of contemporary culture,
> there's no way to avoid it and remain pure, you simply let it roll
> off your back and keep going, because the alternative is insanity or
> death.
This is a very good example, and I agree whole-heartedly with your
point. Once we figure out that we're stuck in this "postmodern
condition," then what?
A zen master and his disciple are sitting in a field meditating, when
on the horizon there is a great rumbling and a cloud of dust. As they
open their eyes to see what is going on, they find that a stampede of
elephants is heading toward them.
"Let's get out of here," says the Zen master.
"But, master, the elephants are just _maya_, illusion. They cannot
really harm us. We should stay and overcome our wordly fears, should we
not?"
"I know that, and you know that, but the elephants don't know that!"
> Is acceptance the solution? no, especially if you mean
> resignation. But accepting the fact that the "they" of this world
> will simply lie to you in the current era, is a starting point.
I have some friends who are rather paranoid about the American
government, and are constantly bringing me news of various conspiracies
and corruptions; And they are constantly taken aback when I respond
with "Yeah? so?" It's not that I don't realize the terrible things our
government is doing, it's that I've come to understand that it's pretty
much just a given. In the same way, we can't let ourselves run around
being paranoid about the postmodern condition. Instead we should
simply learn about it, understand it, and get over it.
> Perhaps the real issue here is our two differing approaches
> to the problem. I think Obelix is still trying to come to grips with
> the post-modern; I'm more concerned with surviving it, and retaining
> my values and sense of dignity in the process. Thus every move on
> the playing field becomes a strategy or tactic; no matter what is
> claimed, there is no necessary impulsion to proceed in anyone
> direction. There is no "no alternatives" here, - that's one of the
> lies, remember?
I agree, more or less, with this assessment. I am still trying to learn
about postmodernism and how it works. I'm currently taking a
fascinating class (the only interesting one I've had in quite a few
years) on critical analysis of popular culture, and it was in this
class that I was first exposed to these ideas. Most of the people in
the class dismissed it as mumbo-jumbo, but something clicked inside of
me, and I had to learn more about it. I am certainly not claiming to
be an authority on the subject. If I argue with anyone about a topic,
it's just because that's how I learn best, by testing ideas against
each other. :o)
And I want to thank everyone who has responded to my initial posting,
because it has been quite helpful in helping me understand!
Jim Elson
<obelix3...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Hey all, this is part of a larger critical analysis that I'm doing. My
>assignment was to describe pomo in 3 pages or less. I thought I'd throw
>it up here as well, so that everyone can pick it apart and tell me how
>much it sucks (which, admittedly, it does -- fortunately my instructor
>doesn't know enough about the subject to do anything about it!)
If this is an undergraduate paper, I find no major problem
with it. It's a defensible and fairly standard perspective.
(Now let me drop the other shoe.)
I could define postmodernism as a set of very hetergeneous
strategies which in aggregate result in an increasing
breakdown in the rhetoric persuasiveness of the central
themes and notion of Western thought since Plato.
Often these strategies stop short of their functional
teleology. IMHO, Gianni Vatimo is quite worthy of reading
in this regard since he does not shrink from confronting
head-on the nihilism to which these destructive strategies
lead.
I consider this destruction as necessary if we intend to
move beyond the metaphysics and dualism upon which the
tradition was founded. It's been said that Western
philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato, but it would
be more descriptive to say a continious series of
plastering-over of logical gaps and inconsistencies.
The main question I have is the destruction complete enough
that we can begin to construct anew? For the "moldy figs
and metaphysical prigs" the answer is clearly no; their
bulwarks have been shaked, but they remain entrenched. And
those post-modernism who shrink from the nihilism to which
their strategies must ultimately lead, I think construction
would be an untimely activity.
Obelix
Post-Modernism: Destruction (Deconstruction)
Post-Post-Modernism: Construction again
Post-Modernism is not a conclusion to anything, just a stage through
which society must pass, just like all other stage
Does that sound right?
Jim Elson
<obelix3...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Modernism: Construction
>Post-Modernism: Destruction (Deconstruction)
>Post-Post-Modernism: Construction again
>
>Post-Modernism is not a conclusion to anything, just a stage through
>which society must pass, just like all other stage
>
>Does that sound right?
Close. IMHO, the term "postmodernism" is seen a bit of a
misnomer when it is recognized that "modernism" is the
latest attempt to plaster-over the problems inherent in the
Platonic inheritance.
"The construction again" phase is a bit misleading since
it suggests that the destruction followed by construction is
part of a smooth evolutionary process. However, it's much
more radical than that. it's analogous to speciation. The
Platonically founded "species" of thought has reached an
evolutionary dead-end and a discretely different "species"
of thought is required.
Solomon Buccola
: misnomer when it is recognized that "modernism" is the
: latest attempt to plaster-over the problems inherent in the
: Platonic inheritance.
What is it about Plato that you think postmodernism rejects? Do you have a
particular book or author in mind when you contrast Platonism to
postmodernsim. I dont see how pomo is more radical rejection of platonism
than a lot of other things?
-Solomon
WinnerEJ
>-Solomon
I I can't speak for Jim elson, But IMHO "The Republic" is a ranking piece of
garbage; Aristotle recognized it and spent much of his own work on ethics and
politics correcting the mistakes in that text. And yet when you stop and think
of it, almost every Modrnist utopia or political project has been based on its
principles and directed toward making it a possibility. Puh-leeze!
So of course in the post-mod era we're now free to stop that fantasy and maybe
comeup with one less eluitist, less highly organized, more responsive to real
people's needs. I hope.
-Winner
(PS - other texts by P. are great sport; but as he got older he just got
stuffier and stuffier...)
Gerry Quinn
>
>Close. IMHO, the term "postmodernism" is seen a bit of a
>misnomer when it is recognized that "modernism" is the
>latest attempt to plaster-over the problems inherent in the
>Platonic inheritance.
>
>"The construction again" phase is a bit misleading since
>it suggests that the destruction followed by construction is
>part of a smooth evolutionary process. However, it's much
>more radical than that. it's analogous to speciation. The
>Platonically founded "species" of thought has reached an
>evolutionary dead-end and a discretely different "species"
>of thought is required.
>
That a popular but quite incorrect notion of evolutionary theory forms
the framework for your thoughts demonstrates not only the nugget of
truth in postmodernism, but its essential uselessness.
- Gerry Quinn
James Whitehead
<obelix3...@hotmail.com.invalid> writes
>Modernism: Construction
>Post-Modernism: Destruction (Deconstruction)
>Post-Post-Modernism: Construction again
>
>Post-Modernism is not a conclusion to anything, just a stage through
>which society must pass, just like all other stage
>
>Does that sound right?
>
>
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
what whatever- post-modernism is what happens after the credits.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<mgbu...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes
>Jim Elson (jel...@yossman.net) wrote:
>
>: misnomer when it is recognized that "modernism" is the
>: latest attempt to plaster-over the problems inherent in the
>: Platonic inheritance.
>
>particular book or author in mind when you contrast Platonism to
>postmodernsim. I dont see how pomo is more radical rejection of platonism
>than a lot of other things?
>
>-Solomon
twentieth century fox with the music and searchlights- and a feeling
that something is going to happen. So here we see plato as the key- its
a film!
--
James Whitehead
WinnerEJ
>twentieth century fox with the music and searchlights- and a feeling
>that something is going to happen. So here we see plato as the key- its
>a film!
>--
>James Whitehead
Good analogy.
Part I: Plato's Republic: Adventures of Luke Skywalker - Let the Philosophers
rule and all will be well!
Part II: The Empire Strikes Back: Monologicism becomes Monotheism: The
"Philosdophers" discover God (and Feudalism).
Part III: Return of the Jedi: The Bourgeosie revolt and reclaim the Republic
as their own! We all clasp hands at the United Nations while the 3rd world
Ewoks dance joyfully about us, and the spirit of Plato looks down and smiles!
- You can probably guess why I won't go see "The Phantom Menace".
"Do we really have to do it all over again?/ didn't we get it right./ the
first time?"
- Peter Tork, the Monkees, "Head" soundtrack.
- Winner
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
> In article <0a0133f8...@usw-ex0106-043.remarq.com>, Obelix
> <obelix3...@hotmail.com.invalid> writes
> >Modernism: Construction
> >Post-Modernism: Destruction (Deconstruction)
> >Post-Post-Modernism: Construction again
Modernism had a strong "deconstructive" component: It
deconstructed Victorianism, including, among other things:
prudery about sex, pastiche-ism (Beaux Arts) in architecture,
maudlin sentimentality in painting and sculpture,
patriotism ("Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori
on the Western Front")....
It would be nice if post-post-modernism proves to be a
re-new-al of construction, informed by all the things that
have happened both in our own past and also in all the
other "cultures" (semiotic petri dishes) that have
existed on earth.
> >
> >Post-Modernism is not a conclusion to anything, just a stage through
> >which society must pass, just like all other stage
There can be no conclusion other than the anti-/a-logical
conclusions of death or ceasing to be interested
in questioning, etc.... For any "conclusion" can be made
the object of a new question. Of course there is a
sense in which *this realization* can be considered
unsurpassable -- but that is precisely what the
best of the spirit of European culture has been about
for some time now: awareness of self as
self-reflection on awareness of self as self-reflecting....
> >
> >Does that sound right?
Would it sound right to Paul deMeaning? Jenny Black Holeser?
The great architect Robert Am Moving Astern? Etc.
James Whitehead
<bra...@cloud9.net> writes
>There can be no conclusion other than the anti-/a-logical
>conclusions of death or ceasing to be interested
>in questioning, etc.... For any "conclusion" can be made
>the object of a new question. Of course there is a
>sense in which *this realization* can be considered
>unsurpassable -- but that is precisely what the
>best of the spirit of European culture has been about
>for some time now: awareness of self as
>self-reflection on awareness of self as self-reflecting....
whatever are arbitrary - high art and disney become one and the same-
the difference between modernism and po-mo for me was that modernism had
a philosophy, an avant garde- im now in a world where anything new is
old-fashioned. You could focus your essay on the works of derrida et al,
but it just as interesting and significant to see the re-introduction
of the belfast sink (a Victorian ceramic basin) into the fitted kitchen-
which has no need of it - this is deeply ironic. The optimism of some
coming after po-mo is a modernist legacy, but these days such optimists
resemble headless chickens.
--
James Whitehead
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> In article <38246B...@cloud9.net>, Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
> <bra...@cloud9.net> writes
> >There can be no conclusion other than the anti-/a-logical
> >conclusions of death or ceasing to be interested
> >in questioning, etc.... For any "conclusion" can be made
> >the object of a new question. Of course there is a
> >sense in which *this realization* can be considered
> >unsurpassable -- but that is precisely what the
> >best of the spirit of European culture has been about
> >for some time now: awareness of self as
> >self-reflection on awareness of self as self-reflecting....
> i think this misses the ironic element of po-mo - that conclusions or
> whatever are arbitrary - high art and disney become one and the same-
I agree that in our culture high art and Disney have,
if not become one-and-the-same, at least highly converged.
However, both high art and Disney still are radically
differentiated from everything which is not *funded*,
be it the drawings of a Hitler or some unrecognized
masterpiece or whatever.
Surely irony has a place, but I think it is always
an equivocal one. I here am reminded of
something Elias Canetti quoted from a diary found
in the rubble somewhere in World War II, which, for
me, stands as an example of what Canetti titled
his book, _The Conscience of Words_:
But everything is over.
If I was really a writer
I would have been able to prevent the war.
Contrast this with the Arthur Drexler's [postmodernist]
Introduction to _Five Architects_....
> the difference between modernism and po-mo for me was that modernism had
> a philosophy, an avant garde- im now in a world where anything new is
> old-fashioned.
Sounds like you need a *paradigm shift* -- and not just
any trans*form*ation, but a trans*figur*ation! Robert Musil's
_The Man Without Qualities_, and Hermann Broch's
_The Sleepwalkers_ and _The Death
of Virgil_ (for just a couple examples) are still in print....
> You could focus your essay on the works of derrida et al,
my "essay"? what essay?
or do you simply mean: attempt ?
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/essays.html
> but it just as interesting and significant to see the re-introduction
> of the belfast sink (a Victorian ceramic basin) into the fitted kitchen-
> which has no need of it - this is deeply ironic.
I'd rather equip said kitchen with a copy of
Adolf Loos's classic article: "Ornament and Crime" (1907?).
> The optimism of some
> coming after po-mo is a modernist legacy, but these days such optimists
> resemble headless chickens.
I think there is a difference between optimism and
knowing that things could have been better as one
sees them putresce and go down the drain....
James Whitehead
<bra...@cloud9.net> writes
>I agree that in our culture high art and Disney have,
>if not become one-and-the-same, at least highly converged.
candidates.
>
>However, both high art and Disney still are radically
>differentiated from everything which is not *funded*,
>be it the drawings of a Hitler or some unrecognized
>masterpiece or whatever.
could be unrecognized masterpieces- but
can we have an unrecognized masterpiece now?
>Surely irony has a place, but I think it is always
>an equivocal one. I here am reminded of
>something Elias Canetti quoted from a diary found
>in the rubble somewhere in World War II, which, for
>me, stands as an example of what Canetti titled
>his book, _The Conscience of Words_:
>
> But everything is over.
> If I was really a writer
> I would have been able to prevent the war.
>
>Contrast this with the Arthur Drexler's [postmodernist]
>Introduction to _Five Architects_....
>
>> the difference between modernism and po-mo for me was that modernism had
>> a philosophy, an avant garde- im now in a world where anything new is
>> old-fashioned.
>
>Sounds like you need a *paradigm shift* -- and not just
>any trans*form*ation, but a trans*figur*ation! Robert Musil's
>_The Man Without Qualities_, and Hermann Broch's
>_The Sleepwalkers_ and _The Death
>of Virgil_ (for just a couple examples) are still in print....
meaningless ritual. All the symptoms we call PO-Mo are really symptoms
of the end- in itself thats what it is.
>
>> You could focus your essay on the works of derrida et al,
>
> my "essay"? what essay?
i was addressing the subject "short essay on..." given in the subject
header
> or do you simply mean: attempt ?
>
Isn't the essay a modernist structure?
> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/essays.html
>
>> The optimism of some
>> coming after po-mo is a modernist legacy, but these days such optimists
>> resemble headless chickens.
>
>I think there is a difference between optimism and
>knowing that things could have been better as one
>sees them putresce and go down the drain....
isn't this re-introducing some idea of progress?
The crucial thing here is the idea of something coming after po-mo, this
is not possible. Like in art after Duchamp there is nothing but irony,
or for the romantic once we arrive at the empty gallery space its
impossible to put anything back in... (because anything could be put in-
so anything is art- and nothing is art- this has the binary form of the
mathematical problem of the Grandi series 1-1+1-1+1... )
--
James Whitehead
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> In article <3825B2...@cloud9.net>, Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
> <bra...@cloud9.net> writes
> >I agree that in our culture high art and Disney have,
> >if not become one-and-the-same, at least highly converged.
> The term No-Brow has been used with regards the current Turner Prise
> candidates.
> >
> >However, both high art and Disney still are radically
> >differentiated from everything which is not *funded*,
> >be it the drawings of a Hitler or some unrecognized
> >masterpiece or whatever.
> In modernism there was some criteria at work to differentiate - so there
> could be unrecognized masterpieces- but
> can we have an unrecognized masterpiece now?
Easy: It would be something that got no media coverage and
no funding.
[snip]
> I can't see the need for a paradigm shift - they smack these days of
> meaningless ritual. All the symptoms we call PO-Mo are really symptoms
> of the end- in itself thats what it is.
A question is: The end of *what*? If we can determine that,
then we can maybe apply Hegel's notion that all negation
is *determinate* negation, i.e., eo ipso the affirmation of
something (albeit not the something originally sought
after).
I still think Susanne Langer's idea (from _Philosophy in
a New Key_) of building meaning by cultivating the
"associational auras" of the things that make up our
daily life routines has a lot of merit.
As far as symptoms of the end are concerned, I think
global hyper-overpopulation, resource depletion,
pollution, the accelerating involution of "competitive"
economic pressures, the undermining of reality
by the media, etc. are far more portentious than
a few writers and artists.
>
> >
> >> You could focus your essay on the works of derrida et al,
> >
> > my "essay"? what essay?
> i was addressing the subject "short essay on..." given in the subject
> header
> > or do you simply mean: attempt ?
> >
> Isn't the essay a modernist structure?
I guess so, if you include Montaigne as a modernist, e.g.
>
> > http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/essays.html
> >
> >> The optimism of some
> >> coming after po-mo is a modernist legacy, but these days such optimists
> >> resemble headless chickens.
> >
> >I think there is a difference between optimism and
> >knowing that things could have been better as one
> >sees them putresce and go down the drain....
> isn't this re-introducing some idea of progress?
> The crucial thing here is the idea of something coming after po-mo, this
> is not possible.
Hegel already recognized the end of history in 1807, and I think
he has a better claim to have succeeded, or to have succeeded
at something better than the postmodernists. But, to quote Heidegger:
I have adopted a certain position, not as a final position,
but rather as a resting place along the way --
For what endures in thinking is the way [process of thinking]
Or Willa Cather:
The way is everything; the end is nothing.
At a minimum, the sanitation engineers and the undertakers
will come after the postmodernists....
> Like in art after Duchamp there is nothing but irony,
Nothing but irony? Or rather: Nothing any longer naively oblivious of
irony? (I like the latter better)
> or for the romantic once we arrive at the empty gallery space its
> impossible to put anything back in... (because anything could be put in-
> so anything is art- and nothing is art- this has the binary form of the
> mathematical problem of the Grandi series 1-1+1-1+1... )
Anything could be put in? I'll bet the guards at the Metropolitan
Museum would stop me from putting into their space what I'd want
to put there.
Someof this stuff seems less sensible than Marie Antoinette's
"let them eat cake" -- at least she had some sense that there
was a "them" and that they were hungry.... That's pretty good
(oops! I should have said: "Modernist", or "European
chauvinist meta-narrative"... Sorry!) by "pomo" standards.
> --
> James Whitehead
Alas I haven't studied Alfred North Whitehead's work, so I can't make
any
"plays" on your name....
"Yours in discourse..."
Obelix
guys should love it :o)
The premise is that the film _The Matrix_ is about overcoming the
postmodern condition.
This paper should be easy to tear apart :o)
Ob.
James Whitehead
<bra...@cloud9.net> writes
>James Whitehead wrote:
>> In modernism there was some criteria at work to differentiate - so there
>> could be unrecognized masterpieces- but
>> can we have an unrecognized masterpiece now?
>
>Easy: It would be something that got no media coverage and
>no funding.
of idea of what art was/is which the masterpiece could be seen to
contribute - and in a new/concise etc. way - (depending on the criteria)
A defence for recent "modern" art rests on the idea of context- Duchamp
again. (I say modern because i think there isn't any po-mo art.)
Even science and math is now conditional- B is "the least integer not
nameable in fewer than nineteen syllables"
>[snip]
>> I can't see the need for a paradigm shift - they smack these days of
>> meaningless ritual. All the symptoms we call PO-Mo are really symptoms
>> of the end- in itself thats what it is.
>
>A question is: The end of *what*? If we can determine that,
>then we can maybe apply Hegel's notion that all negation
>is *determinate* negation, i.e., eo ipso the affirmation of
>something (albeit not the something originally sought
>after).
So we can't get an answer- ((The film matrix can't provide any solution
because modernism showed film is film..... ))
>I still think Susanne Langer's idea (from _Philosophy in
>a New Key_) of building meaning by cultivating the
>"associational auras" of the things that make up our
>daily life routines has a lot of merit.
>
>As far as symptoms of the end are concerned, I think
>global hyper-overpopulation, resource depletion,
>pollution, the accelerating involution of "competitive"
>economic pressures, the undermining of reality
>by the media, etc. are far more portentious than
>a few writers and artists.
except the overpopulation is a kind of myth, like the myth of the
economy- and the best and most recent the myth of the internet.
>> Isn't the essay a modernist structure?
>
>I guess so, if you include Montaigne as a modernist, e.g.
So the subject "Short Essay..." is seen as a neat paradox- like our
talisman -
B is "the least integer not nameable in fewer than nineteen syllables"
>
>Hegel already recognized the end of history in 1807, and I think
>he has a better claim to have succeeded, or to have succeeded
>at something better than the postmodernists. But, to quote Heidegger:
>
> I have adopted a certain position, not as a final position,
> but rather as a resting place along the way --
> For what endures in thinking is the way [process of thinking]
What if the very logic of discourse becomes flawed? Did Heidegger
realise that while he was resting not only were his shoes stolen but the
road disappeared.
>
>Or Willa Cather:
>
> The way is everything; the end is nothing.
>
>At a minimum, the sanitation engineers and the undertakers
>will come after the postmodernists....
surely Sartre would have non of this -
or even Jesus - "let the dead bury the dead"
>
>> Like in art after Duchamp there is nothing but irony,
>
>Nothing but irony? Or rather: Nothing any longer naively oblivious of
>irony? (I like the latter better)
I can't see anything other than irony in "In advance of a broken arm"
>
>Anything could be put in? I'll bet the guards at the Metropolitan
>Museum would stop me from putting into their space what I'd want
>to put there.
Depends- there's two answers to this-
Firstly in my original sense - if you were invited to put something into
the gallery then you could put anything or nothing. Some objects might
offend religious groups etc. (and you would gain support from sections
of the art elite - and some media coverage) But what you couldn't do is
submit or not something that was considered as not being a valid
submission. The criteria here is getting the invite- not the work -
which is why in reality you couldn't make a work of art- you can't not
make one. Again without the binary opposition within art- there is no
progress- there's no possibility of producing art.
Secondly you could exhibit all kinds of works in the gallery without
consent. You could for instance wear a colourful jumper, perform a
coughing piece,- you could do this in concert halls also - You could
'install' various smells (e.g. 'not washed for 7 days piece', 'curry the
night before piece')- You might even be able to get an object in-
wearing suitable clothes you could install a sculpture resembling a
fire detector etc. If you persisted i could imagine eventually you would
even be invited to exhibit non-covertly. (you could call it stealth
art!) Critics could discuss how your early pieces contextualised
ordinary objects and situations within the galley environment
anonymously - like the duchamp urinal which was signed r mutt.....but in
the context of US foreign military policy.... there is the smell of
money here Brad!
Best luck with your one man show!
--
James Whitehead
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
[snip]
> Secondly you could exhibit all kinds of works in the gallery without
> consent. You could for instance wear a colourful jumper, perform a
> coughing piece,- you could do this in concert halls also - You could
> 'install' various smells (e.g. 'not washed for 7 days piece', 'curry the
> night before piece')- You might even be able to get an object in-
> wearing suitable clothes you could install a sculpture resembling a
> fire detector etc. If you persisted i could imagine eventually you would
> even be invited to exhibit non-covertly. (you could call it stealth
> art!) Critics could discuss how your early pieces contextualised
> ordinary objects and situations within the galley environment
> anonymously - like the duchamp urinal which was signed r mutt.....but in
> the context of US foreign military policy.... there is the smell of
> money here Brad!
This makes sense. I think it
has a real chance to work. (But
I don't have the motivation,
personally, to "work it").
I do like the idea, though (...the furthest I
ever got was trying to take pictures of the
*guards* in MOMA....)
Jim Elson
Quinn) wrote:
>In article <38231c3e...@news.plano1.tx.home.com>, jel...@yossman.net (Jim Elson) wrote:
>
>>
>>Close. IMHO, the term "postmodernism" is seen a bit of a
>>misnomer when it is recognized that "modernism" is the
>>latest attempt to plaster-over the problems inherent in the
>>Platonic inheritance.
>>
>>"The construction again" phase is a bit misleading since
>>it suggests that the destruction followed by construction is
>>part of a smooth evolutionary process. However, it's much
>>more radical than that. it's analogous to speciation. The
>>Platonically founded "species" of thought has reached an
>>evolutionary dead-end and a discretely different "species"
>>of thought is required.
>>
>
>That a popular but quite incorrect notion of evolutionary theory forms
>the framework for your thoughts demonstrates not only the nugget of
>truth in postmodernism, but its essential uselessness.
You're leaping to a wrong conclusion there, Gerry.
You're assuming an explicationary metaphor is a root one.
Jim Elson
(Solomon Buccola) wrote:
>Jim Elson (jel...@yossman.net) wrote:
>
>: misnomer when it is recognized that "modernism" is the
>: latest attempt to plaster-over the problems inherent in the
>: Platonic inheritance.
>
>What is it about Plato that you think postmodernism rejects? Do you have a
>particular book or author in mind when you contrast Platonism to
>postmodernsim. I dont see how pomo is more radical rejection of platonism
>than a lot of other things?
Plato sets the stage. Consider Plato's cave which posits a
"world of appearance" with it's "apparent truths" set against
the backdrop of "transcendental world of the Forms" with it's
"Truth." It's still here with us, regardless of whether
someone worships at the Altar of the Transcendant or the Altar
of the Objective.
Consider, how can their be "grand narratives" without making a
number of assumptions that have Platonic origins?
As for pomo not being more radical, I think a number of pomo
works are a bit shy of taking things to their logical
conclusion.
Gerry Quinn
>On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 12:14:56 GMT, ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry
>Quinn) wrote:
>
>>In article <38231c3e...@news.plano1.tx.home.com>, jel...@yossman.net
> (Jim Elson) wrote:
>>
>>>Close. IMHO, the term "postmodernism" is seen a bit of a
>>>latest attempt to plaster-over the problems inherent in the
>>>Platonic inheritance.
>>>
>>>it suggests that the destruction followed by construction is
>>>part of a smooth evolutionary process. However, it's much
>>>more radical than that. it's analogous to speciation. The
>>>Platonically founded "species" of thought has reached an
>>>evolutionary dead-end and a discretely different "species"
>>>of thought is required.
>>>
>>That a popular but quite incorrect notion of evolutionary theory forms
>>the framework for your thoughts demonstrates not only the nugget of
>>truth in postmodernism, but its essential uselessness.
>
>You're leaping to a wrong conclusion there, Gerry.
>
>You're assuming an explicationary metaphor is a root one.
>
If the difference is distinct, much of postmodernism is clearly bunk.
So the proof stands.
- Gerry Quinn
James Whitehead
<ger...@indigo.ie> writes
.... snip...
> much of postmodernism is clearly bunk.
--
James Whitehead
Jim Elson
Quinn) wrote:
>In article <3829d882...@news.plano1.tx.home.com>, jel...@yossman.net (Jim Elson) wrote:
>>On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 12:14:56 GMT, ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry
>>Quinn) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <38231c3e...@news.plano1.tx.home.com>, jel...@yossman.net
>> (Jim Elson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Close. IMHO, the term "postmodernism" is seen a bit of a
>>>>misnomer when it is recognized that "modernism" is the
>>>>latest attempt to plaster-over the problems inherent in the
>>>>Platonic inheritance.
>>>>
>>>>"The construction again" phase is a bit misleading since
>>>>it suggests that the destruction followed by construction is
>>>>part of a smooth evolutionary process. However, it's much
>>>>more radical than that. it's analogous to speciation. The
>>>>Platonically founded "species" of thought has reached an
>>>>evolutionary dead-end and a discretely different "species"
>>>>of thought is required.
>>>>
>>>That a popular but quite incorrect notion of evolutionary theory forms
>>>the framework for your thoughts demonstrates not only the nugget of
>>>truth in postmodernism, but its essential uselessness.
>>
>>You're leaping to a wrong conclusion there, Gerry.
>>
>>You're assuming an explicationary metaphor is a root one.
>>
>
>If the difference is distinct, much of postmodernism is clearly bunk.
>So the proof stands.
Whatever.