what is modernism?
Adam Miller
I have a fairly good grasp of what makes up the attitude
of post modernism. But it is POST-modernism, and to understand a thing's
gestalt its also necessary to understand its ancestors. So, that said,
can anyone explain to me what modernism is and give me a thumbnail history?
This..
has been a message.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled inet.
jle...@utdallas.edu
>
> I have a fairly good grasp of what makes up the attitude
> of post modernism. But it is POST-modernism, and to understand a thing's
> gestalt its also necessary to understand its ancestors. So, that said,
> can anyone explain to me what modernism is and give me a thumbnail history?
I can offer you a definition of modernism with which some postmodernists
may not concur. However, I think it is correct and gets to the heart of
the issue. I'm taking this from Gianni Vattimo's _The End of Modernity_.
Adopting some of Nietzsche's remarks in _Human, All Too Human_, he
defines modernity as "the era of overcoming and of the new which rapidly
grows old and is immediately replaced by something still newer...." in
the mistaken belief that each "overcoming" brings us closer to the
"Truth."
This notion of progress/teleology is central to modernity.
Many ascribe the advent of Descartes as its beginning while the
Enlightenment project can be seen as its flower. However, the
philosophical roots of modernity go back at least to Parmenides which
Papa Plato amply watered with his emphasis on the metaphysical
distinction between "appearance" and "reality."
This is a very brief gloss with many implications, but I hope it helps.
--
============================================================================
James L Elson: |<o When you stare into the abyss too long o>|
School of Arts & Humanities |<o the abyss stares back into you. o>|
University of Texas-Dallas | --Nietzsche-- |
Lois Shawver
:
: I have a fairly good grasp of what makes up the attitude
: of post modernism. But it is POST-modernism, and to understand a thing's
: gestalt its also necessary to understand its ancestors. So, that said,
: can anyone explain to me what modernism is and give me a thumbnail history?
Modernity is probably best understood as the 'vision of modernity'.
It is the vision that we can make progress in solving deep philosophical
and ontological puzzles by the application of the methods of science.
Postmodernists challenge certain aspects of that vision, seeing it as
a form of scientism and noting the way our minds play tricks on us
seducing us into seeing in particular ways.
Elizabeth Jane Beaumont Bissell
On 7 Jan 1995, Adam Miller wrote:
>
>
> I have a fairly good grasp of what makes up the attitude
> of post modernism. But it is POST-modernism, and to understand a thing's
> gestalt its also necessary to understand its ancestors. So, that said,
> can anyone explain to me what modernism is and give me a thumbnail history?
Something you should read on modernism is Paul de Man's 'Literary History
and Literary Modernity', in *Blindness and Insight*. Not many
thumbnails or histories in sight, though....
Liz B. B.
va...@cwu.edu
based on illusion and perception and therefore believes it has
a universal language (though not very precise in what it communicates).
Pomo is based on linguistics and consequently believes in local
audiences (though it intends to communicate more precisely).
Universality and precision then, like Hiesenberg's uncertainty
principle are inversely related.]
modernism is based on logic and reason and again believe reason
to be a universal standard.
pomo on the other hand sees this insistence on and exploitation of
reason and logic as totalitarian--used to subjugate other cultures.
modernism is aesthetic and transcendental (searches for an aesthetic
or mystical experience) while pomo is political (believes that art
should improve society).
modernism believes in genius; pomo believes in collective creation.
strange, but each is blind to its own limitations--though this is
supposedly territory of pomo{
modernism tries to understand how we grasp the world through our
five illusionistic senses: touch; sight; etc.
pomo believes we are limited to understanding and perceiveing the
world in a narrow manner because of the way our minds are
architecturally created to depend on language for our perceptions.
Thus language simultaneously expands and limits our understanding
of the world.
Descartes is the foundation for modernism; Charles Sanders Peirce
and Saussure and Neitzche and Freud and others are the foundation
of pomo.
Peirce instigated semiology; Saussure gave us the linguistic metaphor;
Freud, followed by Lacan convinced us that insanity and dreams are
structured like a language; insanity and dreams come from the
unconscious, consequently the unconscious is also structured like
a language.
That's incomplete, but in as small a nutshell as I can manage.
As in all pomo discourse, this has only been one view of a subject
that can be seen from many (pluralist) perspectives like the
seven blind men and the elephant.
Mark Weinles
>Can anyone explain to me what modernism is and give me a thumbnail history?
Two good histories are Hugh Kenner's _The Pound Era_ and _Lipstick
Traces_, by Greil Marcus. You should know going in that neither one is
comprehensive (or tries to be), and neither one is anything like the
thumbnail sketch you asked for. They're both worth your time, though.
_The Pound Era_ focuses on High Modernism (Pound, Eliot, Joyce, et
al.), while _Lipstick Traces_ is mostly about Dada and the Situationists.
If a handy example would do, you might try this one:
And new philosophy calls all in doubt,
the element of fire is quite put out;
The Sunne is lost, and th'earth, and no man's wit
Can well direct him, where to looke for it.
And freely men confesse, that this world's spent,
When in the Planets, and the Firmament
They seeke so many new; they see that this
Is crumbled out againe to his Atomis.
'Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone;
All just supply, and all Relation:
Prince, subject, Father, Sonne, are things forgot,
For every man alone thinks he hath got
To be a Phoenix, and that there can be
None of that kind, of which he is, but he.
(Donne, from "The First Anniverserie")
That's a pretty good summary of the modern condition. (Of course, it's
not necessary to share Donne's dismay over its features.)
-- Mark Weinles
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Launchpad is an experimental internet BBS. The views of its users do not
necessarily represent those of UNC-Chapel Hill, OIT, or the SysOps.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Elizabeth Jane Beaumont Bissell
On 7 Jan 1995 jle...@utdallas.edu wrote:
> I can offer you a definition of modernism with which some postmodernists
> may not concur. However, I think it is correct and gets to the heart of
> the issue. I'm taking this from Gianni Vattimo's _The End of Modernity_.
> Adopting some of Nietzsche's remarks in _Human, All Too Human_, he
> defines modernity as "the era of overcoming and of the new which rapidly
> grows old and is immediately replaced by something still newer...." in
> the mistaken belief that each "overcoming" brings us closer to the
> "Truth."
I posted a 'what is modernism?' reply recommending Paul de Man's
'Literary History and Literary Modernity'. Just to note that it
discusses a similar view of modernity and history drawn from Nietzsche.
I suppose I am agreeing about the importance of this approach,
however I would quibble and say that there is more than one modernism,
with or without a capital, and so there should be more than one
question. ('What are modernisms?' inclines too much towards
centralising some fundamental that they might have in common, which is
eactly what will be overcome).
Liz B. B.
David Kellogg
: Adam Miller (miller@utic) wrote:
: :
: : I have a fairly good grasp of what makes up the attitude
: : of post modernism. But it is POST-modernism, and to understand a thing's
: : gestalt its also necessary to understand its ancestors. So, that said,
: : can anyone explain to me what modernism is and give me a thumbnail history?
: Modernity is probably best understood as the 'vision of modernity'.
Errr. Do you mean modernism? I tend to distinguish between modernity,
conceived as an historical/social/material/spatial/economic condition, and
modernism, defined as a more or less conscious or self-conscious social
and cultural movement. My favorite text on this subject is David Harvey,
*The Condition of Postmodernity*, for my money probably the best
Marxist intervention in the pomo debate.
: It is the vision that we can make progress in solving deep philosophical
: and ontological puzzles by the application of the methods of science.
: Postmodernists challenge certain aspects of that vision, seeing it as
: a form of scientism and noting the way our minds play tricks on us
: seducing us into seeing in particular ways.
Well, if you mean *modernism*, then that vision was deeply qualified by
many modernists as well (tho in a different way, p'haps). If you mean
*modernity*, again, I would say, it was never a vision in the first place.
My favorite text on *this* is the very recent *We have never been modern*,
by the incomporable Bruno Latour. (Lois, you should like this book, it
has scads of stuff on subject/object, your favorite hobbyhorse. ;-> )
Cheers,
David
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Kellogg No ideas but in things.
University Writing Program --William Carlos Williams
Duke University
Durham, NC 27708 No ideas in things, either.
kel...@acpub.duke.edu --John Ashbery
Kevin Sawad Brooks
>As I understand it, modernism is everything pomo is not.
You have it a bit turned around, don't you? You
define Mod in terms of PostMod, rather than the other
way around. But perhaps that's very PostMod of you.
Modern is
>based on illusion and perception and therefore believes it has
Uh? What do you mean "based" on illusion and perception?
According to what base?
Believes? What base believes?
>a universal language (though not very precise in what it communicates).
>
Your post sounds a bit Mod.
>Pomo is based on linguistics and consequently believes in local
>audiences (though it intends to communicate more precisely).
And I suppose Jakobson, the Structuralists, and Northrop Frye were
Pomo, and studied the audience rather than the forms.
>
>Universality and precision then, like Hiesenberg's uncertainty
>principle are inversely related.]
Hm. Really? How universally precise of you to say that.
>
>modernism is based on logic and reason and again believe reason
>to be a universal standard.
Isn't linguistics based on reason?
>
>pomo on the other hand sees this insistence on and exploitation of
>reason and logic as totalitarian--used to subjugate other cultures.
>
Interesting line of reasoning there.
>modernism is aesthetic and transcendental (searches for an aesthetic
>or mystical experience)
I thought you said Mod was logical?
>while pomo is political (believes that art
>should improve society).
I see. And the whole Bauhaus and Constructivist
projects were Pomo according to your definition.
>
>modernism believes in genius; pomo believes in collective creation.
>
Who believes? Is there *one* pomo doin' all the
believin'?
>strange, but each is blind to its own limitations--though this is
>supposedly territory of pomo{
Have to go with you there.
Necessarily so, blind.
But that is the possibility
of their insights.
>
>modernism tries to understand how we grasp the world through our
>five illusionistic senses: touch; sight; etc.
>
Okay, I think you're on the right track,
but what's this stuff about "illusionistic
senses?" ...
>pomo believes we are limited to understanding and perceiveing the
>world in a narrow manner because of the way our minds are
>architecturally created to depend on language for our perceptions.
Hm. I thought that you said Pomo didn't believe in
logic?
>Thus language simultaneously expands and limits our understanding
>of the world.
>
Okay, how should I take this very inflationary
statement? Is it Mod or PostMod?
>Descartes is the foundation for modernism; Charles Sanders Peirce
>and Saussure and Neitzche and Freud and others are the foundation
>of pomo.
PostMod has foundations?
>
>Peirce instigated semiology; Saussure gave us the linguistic metaphor;
>Freud, followed by Lacan convinced us that insanity and dreams are
>structured like a language; insanity and dreams come from the
>unconscious, consequently the unconscious is also structured like
>a language.
Gawd! What did "we" ever do before those Great Men?!
Hee.
>
>That's incomplete, but in as small a nutshell as I can manage.
>
And what a nutshell you must be able to manage, sir!
...incomplete and small as it is. :)
>As in all pomo discourse, this has only been one view of a subject
>that can be seen from many (pluralist) perspectives like the
>seven blind men and the elephant.
>
No, I think you have more than *one* view in here (where?),
or else it would be just a Mod "discourse!" ...And it
wouldn't be so funny.
Hee.
Thanks for the memories.
--
Take an object Take a canvas
Do something to it Put a mark on it
Do something else to it Put another mark on it
" " " " " " " " " "
--Jasper Johns
David Kellogg
: David Kellogg (kel...@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
: (snip)
: : My favorite text on *this*
: the distinction between the variants of the term 'modern'
: is the very recent *We have never been modern*,
: : by the incomporable Bruno Latour.
I may have not made myself clear. I meant that Latour's book was
about modernism as "not a vision," or a vision that is contradicted
by its own dynamics. Modernity is not a vision at all, noway, nohow.
: I have looked over Latour, and his distinctions struck me in the reading
: as arbitrary and not integrated into the discourse about
: modernism/modernity. Am I wrong about people adhering to these distinctions?
: Nothing would be less useful in this discussion is to honor all of the
: easily generated distinctions that authors always make, imho. Is this really
: catching on?
Latour isn't really about modernism vs. modernity. I'd say he's really
writing about modernism, that is, the self-conscious artication of
a teleology of modernity, if you will.
If you're concerned that a distinction between -ism and -ity is
catching on, certainly it's caught on lots of places. But then
perhaps I misread your post.
--
Cheers,
David
John O'Sullivan
> :
>
> :
> Modernity is probably best understood as the 'vision of modernity'.
> It is the vision that we can make progress in solving deep philosophical
> and ontological puzzles by the application of the methods of science.
> Postmodernists challenge certain aspects of that vision, seeing it as
> a form of scientism and noting the way our minds play tricks on us
> seducing us into seeing in particular ways.
No, my friend. Modernity is actually best understood as the pre-vision
of post-modernity. Seamus O Conchubhair
Mark Weinles
Kellogg) writes:
>*The Pound Era* doesn't attempt to be comprehensive? It's NOT, of
>course, but I would say Kenner sure as hell tries to be.
What makes you say that? Absent any specifics, I'm inclined to believe
you're mistaking sheer bulk (the thing does make a great doorstop) for
an attempt to bestow a comprehensive treatment on modernism. _The Pound
Era_ is undoubtedly a thick volume, but the account Kenner gives is
built like a lattice. If Bucky Fuller's poetry was "ventilated prose,"
then _The Pound Era_ is ventilated history. Kenner does cover alot of
territory, but he travels in hopscotch fashion, and he instead of a map
("Gaul is divided into three parts..."), he offers a series of snap-
shots -- or if that seems like too casual a description, then let's say
"ideograms." But you must know all that -- so where do you differ?
If all you're saying is that he addresses a wide range of material,
then of course you're right -- it's a very ambitious piece of work.
But it isn't an exhaustive and exhausting treatise -- I give Kenner
credit for not producing that kind of weighty, brain-deadening tome.
>(BTW, I'm a former student of the great Hugh, yet managed to remain
>unsympathetic to fascism).
Another topic heard from. O.k., I'll bite: what makes you describe
Kenner as a fascist, and what makes you unsympathetic to fascism?
David Kellogg
: In article <3f1em3$k...@news.duke.edu> kel...@acpub.duke.edu (David
: Kellogg) writes:
: >*The Pound Era* doesn't attempt to be comprehensive? It's NOT, of
: >course, but I would say Kenner sure as hell tries to be.
: What makes you say that? Absent any specifics, I'm inclined to believe
: you're mistaking sheer bulk (the thing does make a great doorstop) for
: an attempt to bestow a comprehensive treatment on modernism. _The Pound
: Era_ is undoubtedly a thick volume, but the account Kenner gives is
: built like a lattice. If Bucky Fuller's poetry was "ventilated prose,"
: then _The Pound Era_ is ventilated history. Kenner does cover alot of
: territory, but he travels in hopscotch fashion, and he instead of a map
: ("Gaul is divided into three parts..."), he offers a series of snap-
: shots -- or if that seems like too casual a description, then let's say
: "ideograms." But you must know all that -- so where do you differ?
We might be splitting hairs at this point. IMO, the ideogrammatic
techniques of TPE are precisely what makes it attempt (though not succeed)
in being comprehensive. Insofar as it uses Pound as a stylistic model,
and one thinks of the Cantos (as both Poudn and Kenner sometimes talk of
them) as a kind of ideal instruction book for a would-be national leader,
then the ideogram is its governing ideology of comprehensiveness. As
Pound wrote the Cantos to eliminate the need for any other books of its
type, Kenner wrote TPE in part to found and ground a discourse and
ideology of modernism. Centered around the figure of Ez himself: hence,
the title in which a person (Pound) comes to stand for an era
(modernism). Your own image of the lattice, which I think you move away
from too quickly, is helpful, but I would turn it into a net: that which
slips through the holes in the net/lattice (that which is too small or
outside the purview/ideology of the text) is, by definition, not worth
catching. Not comprehensive in the totalizing sense, but for Kenner's
purposes, comprehensive enough and self-selecting to boot. Does this
make sense?
: If all you're saying is that he addresses a wide range of material,
: then of course you're right -- it's a very ambitious piece of work.
: But it isn't an exhaustive and exhausting treatise -- I give Kenner
: credit for not producing that kind of weighty, brain-deadening tome.
So would I. It's my favorite book on modernism. But that doesn't mean
it's without ideology.
: >(BTW, I'm a former student of the great Hugh, yet managed to remain
: >unsympathetic to fascism).
: Another topic heard from. O.k., I'll bite: what makes you describe
: Kenner as a fascist, and what makes you unsympathetic to fascism?
I wouldn't say Kenner's a fascist, but that Pound's fascism is, throughout
*The Pound Era*, more or less excused, evaded, and aesthetically or even
morally at times "justified" in the text. One is meant to leave the book
with a vision of Pound as a kind of solitary thinker trapped, in a way, by
history -- a victim of fascism, perhaps, rather than its advocate. But
you're right, this is another thread -- perhaps not suitable for
alt.postmodern.
William G. Sacks
: > I wouldn't say Kenner's a fascist, but that Pound's fascism is, throughout
: > *The Pound Era*, more or less excused, evaded, and aesthetically or even
: > morally at times "justified" in the text. One is meant to leave the book
: > with a vision of Pound as a kind of solitary thinker trapped, in a way, by
: > history -- a victim of fascism, perhaps, rather than its advocate. But
: > you're right, this is another thread -- perhaps not suitable for
: > alt.postmodern.
Well, this begs the question of where the suitable forum actually
IS. If anyone has suggestions about a forum which more actively engages
issues of "institutionalized" literary study, I'd certainly appreciate
the tip. Feel free to e-mail me, even...
William Sacks
Department of English
Washington University
jle...@utdallas.edu
> [David Kellog said, in a coversation with Mark Weinles about Kenner's
> book on Pound:]
> : > I wouldn't say Kenner's a fascist, but that Pound's fascism is....
> : > (snip) But you're right, this is another thread -- perhaps not
> : > suitable for alt.postmodern.
> Well, this begs the question of where the suitable forum actually
> IS. If anyone has suggestions about a forum which more actively engages
> issues of "institutionalized" literary study, I'd certainly appreciate
> the tip. Feel free to e-mail me, even...
As Mark said in his response, it IS suitable for discussion in this
newsgroup. Since literary studies is a major area of post-modern
activity, I would add that it is not only suitable, but particularly
germane to this newsgroup. I'm quite interested in post-modern
literary studies; I haven't contributed to this particular discussion
simply because I have only a passing familiarity with Kenner and Pound.
Please feel free to initiate discussions on literary topics.