Post Modern Art.....WHAT IS IT??
mdeli
"postmodernity is seen as
involving an end of the dominance of an overarching belief in
scientific
rationality and a unitary theory of PROGRESS, the replacement of
empiricist theories of representation and TRUTH, and increased
emphasis on the importance of the unconscious, on free-floating signs
and images, and a plurality of viewpoints. "
I would put it more directly. PM like other mystical creeds is,
anti-scientific, anti rational and consequently anti-empiricist. To
support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious, scientism,
Heidigger etc. I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
any of this means.
PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in a new jargon. It
offers no substitute for science and logic other than cryptic slogans.
PM’s rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
same old nonsense.
Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
favors. It definitely appeals to those who put "emphasis on the
importance of the unconscious," and little else. It offers some new
angles on mystical self delusion.
PM got a lot of its lingo from Artspeak. Read the FAQ for some neat
samples.
Another quote:
"postmodernism, on the contrary, is committed to
modes of thinking and representation which emphasize fragmentations,
discontinuities and incommensurable aspects of a given object, from
intellectual systems to architecture. "
In a word, Bullshitology.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Lee Goddard Collective
<35b7a2ba...@news.interlog.com> to alt.postmodern:
> Probably the clearest definition of PM in the FAQ is:
> "postmodernity is seen as involving an end of the dominance of
> an overarching belief in scientific rationality and a unitary
> theory of PROGRESS, the replacement of empiricist theories of
> representation and TRUTH, and increased emphasis on the importance
> of the unconscious, on free-floating signs and images, and a
> plurality of viewpoints. "
> I would put it more directly. PM like other mystical creeds is,
> anti-scientific, anti rational and consequently anti-empiricist. To
> support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious, scientism,
> Heidigger etc. I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
> any of this means.
However, I've yet to meet anyone who states that pomo acknowledges the authority
of any single narrative, so what use is a single FAQ? I, for example, disagree
with everything you've said above. Everything I've yet read that you've written
in the group.
> PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in a new jargon. It
> offers no substitute for science and logic other than cryptic slogans.
> PM’s rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
> Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
> newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
> same old nonsense.
Of course, like Science, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Bhuddism all
have faded.
> Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
> favors. It definitely appeals to those who put "emphasis on the
> importance of the unconscious," and little else. It offers some new
> angles on mystical self delusion.
So, Joyce and Woolf are post-modern, and not modern? Along with the
Surrealists, and Freudians and Jungians for example? Sounds like good,
old-fashioned modernism.
> PM got a lot of its lingo from Artspeak. Read the FAQ for some neat
> samples.
> Another quote:
> "postmodernism, on the contrary, is committed to
> modes of thinking and representation which emphasize fragmentations,
> discontinuities and incommensurable aspects of a given object, from
> intellectual systems to architecture. "
> In a word, Bullshitology.
Yep, that FAQ is full of academic shit; you're full of reactionary shit; I'm
full of indulgent shit. Shit, why do we come here?
> --
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
You're telling me.
Lee
Jim Humphreys
> I would put it more directly. PM like other mystical creeds is,
> anti-scientific,
In what sense is PM anti-scientific? This is another of the many
unsupported assertions that are a feature of your posts.
> anti rational and consequently anti-empiricist. To
> support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious, scientism,
> Heidigger etc. I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
> any of this means. PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in
> a new jargon.
Which particular mystical belief(s) has it reformulated?
> It
> offers no substitute for science and logic other than cryptic slogans.
> PM’s rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
> Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
> newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
> same old nonsense.
This is simply more of the same unsupported assertion that I
described earlier. You also appear to be engaging in fortune telling
when you claim that postmodernism will fade into "a newer fashion
for the fickle irrationalist" etc. In fact it is your own claim here that
is irrational. It is not logically possible to predict the content of future
knowledge.
> Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
> favors. It definitely appeals to those who put "emphasis on the
> importance of the unconscious," and little else. It offers some new
> angles on mystical self delusion.
I don't think that postmodernism appeals specifically to those
who put "an emphasis on the importance of the unconscious" - again
another unsupported assertion from you. I don't agree either that
mysticism amounts to self-delusion, although I am not myself a mystic.
Jim Humphreys
mdeli
>mdeli wrote:
>
>> I would put it more directly. PM like other mystical creeds is,
>> anti-scientific,
>
>In what sense is PM anti-scientific? This is another of the many
>unsupported assertions that are a feature of your posts.
I'm not writing a technical paper here. If you think POMO is
pro-sceintific say so. I doubt that even you think that.
>> anti rational and consequently anti-empiricist. To
>> support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious, scientism,
>> Heidigger etc. I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
>> any of this means. PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in
>> a new jargon.
>
>Which particular mystical belief(s) has it reformulated?
It hasn't reformulated anything. Its pseudo-philosophical babble.
>> It
>> offers no substitute for science and logic other than cryptic slogans.
>> PM’s rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
>> Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
>> newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
>> same old nonsense.
>
>This is simply more of the same unsupported assertion that I
>described earlier.
I haven't seen any of your arguments supported by even a small
philosophical jock.
>You also appear to be engaging in fortune telling
>when you claim that postmodernism will fade into "a newer fashion
>for the fickle irrationalist" etc. In fact it is your own claim here that
>is irrational.
And what's your claim, that it will remain viable forever?
>It is not logically possible to predict the content of future
>knowledge.
Its not a matter of logic. I presented my opinion here and gave some
reasons. Millions of people do this all the time. Even you do it
sometimes.
>> Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
>> favors. It definitely appeals to those who put "emphasis on the
>> importance of the unconscious," and little else. It offers some new
>> angles on mystical self delusion.
>
>I don't think that postmodernism appeals specifically to those
>who put "an emphasis on the importance of the unconscious" - again
>another unsupported assertion from you.
I quoted the FAQ. Your assertion is unsupported.
>I don't agree either that
>mysticism amounts to self-delusion,
> although I am not myself a mystic.
Fine. So we disagree.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mdeli
Goddard Collective) wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jul 1998 23:18:45 GMT hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) posted article
><35b7a2ba...@news.interlog.com> to alt.postmodern:
>
>> Probably the clearest definition of PM in the FAQ is:
>> "postmodernity is seen as involving an end of the dominance of
>> an overarching belief in scientific rationality and a unitary
>> theory of PROGRESS, the replacement of empiricist theories of
>> representation and TRUTH, and increased emphasis on the importance
>> of the unconscious, on free-floating signs and images, and a
>> plurality of viewpoints. "
>
>> I would put it more directly. PM like other mystical creeds is,
>> anti-scientific, anti rational and consequently anti-empiricist. To
>> support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious, scientism,
>> Heidigger etc. I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
>> any of this means.
>
>However, I've yet to meet anyone who states that pomo acknowledges the authority
>of any single narrative, so what use is a single FAQ?
Technically correct. In actuality POMO is dada philosophy. Nobody
knows what it means and nobody agrees on anything by expending lots of
gas.
> I, for example, disagree
>with everything you've said above. Everything I've yet read that you've written
>in the group.
So make your point
.
>> PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in a new jargon. It
>> offers no substitute for science and logic other than cryptic slogans.
>> PM’s rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
>> Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
>> newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
>> same old nonsense.
>
>Of course, like Science, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Bhuddism all
>have faded.
?
>> Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
>> favors. It definitely appeals to those who put "emphasis on the
>> importance of the unconscious," and little else. It offers some new
>> angles on mystical self delusion.
>
>So, Joyce and Woolf are post-modern, and not modern?
I didn't say boo about Joyce.
>Along with the
>Surrealists, and Freudians and Jungians for example? Sounds like good,
>old-fashioned modernism.
All contemporary art is modern. Being modern is the one thing an
artist can't avoid. So What?
>> PM got a lot of its lingo from Artspeak. Read the FAQ for some neat
>> samples.
>
>> Another quote:
>> "postmodernism, on the contrary, is committed to
>> modes of thinking and representation which emphasize fragmentations,
>> discontinuities and incommensurable aspects of a given object, from
>> intellectual systems to architecture. "
>
>> In a word, Bullshitology.
>
>Yep, that FAQ is full of academic shit; you're full of reactionary shit; I'm
>full of indulgent shit. Shit, why do we come here?
>
Ask your mother and have her change your diapers. Your getting cranky.
Jim Humphreys
> Jim Humphreys wrote:
> >> I would put it more directly. PM like other mystical creeds is,
> >> anti-scientific,
> >In what sense is PM anti-scientific? This is another of the many
> >unsupported assertions that are a feature of your posts.
> I'm not writing a technical paper here. If you think POMO is
> pro-sceintific say so. I doubt that even you think that.
It is quite evident that you are not writing a "technical paper".
I don't see postmodernism ( which for me is a loose description of
certain cultural trends within society) as being pro or anti-scientific.
> >> anti rational and consequently anti-empiricist. To
> >> support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious, scientism,
> >> Heidigger etc. I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
> >> any of this means. PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in
> >> a new jargon.
> >Which particular mystical belief(s) has it reformulated?
> It hasn't reformulated anything. Its pseudo-philosophical babble.
But you stated that it is "really ancient mystical stuff expressed in
a new jargon". I asked you which set of ancient mystical beliefs
it expressed (in new jargon).
> >> It
> >> offers no substitute for science and logic other than cryptic slogans.
> >> PM’s rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
> >> Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
> >> newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
> >> same old nonsense.
> >You also appear to be engaging in fortune telling
> >when you claim that postmodernism will fade into "a newer fashion
> >for the fickle irrationalist" etc. In fact it is your own claim here that
> >is irrational.
> And what's your claim, that it will remain viable forever?
It does not follow from my point that it is impossible to predict that
postmodernism will be replaced by a "new fickle fashion" that I must
believe that postmodernism must remain " viable forever".
> >It is not logically possible to predict the content of future
> >knowledge.
> Its not a matter of logic. I presented my opinion here and gave some
> reasons. Millions of people do this all the time. Even you do it
> sometimes.
You admit then that you are just expressing subjective opinions -
that there is no sound basis for these?
> >> Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
> >> favors. It definitely appeals to those who put "emphasis on the
> >> importance of the unconscious," and little else. It offers some new
> >> angles on mystical self delusion.
> >I don't think that postmodernism appeals specifically to those
> >who put "an emphasis on the importance of the unconscious" - again
> >another unsupported assertion from you.
> I quoted the FAQ. Your assertion is unsupported.
But you have the burden of proof here. You are claiming ( absurdly)
that postmodernism appeals to "those who put emphasis on the importance
of the unconscious, and little else". Please justify this assertion.
> >I don't agree either that
> >mysticism amounts to self-delusion,
> > although I am not myself a mystic.
> Fine. So we disagree.
Again that you have not attempted to justify your assertion here that
"mysticism aomounts to self delusion" suggests to me that you are
unable to do so.
Jim Humphreys
Bob C
>
> mdeli wrote:
>
> > Jim Humphreys wrote:
>
> > >> I would put it more directly. PM like other mystical creeds is,
> > >> anti-scientific,
>
> > >In what sense is PM anti-scientific? This is another of the many
> > >unsupported assertions that are a feature of your posts.
>
> > I'm not writing a technical paper here. If you think POMO is
> > pro-sceintific say so. I doubt that even you think that.
>
> It is quite evident that you are not writing a "technical paper".
> I don't see postmodernism ( which for me is a loose description of
> certain cultural trends within society) as being pro or anti-scientific.
>
For someone who believes heavily in the powers of scientific
reductionism and the use of science as the only legitimate method of
gaining knowledge, POMO would not doubt seem to be anti-science.
On the other hand, if you accept mainstream scientific theories like
quantum weirdness, chaos, and emergence, you might very well believe
that science itself was POMO well before culture caught up to it!
- Bob C.
Teemu Lahteenmaki
: I'm not writing a technical paper here. If you think POMO is
: pro-sceintific say so. I doubt that even you think that.
I'd say that to be pro-scientific requires sometimes to step back a bit.
"Science" when understood more broadly should be so self conscious,
that it knows when to abandon theories that do not correspond reality.
Semiotics is a good example; there we have (partly because of PM)
rejected the false modern illusion that words and signs should contain
some universally transcendental meaning. As a result, we have just
invented a new science (apparenyly in more accord with observed reality)
in the place of the old one. That is pro-scientific, and still PM.
Surely you can detach the developement of semiotics from PM, but
still semiotics is a very PM theory.
--
Teemu Lahteenmaki
to...@cc.jyu.fi, http://www.jyu.fi/~tola/
Student of digital media, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
Gerry Quinn
>In rec.arts.fine mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote:
>
>: I'm not writing a technical paper here. If you think POMO is
>: pro-sceintific say so. I doubt that even you think that.
>
>I'd say that to be pro-scientific requires sometimes to step back a bit.
>"Science" when understood more broadly should be so self conscious,
>that it knows when to abandon theories that do not correspond reality.
>Semiotics is a good example; there we have (partly because of PM)
>rejected the false modern illusion that words and signs should contain
>some universally transcendental meaning. As a result, we have just
>invented a new science (apparenyly in more accord with observed reality)
>in the place of the old one. That is pro-scientific, and still PM.
>Surely you can detach the developement of semiotics from PM, but
>still semiotics is a very PM theory.
Could you point me towards a few semiotics papers in _Nature_?
- Gerry
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
mark webber
I found this to be a pretty interesting paragraph, and I like your attempt
to speak plainly. I have a couple of questions, though:
On 27 Jul 1998, Teemu Lahteenmaki wrote:
(snip)
> I'd say that to be pro-scientific requires sometimes to step back a bit.
> "Science" when understood more broadly should be so self conscious,
> that it knows when to abandon theories that do not correspond reality.
> Semiotics is a good example; there we have (partly because of PM)
> rejected the false modern illusion that words and signs should contain
> some universally transcendental meaning.
You could mean two things here:
one)
Semiotics has helped us abandon a theory that does not correspond to
reality; that is, that words and signs contain some universal
meanings...
or two)
We could easily abandon semiotics because it is a theory that
doesn't correspond to reality; while words and signs certainly don't
have universal meanings one can still communicate effectivly with
them.
> As a result, we have just
> invented a new science (apparenyly in more accord with observed reality)
Is this really a new "science"? - I don't mean to split hairs, but the
theory of semiotics, while very beautiful, doesn't seem to work on the
most fundamental levels.
> in the place of the old one. That is pro-scientific, and still PM.
> Surely you can detach the developement of semiotics from PM, but
> still semiotics is a very PM theory.
>
> --
> Teemu Lahteenmaki
> to...@cc.jyu.fi, http://www.jyu.fi/~tola/
> Student of digital media, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
>
>
The last bit is certainly very true, and I appreciate your effort to be
clear.
Mark
mdeli
<jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>mdeli wrote:
>
>> Jim Humphreys wrote:
>
>> >> I would put it more directly. PM like other mystical creeds is,
>> >> anti-scientific,
>
>> >In what sense is PM anti-scientific? This is another of the many
>> >unsupported assertions that are a feature of your posts.
>
>> I'm not writing a technical paper here. If you think POMO is
>> pro-sceintific say so. I doubt that even you think that.
>
>It is quite evident that you are not writing a "technical paper".
>I don't see postmodernism ( which for me is a loose description of
>certain cultural trends within society) as being pro or anti-scientific.
So that is your subjective opinion.
>> >> anti rational and consequently anti-empiricist. To
>> >> support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious, scientism,
>> >> Heidigger etc. I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
>> >> any of this means. PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in
>> >> a new jargon.
>
>> >Which particular mystical belief(s) has it reformulated?
>
>> It hasn't reformulated anything. Its pseudo-philosophical babble.
>
>But you stated that it is "really ancient mystical stuff expressed in
>a new jargon". I asked you which set of ancient mystical beliefs
>it expressed (in new jargon).
Ancient Greek and 18th and 19th century anti-Enlightment beliefs
among others. Go and read about it if you are interested.
>> >> It
>> >> offers no substitute for science and logic other than cryptic slogans.
>> >> PM’s rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
>> >> Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
>> >> newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
>> >> same old nonsense.
>
>> >You also appear to be engaging in fortune telling
>> >when you claim that postmodernism will fade into "a newer fashion
>> >for the fickle irrationalist" etc. In fact it is your own claim here that
>> >is irrational.
>
>> And what's your claim, that it will remain viable forever?
>
>It does not follow from my point that it is impossible to predict that
>postmodernism will be replaced by a "new fickle fashion" that I must
>believe that postmodernism must remain " viable forever".
So what do you believe?
>> >It is not logically possible to predict the content of future
>> >knowledge.
>> Its not a matter of logic. I presented my opinion here and gave some
>> reasons. Millions of people do this all the time. Even you do it
>> sometimes.
>
>You admit then that you are just expressing subjective opinions -
Yes.
>that there is no sound basis for these?
Nonsense!
>> >> Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
>> >> favors. It definitely appeals to those who put "emphasis on the
>> >> importance of the unconscious," and little else. It offers some new
>> >> angles on mystical self delusion.
>
>> >I don't think that postmodernism appeals specifically to those
>> >who put "an emphasis on the importance of the unconscious" - again
>> >another unsupported assertion from you.
>> I quoted the FAQ. Your assertion is unsupported.
>
>But you have the burden of proof here.
I have no burden what so ever.
> You are claiming ( absurdly)
>that postmodernism appeals to "those who put emphasis on the importance
>of the unconscious, and little else". Please justify this assertion.
Please refute it if you have anything to say and send it to the guy
who wrote the FAQ
jimh
> >> >> anti rational and consequently anti-empiricist. To
> >> >> support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious, scientism,
> >> >> Heidigger etc. I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
> >> >> any of this means. PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in
> >> >> a new jargon.
> >> >Which particular mystical belief(s) has it reformulated?
> >
> >> It hasn't reformulated anything. Its pseudo-philosophical babble.
> >
> >But you stated that it is "really ancient mystical stuff expressed in
> >a new jargon". I asked you which set of ancient mystical beliefs
> >it expressed (in new jargon).
> Ancient Greek and 18th and 19th century anti-Enlightment beliefs
> among others. Go and read about it if you are interested.
Which Ancient Greek beliefs specifically?
> >> >> It
> >> >> offers no substitute for science and logic other than cryptic slogans.
> >> >> PM’s rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
> >> >> Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
> >> >> newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
> >> >> same old nonsense.
> >
> >> >You also appear to be engaging in fortune telling
> >> >when you claim that postmodernism will fade into "a newer fashion
> >> >for the fickle irrationalist" etc. In fact it is your own claim here that
> >> >is irrational.
> >
> >> And what's your claim, that it will remain viable forever?
> >
> >It does not follow from my point that it is impossible to predict that
> >postmodernism will be replaced by a "new fickle fashion" that I must
> >believe that postmodernism must remain " viable forever".
>
> So what do you believe?
I don't pretend to be able to predict the future.
> >> >It is not logically possible to predict the content of future
> >> >knowledge.
> >> Its not a matter of logic. I presented my opinion here and gave some
> >> reasons. Millions of people do this all the time. Even you do it
> >> sometimes.
> >
> >You admit then that you are just expressing subjective opinions -
>
> Yes.
>
> >that there is no sound basis for these?
>
> Nonsense!
Then please explain the basis for these opinions.
> >> >> Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
> >> >> favors. It definitely appeals to those who put "emphasis on the
> >> >> importance of the unconscious," and little else. It offers some new
> >> >> angles on mystical self delusion.
> >
> >> >I don't think that postmodernism appeals specifically to those
> >> >who put "an emphasis on the importance of the unconscious" - again
> >> >another unsupported assertion from you.
> >> I quoted the FAQ. Your assertion is unsupported.
> >
> >But you have the burden of proof here.
>
> I have no burden what so ever.
You have made a claim re postmodernists. What evidence do you
have to support it?
> > You are claiming ( absurdly)
> >that postmodernism appeals to "those who put emphasis on the importance
> >of the unconscious, and little else". Please justify this assertion.
> Please refute it if you have anything to say and send it to the guy
> who wrote the FAQ
Refute what? You have simply made an unsupported assertion.
Jim Humphreys
Mavarla
one:
To me, "Post-Modernism" is typical, art critic lingo bullshit AND although, I
do not purport to be a "seer," I've seen enough of this kind of
pseudo-theoretical malarkey in the 20th-century to know that it's not gonna be
taken seriously *as* a "movement" in the next century...mainly, because there
IS no movement moving.
Gregory Battcock includes an essay in his THE NEW ART, which came out around
the early-sixties, where the last contributor expounded, as I recall, on some
new "transcendental art form" which would take the world by storm, I presume,
encompassing visuals, music, dance, in essence, all of the other arts, but
Jesus Christ, hadn't anyone ever told this writer that it'd already been done
and had been going on for a good 50 years previous?
It's called the film industry.
These bizarre catch-phrase "movements" and such, seem to only serve the purpose
of furthering the ambitions of critic-journalists, not providing meaningful
enlightenment to the artists, ourselves, and is, quite possibly, just a
misguided attempt by them to make us all go "batty" trying to find logical
meaning in their preposterous "creative writing" pronouncements and my point
is, there IS no logic to be found and the sooner we put these ridiculous
tangential art critic-created conundrums out of our heads, the better off all
of us artists will be!
Anyway, just my opinion here...by the way, initially, you seemed to be in
agreement with "Hugood," (or am I mistaken?)...what happened?
Or, do you just like being contentious?
mdeli
Jim Humphreys answered me :
>> It is quite evident that you are not writing a "technical paper".
>> I don't see postmodernism ( which for me is a loose description of
>> certain cultural trends within society) as being pro or anti-scientific.
>>
>
>For someone who believes heavily in the powers of scientific
>reductionism and the use of science as the only legitimate method of
>gaining knowledge, POMO would not doubt seem to be anti-science.
(gaining knowledge about the natural world. I didn't gain my knowledge
about Mickey Mouse by the scientific method)
Tell that to Humphreys
>On the other hand, if you accept mainstream scientific theories like
>quantum weirdness, chaos, and emergence, you might very well believe
>that science itself was POMO well before culture caught up to it!
If you don't know anything about the scientific method you might very
well fall for POMO babble.
Ade Oshineye
<snip>
> If you don't know anything about the scientific method you might very
> well fall for POMO babble.
Exactly which postmodern writers/thinkers do you think are babbling and
why? Is Foucault babbling or is it just Derrida and Baudrillard.
It's not wise to simply denounce a whole body of work as stupid babble
without giving concrete examples and/or a description of who is included
within the remit of your denunciation.
mdeli
Or to put it in a sentence, today's ism is tomorrow's wasm.
mdeli
I'm not writing a scholarly paper here.
You can read criticisms in the POMO conference and Skeptical Inquirer.
I think much of the FAQ supports my view. I gave my opinion and said a
bit about it. That's as deep as I wan't to go here.
The Artspeak style POMO babble is best found in Artforum magazine. A
good example of Pomo writing and really coo-coo conclusions is
Feuerabent (may not be spelled right). Martin Gardner's criticism in
S.I. is concise and to the point
Marilyn
>
> mdeli wrote:
> <snip>
> > If you don't know anything about the scientific method you might very
> > well fall for POMO babble.
> This all seems to have got very heated. I have a question for mdeli.
> Exactly which postmodern writers/thinkers do you think are babbling and
> why? Is Foucault babbling or is it just Derrida and Baudrillard.
> It's not wise to simply denounce a whole body of work as stupid babble
> without giving concrete examples and/or a description of who is included
> within the remit of your denunciation.
mdeli never gives examples, just talks off the top of his head.
Ade Oshineye
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 16:09:32 +0100, Ade Oshineye
>
> >mdeli wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> If you don't know anything about the scientific method you might very
> >> well fall for POMO babble.
> >This all seems to have got very heated. I have a question for mdeli.
> >Exactly which postmodern writers/thinkers do you think are babbling and
> >why? Is Foucault babbling or is it just Derrida and Baudrillard.
> >It's not wise to simply denounce a whole body of work as stupid babble
> >without giving concrete examples and/or a description of who is included
> >within the remit of your denunciation.
>
> You can read criticisms in the POMO conference and Skeptical Inquirer.
> I think much of the FAQ supports my view. I gave my opinion and said a
http://www.csicop.org/si/ but I don't see what it has to do with your
dismissal of the entire body of postmodern thought as "babble." All it
seems to contain is eminently sensible analysis of various
UFO/mystical/New Age phenomena. The only possible link would be if you
were arguing that postmodernism is part of the same wave of
irrationalism and mysticism. In which case the only writers to whom this
argument might be successfully be applied are (the works of) Baudrillard
and to a lesser extent Derrida. Most of the other postmodernists and
poststurcturalists tend to be very rational and highly sceptical. Hence
their criticisms of society as it currently is.
> The Artspeak style POMO babble is best found in Artforum magazine. A
> good example of Pomo writing and really coo-coo conclusions is
> Feuerabent (may not be spelled right). Martin Gardner's criticism in
> S.I. is concise and to the point
disciplines without attempting to justify it. It makes you sound
irrational and closed-minded especially when you don't refer to
individual writers or books.
I couldn't find anything about Artforum magazine but I wonder whether
the "Artspeak style POMO babble" that so bothers you is a specifically
american problem? Or perhaps you might find it easier to understand if
you made an effort to understand something about the theories which
underlie them. I would suggest reading Nietzsche (just about any of his
books except Thus spake Zarathrustra) and Stephen Best & Doug Kellner's
Critical interrogations for a general overview.
mdeli
<TA5...@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
I mentioned articles which support my point. I'm not doing your
homework for you. However:
The antiscience threat-Paul Kurtz S.I, Spring 94
Alen Sokal's Hillarious Hoax- Martin Gardner-S. I.,Winter-96
(references in article)
>I couldn't find anything about Artforum magazine but I wonder whether
>the "Artspeak style POMO babble" that so bothers you is a specifically
>american problem?
Not at all. Mystical nonsense is completely international.
Go to the library and you will find Artforum mag.
> Or perhaps you might find it easier to understand if
>you made an effort to understand something about the theories which
>underlie them. I would suggest reading Nietzsche (just about any of his
>books except Thus spake Zarathrustra) and Stephen Best & Doug Kellner's
>Critical interrogations for a general overview.
I've read N.; what's it supposed to illustrate in relation to Modern
Art?
Ade Oshineye
> On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 17:17:44 +0100, Ade Oshineye
> <TA5...@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 16:09:32 +0100, Ade Oshineye
> >> <TA5...@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >mdeli wrote:
> >> ><snip>
> homework for you. However:
>
> The antiscience threat-Paul Kurtz S.I, Spring 94
>
> Alen Sokal's Hillarious Hoax- Martin Gardner-S. I.,Winter-96
> (references in article)
brief summary of the points that you feel these articles make. They're
not available on the Web and if you don't summarise them yourself it
looks like a straightforward appeal to outside authority. Much like the
fundamentalist muslims who answer all criticisms with the statement
"read the Koran in the original arabic and all will be explained."
Besides I fail to see how anyone can justify their own personal view of
art and the way the art world ought to be by citing science, empiricism
and rationality.
> >I couldn't find anything about Artforum magazine but I wonder whether
> >the "Artspeak style POMO babble" that so bothers you is a specifically
> >american problem?
>
> Not at all. Mystical nonsense is completely international.
instance it's very hard for most people to believe that the UK
Government is operating an X-files style conpiracy about alien
abductions. Or consider the rise of the religious right in America. That
sort of thing isn't international it's specific to a specific place and
time.
> Go to the library and you will find Artforum mag.
to.
> > Or perhaps you might find it easier to understand if
> >you made an effort to understand something about the theories which
> >underlie them. I would suggest reading Nietzsche (just about any of his
> >books except Thus spake Zarathrustra) and Stephen Best & Doug Kellner's
> >Critical interrogations for a general overview.
>
> I've read N.; what's it supposed to illustrate in relation to Modern
> Art?
be a 'view from nowhere.' The idea that one person has some special
objective perspective on things which uniquely qualifies them to
legislate meaning for everyone else. The connection is that whilst your
claims about Modern (which is not necessarily postmodern despite your
usage of the two terms as if they were interchangeable) Art have some
merit you too often assume that what holds true for your little corner
of the world is true everywhere else. To take the UK (which I happen to
know more about than the US) there are exhibitions of the work of people
like Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin and Rachel Whiteread whose artistic
credentials are questionable. There are also prizes like the Turner
which tend to go to members of this media-created clique and which
sometimes seems so arbitrary that it might be as mdeli puts it 'a
lottery.' However the vast majority of the artists, exhibitions,
galleries, museums and specialist publications are based around
traditional artistic media. Most people who appreciate art in this
country (probably) do not feel as if they are being swamped by hyped-up
dross.
My point is this. If in a country as small as this there can exist a
flourishing artistic culture which even mdeli would consider viable (i.e
paint on canvas, patently obvious displays of skill, ancient works by
acknowledged and usually dead master that attract huge audiences to
places like the National Portrait Gallery). Then what makes him think
that in a country like America, which is so much bigger, that there is
some kind of conspiracy wiping out traditional artistic work?
G*rd*n
| > I mentioned articles which support my point. I'm not doing your
| > homework for you. However:
mdeli wrote:
| > The antiscience threat-Paul Kurtz S.I, Spring 94
| >
| > Alen Sokal's Hillarious Hoax- Martin Gardner-S. I.,Winter-96
| > (references in article)
Ade Oshineye <TA5...@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk>:
| I'm not asking anyone to "do my homework for me" however I would like a
| brief summary of the points that you feel these articles make. They're
| not available on the Web and if you don't summarise them yourself it
| looks like a straightforward appeal to outside authority. Much like the
| fundamentalist muslims who answer all criticisms with the statement
| "read the Koran in the original arabic and all will be explained."
| Besides I fail to see how anyone can justify their own personal view of
| art and the way the art world ought to be by citing science, empiricism
| and rationality. ...
You might find something relevant at
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/
Sokal et al., Cultural Studies, postmodern philosophy and
literary criticism, and so on, have not much to do with the
use of the term "postmodern" in the plastic arts. But
mdeli doesn't know that, and the confusion is fun, so
everyone should be happy.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{ http://www.etaoin.com }"{
mdeli
<TA5...@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
snip
>My point is this. If in a country as small as this there can exist a
>flourishing artistic culture which even mdeli would consider viable (i.e
>paint on canvas, patently obvious displays of skill, ancient works by
>acknowledged and usually dead master that attract huge audiences to
>places like the National Portrait Gallery). Then what makes him think
>that in a country like America, which is so much bigger, that there is
>some kind of conspiracy wiping out traditional artistic work?
I don't think what you claim.