Post Modern Art.....WHAT IS IT??
Charles Eicher
In article <3445CE...@dove.net.au>, DARTANIAN <zip...@dove.net.au> wrote:
> Can some kind person take a little time, and tell me what
> precisely post modern art is, and give some examples of
> artists, and their work?
Look, if I answer your question, will you kindly not post this question a
third time? And will you please not SHOUT when you don't get an immediate
answer to a lame question like this the first time you post?
Most simply put, post-modernism is work produced after the Modernist
period. It does not use the methodology of Modernism. There is considerable
debate on what the postmodernist lexicon is saying, but it is most easily
distinguished by its differences from the earlier Modernist works, which
were somewhat related in purpose. Thus, it is POST modernism.
See, now wasn't that easy? Oh, you wanted an example. A professor I know
starts his postmodernism lectures by showing two quite similar paintings by
Dubuffet and Richter. Dubuffet is late modernism, Richter is postmodernism.
I found the comparison amusing..
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Will Call
In article <3445CE...@dove.net.au>, zip...@dove.net.au says...
>Can some kind person take a little time, and tell me what
>precisely post modern art is, and give some examples of
>artists, and their work?
The art historian Charles Jencks published a very comprehensive
survey several years ago titled POST MODERNISM (The New
Classicism in Art and Architecture). Rizzoli Int'l Publications.
There are numerous other
books on the subject by other authors as well, and hundreds
of printed articles in various journals. A Web search should bring
up all sorts of additional information. W.C.
Ric Dragon
Hi Dartanian;
First you must understant what "modernism" means in current parlance.
In short; and many might disagree with my way of putting it; Modernism
can be thought of as all that art that happened after, and in response
to, that long period of art based on the academy. Ok, so, that might
mean the impressionists, and there-after. Well, it was felt, at some
point, that the 'games' being played in Modernism were played-out. So
art started to refer to modernism in a self-conscious manner. It
started to use those systems not for their own sake, but sort of a game
about a game. Thus, "post-modernism". Of course, theres a bit more to
it. You might check out a couple of books, namely, William Dunning's
"The Roots of PostModernism", or Bois' "Painting As Model". The latter
is a particularly excellent book.
Best wishes,
Ric Dragon
DARTANIAN wrote:
>
> Can some kind person take a little time, and tell me what
> precisely post modern art is, and give some examples of
> artists, and their work?
>
> Thanks in anticipation.
> DS
oo
DARTANIAN wrote:
>
> Can some kind person take a little time, and tell me what
> precisely post modern art is, and give some examples of
> artists, and their work?
>
> Thanks in anticipation.
> DS
Modernism's premise is(was) the idea of progress towards an ideal, such
that
each "stage" was built upon and improved the previous one.
Post-modernism's premise is that everything is relative, and that rather
than
progress there is just a plethora of styles, each as valid as the
others.
Clearly, since postmodernists believe this to be a better view of things
than the modernist view, postmodernism is, in fact, just another stage
in the
modernist saga...
RoyGBivart
Dear DS:
I appreciate your search for knowledge. The fact is, there is no such
thing as Post-Modern Art. In the 1890, Impressionism was modern. It is
no longer modern. In the 1960's, POP was modern. It is no longer modern.
To be Post-Modern is to be the art of tomorrow. We sill not see the art
of tomorrow until tomorrow. Therefore, Post-Modern cannot be.
The term is one used mostly by University Art Historians and those who
want to intimidate people who are looking for knowledge and admit they
don't yet have it. (Is there a difference?) If you should go to the
major art centers of the world, NYC, Paris, Madrid, London, Dublin,
Hamberg, Turin, ect., and question the knowledgeable, you will be told
what we have shared.
Modern is Modern, word games by the supposed knowledgeable
notwithstanding.
Sincerely,
Roy
Michael Gerard Maranda
Sorry, Roy, but you are working here under a misconception ... modern is not
synonymous with contemporary. Modern is an era, and it does not mean
'present' or 'now.' When the modern was (or is) is up for debate, but one
could hardly say that during the quattrocento contemporary painting was
modern. Neither, for that matter, was it 'renaissance painting'. It takes
the (past) existence of Hegel for the concept of modern to arise, and I
would suggest that it no longer exists. Post-modernism itself is a
historical movement, that itself passed a few years ago. Hopefully (but not
likely) we are presently in the midst of a post-colonial period.
Anyone catching up to postmodernism should probably seriously considering
going directly to the post-colonial, do not pass Baudrillard or Lyotard or
Jameson. If post-modernism has had any useful effect whatsoever, it is to
enable us contemporaries to ignore it as a once vital movement now relegated
to the dustbin of historical fictions. If we can do so, then the good of
postmodernism will continue to exist.
In article <19970410014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
--
wsp
RoyGBivart wrote:
>
> Dear DS:
>
> I appreciate your search for knowledge. The fact is, there is no such
> thing as Post-Modern Art.
Oh, God, not again ..., would there be a conspiracy?
> In the 1890, Impressionism was modern. It is
> no longer modern. In the 1960's, POP was modern. It is no longer modern.
> To be Post-Modern is to be the art of tomorrow. We sill not see the art
> of tomorrow until tomorrow. Therefore, Post-Modern cannot be.
Almost-ingenious personal definition, too bad it doesn't work for the
rest of us.
>
> The term is one used mostly by University Art Historians and those who
> want to intimidate people who are looking for knowledge and admit they
> don't yet have it. (Is there a difference?)
Whhaat?
> If you should go to the
> major art centers of the world, NYC, Paris, Madrid, London, Dublin,
> Hamberg, Turin, ect., and question the knowledgeable, you will be told
> what we have shared.
Who's "we" here? Are you including yourself in the set of knowledgeable
people?
>
> Modern is Modern, word games by the supposed knowledgeable
> notwithstanding.
>
Yes, and Postmodern is Postmodern, at last we agree!
mdeli
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.
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
kakkies
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
>In article <3445CE...@dove.net.au>, DARTANIAN <zip...@dove.net.au> wrote:
>> Can some kind person take a little time, and tell me what
>> precisely post modern art is, and give some examples of
>> artists, and their work?
It seems that ony mdeli attempts to explain the term. Charles eicher
doesn't have a clue, roygbivart choose to ignore it because he doesn't
understand it, while others only refer to books.
I think mdeli pretty much puts it in a nutshell, but at the end tries
to play it down from a modernist point of view. He has a right to
that, but one cannot ignore the fact that contemporary discourse is
pessimistic to the fundamentals of modernist thinking. As a matter of
fact, in every sector of life seems to distrust rational thinking and
progess in some or other way. It seems that it has failed to make the
world a better place. The ''weak point" of PM is that is does not give
solutions. It only questions and criticize truths. Even Jaques
Derrida, the famous French philosopher who played a major role in this
nihilist deconstruction of truths, systems and structures, cannot give
something in its place. That is its weakest point, because criticism
can also be criticised, and even deconstruction also can be
deconstructed.
If you look at PM from the very safe modernist point of view, the
only conclusion you can come to is to say that PM is bullshitology. It
is not as simple as that.
But hey, why do we always have to be rational, politically correct,
scientific, academic and so damn serious? Everything goes, and its
great!
Greetings from South Africa
Koos Kakkies
James Thomas
wsp <w...@olympus.net> wrote in article <334C8F...@olympus.net>...
> RoyGBivart wrote:
> >
> > Dear DS:
> >
> > To be Post-Modern is to be the art of tomorrow. We sill not see the
art
> > of tomorrow until tomorrow. Therefore, Post-Modern cannot be.
Oh yes, I have several "Post-Modern" painting I have not painted yet but I
shall paint them tomorrow at which time they become Modern; but alas, on
Sunday the paintings become Pre-Modern because I will be working on another
Post Modern which will become Pre-Modern......it is just a vicious circle.
Puns included,
Ron
Kirk Mathew Gatzka
I have been reading a book from the library entitled:
"Art of the Postmodern Era - from the Late 1960's to the Early 1990's"
by Irving Sandler.
It is published by IconEditions an Imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers.
It is (C) 1996, so it is very new.
It's big format, thick with "real" critical writing and clear
explanations about artists and art theorists. Ask your local library
network if they have it or if they can get it for you.
Not too many pictures of the art, but hey! we got the web!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kirk Mathew Gatzka
Freelance Graphic Artist
gatzkART! Exhibition Hall Art Gallery
with Illustrated Poetry and Original
GreetingCards / Free Klipart
http://www.eaglequest.com/~kgatzka
email: kga...@eaglequest.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RoyGBivart
Dear Kak:
There is no such thing as Post Modern Art. Are you asking about Post
Modernist?
Sincerely,
Roy
peter nelson
kakkies wrote:
> I think mdeli pretty much puts it in a nutshell, but at the end tries
> to play it down from a modernist point of view. He has a right to
> that, but one cannot ignore the fact that contemporary discourse is
> pessimistic to the fundamentals of modernist thinking. As a matter of
> fact, in every sector of life seems to distrust rational thinking and
> progess in some or other way. It seems that it has failed to make the
> world a better place. The ''weak point" of PM is that is does not give
> solutions. It only questions and criticize truths. Even Jaques
> Derrida, the famous French philosopher who played a major role in this
> nihilist deconstruction of truths, systems and structures, cannot give
> something in its place.
Why do you call this a "weak point"? Consider it this
way: I'm a software engineer. Someone shows me an
algorithm to do something, and I analyze it and discover
that it won't work, or it doesn't make logical sense.
Declaring this discovery doesn't obligate me to produce
an algorithm that does work. Maybe one isn't possible
or I'm not smart enough to come up with one. But that
doesn't change the fact that the original one is bogus.
---peter
RoyGBivart
Dear DS:
Could you mean Post Modernist?
Sincerely,
Roy
Erika Lenar
I have a Pierre Bonnard painting. So far I showed to a few galery
owners, one of them was a Montgomery Galery owner in San Francisco. He
previously sold Pierre Bonnard painting, and He told me, He is sure this
is a real Bonnard from 1901-1903. and also is on a cardboard paper what
Pierre Bonnard used at the time. A size is 38x31 cm. Unfortunately He is
not licensed to give me a certificate of authenticity.
Please help me fine somebody in the USA, who
can give me the authentification.
Thank You all
RoyGBivart
Dear Michael:
Modern has never been an era. Modernist has. LOOK IT UP.
Sincerely,
Roy
RoyGBivart
Dear DS:
No, we don't agree.
Yes, I include myself.
Obviously you had no answers to my points, for you answered nothing and
debated nothing. I guess you don't know what you are talking about.
Sincerely,
Ropy
RoyGBivart
Dear Ron:
You are stupid!
Sincerely,
Roy
Stenax
vous etes surement de tres valeureux penseurs et vos propos sont ,je n'en
doute pas, fort interessants mais je me permet de vous rappeler que nous
sommes ici en france et a ce titre je vous serais gre de bien vouloir
traduire vos echanges d'idees afin d'en faire profiter nos compatriotes ,
merci
--
no copyright 1997
<mailto:ste...@club-internet.fr>