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
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments.
at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Brian Shapiro
Read my post about the Egyptian and Roman civilizations in decline, and how
their art and thinking reflected it, in the topic "Criteria for judging
painting."
Oh, heck.. I'll post a copy of it here so it will be easier for you... ;)
----
Bob, I think you are failing to see the big picture in the Egyptian art
example! I have studied the different phases of Egyptian culture.... For a
long time the Egyptian had descended deeper and deeper into ritualism and
mysticism. While this was happening, the society was becoming more corrupt,
as priests sold magical formulas to get to the otherworld (kind of like
indulgences). As the ritualistic aspect of the religion increased, the
religion became less centered on the ethical aspect. Then came efforts for
reform, and a reformer, Akhenaton came to power. He re-emphasized Egyptian
relgion on the ethical aspect, drawing away from the ritualistic. Akhenaton
went pretty far---he actually instated something like monotheism, which
Egyptians had never seen before. Akhenaton also led the push to make art
more naturalistic. However, the religion established by Akenaton did not
offer salvation for the masses, so it drew no major following. After his
death, the priests restored the religion to its old ways, and called
Akhenaton "the criminal" and "the heretic." And from that point, the
ritualism was brought back to Egyptian religion at a more dramatic level,
and it had completely lost its moral quality. Just as well, After
Akhenaton's death, the priests and pharoahs stopped supporting the making of
naturalistic art. And it is after Akhenaton's death that you generally find
the Egyptian civilization in decline. In the end, they succumbed to more
powerful civilizations that were ascending, like the Romans. I think you
will not only see the dramatic changes in Egyptian culture in the artworks,
but also the themes of the poetry. I think you will find that during the
reign of Akhenaton, the poetry was more meaningful.
I am not saying that any course of evolution, whether it be biological or
cultural, goes in a straight path upward. Just as well, some cultures might
remain the same due to certain circumstances. However, there are certain
reasons why cultures do change in different directions.
I will give you another example apart from the Egyptian one---the Roman
empire. During the growth of the Roman empire, its art was very naturalistic
and high quality. At the beginning of the decline, the art became less
idealistic however, and started to portray frustrated emotions in the
subjects it depicted. Afterwards, the Roman empire already on the path of
decline, the art became increasingly geometric. The faces on the different
statues became exactly the same so you couldn't tell one person from
another. And in general, art became larger, and more bulkier. During this
time, the capital moved to Constantinople, and the emperors began taking up
eastern clothes. The Roman society became more mystic, and numerous cults
began to take over Roman society, one of them being Christianity. Many
people call this the "easternization" of the Roman empire. The Roman empire
gradually faded out, barbarians invaded, and we were left with the dark
ages.
Above you, you see two examples where civilizations had periods of
naturalistic art, and then went to less naturalistic art. In both cases,
what was happening? The societies were becoming more superstitious and
ritualistic. They had lost faith in the world, and had yearned for the
afterlife. They were less humanistic and rational, and more mystic and
irrational. They were becoming more immoral (Roman orgies, etc), corrupt
(selling tickets to heaven), unethical. And, on top of it all, their
civilizations were in decline, fading away.
It's not just these two examples... archaeology studies have shown that all
civilizations that are in decline have their art become more simple and
geometric.
One would not have to think to hard to make comparisons to Modern
civilization... you don't have to agree with such a comparison, but the
point is very clearly made.
By the way, if you want to see a three page summary I once put together
about the different phases I found in the course of Egyptian relgion, just
ask me.. it is pretty interesting... they went from a period of patronage
and animism, to a period of early polytheism, to a period of "messianism",
to a period of ethically-centered polytheism, descending to a period of
ritualistic polytheism, interrupted by a brief period of monotheism, and
continuing the decline into ritualistic polytheism.
Hey, I know my stuff. ;-)
---Brian Shapiro
----
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:36af6129...@news.interlog.com...
Brian Shapiro
the Egyptians, there were attempts to prevent the cultural decline and
reform the society. As I mentioned, in the Egyptian case, there was
Akhenaton. In the Roman case, there was Marcus Arelius. Both had short term
success, but after they died, their respective cultures continued to
decline.
--Brian Shapiro
Brian Shapiro <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:78oaoh$mkn$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
Peter Nelson
think you are failing to see the big picture in the Egyptian art
>example! I have studied the different phases of Egyptian culture.... For
> a long time the Egyptian had descended deeper and deeper into
>ritualism and mysticism. While this was happening, the society
> was becoming more corrupt, as priests sold magical formulas
> to get to the otherworld (kind of like indulgences). As the
> ritualistic aspect of the religion increased, the religion became
> less centered on the ethical aspect. Then came efforts for
>reform, and a reformer, Akhenaton came to power. He
>re-emphasized Egyptian relgion on the ethical aspect, drawing
> away from the ritualistic. Akhenaton went pretty far---he
>actually instated something like monotheism, which
>Egyptians had never seen before. Akhenaton also led
> the push to make art more naturalistic.
. . .
>Above you, you see two examples where civilizations had
>periods of naturalistic art, and then went to less naturalistic
> art. In both cases, what was happening? The societies
> were becoming more superstitious and ritualistic. They
>had lost faith in the world, and had yearned for the
>afterlife. They were less humanistic and rational,
. . .
Although I'm no big fan of most modern art, I think the above
"reasoning" is pretty nutty, and that you and the PoMo crowd
deserve each other. It's somewhat akin to Christian
fundies claiming that dance or rock and roll music will
corrupt people.
In our century the biggest and most aggressive proponents
of naturalistic art , and OPponents of modern, abstract,
and nonrepresentational art, were the Communists and
the NAZIs, using reasoning much like yours. Artists
not conforming to the state rules for creating realistic
are were jailed or killed and their works destroyed.
These do not sound exactly like an advanced rational
civilizations to me!
To the extent that "civilizations in decline" adopt more "geometric"
art or other nonnaturalistic art, this probably reflects the same
thing it does in ours, namely that the central authorities
are losing their power to dictate all things including
aesthetic tastes so people are free to cast about and
try different things and approaches. To suggest that it
is a *cause* of the decline is worthy of some nut living
in a cabin in Montana with a typewriter, some explosives,
and lots of stamps.
I would also point out that Arabic art has almost always been
highly geometric even at the height of their civilization when
Europe was in the Dark Ages.
---peter
Brian Shapiro
calling me a nazi.
--Brian Shapiro
Peter Nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:78ojm3$ibg$1...@strato.ultra.net...
>Brian Shapiro wrote in message <78oaoh$mkn$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...>Bob, I
>think you are failing to see the big picture in the Egyptian art
>>example! I have studied the different phases of Egyptian culture.... For
>> a long time the Egyptian had descended deeper and deeper into
>>ritualism and mysticism. While this was happening, the society
>> was becoming more corrupt, as priests sold magical formulas
>> to get to the otherworld (kind of like indulgences). As the
>> ritualistic aspect of the religion increased, the religion became
>> less centered on the ethical aspect. Then came efforts for
>>reform, and a reformer, Akhenaton came to power. He
>>re-emphasized Egyptian relgion on the ethical aspect, drawing
>> away from the ritualistic. Akhenaton went pretty far---he
>>actually instated something like monotheism, which
>>Egyptians had never seen before. Akhenaton also led
>> the push to make art more naturalistic.
>
>. . .
>
>>Above you, you see two examples where civilizations had
>>periods of naturalistic art, and then went to less naturalistic
>> art. In both cases, what was happening? The societies
>> were becoming more superstitious and ritualistic. They
>>had lost faith in the world, and had yearned for the
>>afterlife. They were less humanistic and rational,
oed...@ibm.net
hey, OK -- what gives -- is this a real thread? -- or is Neal Simon trying
out a new comedy.
Brian, how did you go from pompous to pissy in 20 minutes? Peter may have
been a little abrasive about it, but he is accurate.
There does seem to be a connection between totalitarian dictators and
representative, or "naturalistic", art. Hitler wanted to be a classical
painter. Avante garde artists were labeled "degenerate" by the Nazis. Even
Plato had no room for artists in his totalitarian Republic. As an advocate
of naturalism in the arts, he argued that a mirror was far more faithful to
nature than any artist. I'll disagree about the Communists, however.
Russian Constructivism was a powerful avante garde force.
As for postmodernism, the problem with defining it is that it can't exist
outside of its social and historical framework. It is identified by how it
reflects what has come before it. My best attempt at a simple definition is
"decentralized reflections." Depending upon what it is reflecting,
postmodernism will decentralize the reflected essence. In a postmodern
detective novel, the case is solved because the detective fails miserably,
calling into question the merits of both the pursuit and the solution. In a
postmodern painting, techniques or styles once used to arrive at some type
of true perception, are applied ad hoc, openly flaunting their illusionary
properties and exposing their inherent propaganda.
To clarify by example, Pulp Fiction (I'm sure we've all seen it at least
once) is considered a postmodern movie because it uses identifyable styles
and structures to expose the disbelief that is suspended once one identifies
said styles and structures.
In the recognized gangster structure, if two hit men ask you to take a ride
with them, you know you're gonna get whacked but good. Gangsters close car
doors, gangsters glance at each other, gangsters lock car doors. Then, the
director quick cuts to: your father "don Giovanni" opens an envelope
containing a finger with your high school ring around it. Pretty standard
stuff.
In Pulp Fiction, Marvin takes a ride with Jules and Vincent and gets his
head blown off. That's in the first minute of the scene; the next 20 are
concerned with mopping up the flesh mess that must logically follow blowing
somebody's head off in one's backseat. To complicate matters further, the
shooting was an accident. What's more, these hitmen don't have a plethora
of seedy mafia dives in which to dispose of the body. They have Jimmy, a
suburban homeowner in Burbank, who drinks gourmet coffee and is scared to
death of his African American wife who is on her way home from her night
shift at the hospital. Rather than fool his viewers into suspending their
disbelief, Tarantino exploits the suspension of disbelief until his viewers
have rejected what was never more than a facade, the gangster story, and
start looking for the real message.
Hope this helps,
Brad
Brian Shapiro wrote in message <78oki1$uv$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
G*rd*n
| ...
| representative, or "naturalistic", art. Hitler wanted to be a classical
| painter. Avante garde artists were labeled "degenerate" by the Nazis. Even
| Plato had no room for artists in his totalitarian Republic. As an advocate
| of naturalism in the arts, he argued that a mirror was far more faithful to
| nature than any artist. I'll disagree about the Communists, however.
| Russian Constructivism was a powerful avante garde force.
Later replaced by Socialist Realism, however.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/10 <-adv't
peter nelson
Brian Shapiro wrote in message <78oki1$uv$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>I wasn't suggesting anything you are saying, and I take great offense at
you
>calling me a nazi.
Where did I call you a nazi? I merely pointed out that the NAZIs and
the Soviets also believed that correct art led to correct societies and
that non-naturalistic art led to incorrect societies. To quote your
thesis:
#Above you, you see two examples where civilizations had
#periods of naturalistic art, and then went to less naturalistic
# art. In both cases, what was happening? The societies
# were becoming more superstitious and ritualistic. They
#had lost faith in the world, and had yearned for the
#afterlife. They were less humanistic and rational,
---peter
Brian Shapiro
totalitarians. Pompous to pissy? :) I never realized I was either... I first
spoke of the Egyptian stuff in response to someone else who tried to use the
Egyptian example as support for non-naturalistic art.
<oed...@ibm.net> wrote in message news:36b02...@news1.ibm.net...
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ha ha HAHAHA
>hey, OK -- what gives -- is this a real thread? -- or is Neal Simon trying
>out a new comedy.
>
>Brian, how did you go from pompous to pissy in 20 minutes? Peter may have
>been a little abrasive about it, but he is accurate.
>
>There does seem to be a connection between totalitarian dictators and
>representative, or "naturalistic", art. Hitler wanted to be a classical
>painter. Avante garde artists were labeled "degenerate" by the Nazis.
Even
>Plato had no room for artists in his totalitarian Republic. As an advocate
>of naturalism in the arts, he argued that a mirror was far more faithful to
>nature than any artist. I'll disagree about the Communists, however.
>Russian Constructivism was a powerful avante garde force.
>
>Brian Shapiro wrote in message <78oki1$uv$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>>I wasn't suggesting anything you are saying, and I take great offense at
>you
>>calling me a nazi.
>>
>>--Brian Shapiro
>
>
peter nelson
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ha ha HAHAHA
>hey, OK -- what gives -- is this a real thread? -- or is Neal Simon trying
>out a new comedy.
>
>Brian, how did you go from pompous to pissy in 20 minutes? Peter may have
>been a little abrasive about it, but he is accurate.
>
>There does seem to be a connection between totalitarian dictators and
>representative, or "naturalistic", art. Hitler wanted to be a classical
>painter. Avante garde artists were labeled "degenerate" by the Nazis.
Even
>Plato had no room for artists in his totalitarian Republic. As an advocate
>of naturalism in the arts, he argued that a mirror was far more faithful to
>nature than any artist. I'll disagree about the Communists, however.
>Russian Constructivism was a powerful avante garde force.
True, but that was in the 1920's before Stalinism asserted itself.
In 1934 the Communist party declared Socialist Realism the
official state artistic doctrine and that was really what I was
referring to.
---peter
mdeli
<ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Oh.. I forgot to mention something... in the cases of both the Romans and
>the Egyptians, there were attempts to prevent the cultural decline and
>reform the society. As I mentioned, in the Egyptian case, there was
>Akhenaton. In the Roman case, there was Marcus Arelius. Both had short term
>success, but after they died, their respective cultures continued to
>decline.
I read you post but I don't grasp what you are trying to conclude.
I don't believe that post Akhenaton Egypt was in decline but this is
debatable. As to post M. Arelius Rome, its also complicated.
An interesting fact: the Roman games didn't stop with the advent of
moralizing Christianity.. They only stopped after the Barbarian
conquests 500 years later. There is a theory that the Christian Romans
became so obsessed with virginity that the became sloppy about
guarding their borders.
BeefaloeB
thirties. The simplest way to think about what post-modern means, for me at
least, is to try and think about what modern means. Unfortunately, because the
terms both mean different things to different people, and because both terms
are bandied about indiscriminately, the terms have become rather meaningless.
By the way, is David Salle a post-modernist painter?
oed...@ibm.net
geometric, avante garde art, but then graduated into realism.
That would tend to fly in the face of Brian's thesis that abstraction is a
degeneration of realism, wouldn't it.
Brad
peter nelson wrote in message <78psta$8ku$1...@strato.ultra.net>...
Brian Shapiro
however, hoping to demonstrate that once a culture evolves in one direction,
it is difficult to turn it back to "the way things used to be".
--Brian Shapiro
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:36afc2c8...@news.interlog.com...
>On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:51:25 -0800, "Brian Shapiro"
><ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>>Oh.. I forgot to mention something... in the cases of both the Romans and
>>the Egyptians, there were attempts to prevent the cultural decline and
>>reform the society. As I mentioned, in the Egyptian case, there was
>>Akhenaton. In the Roman case, there was Marcus Arelius. Both had short
term
>>success, but after they died, their respective cultures continued to
>>decline.
>
>I read you post but I don't grasp what you are trying to conclude.
>
>I don't believe that post Akhenaton Egypt was in decline but this is
>debatable. As to post M. Arelius Rome, its also complicated.
>
>An interesting fact: the Roman games didn't stop with the advent of
>moralizing Christianity.. They only stopped after the Barbarian
>conquests 500 years later. There is a theory that the Christian Romans
>became so obsessed with virginity that the became sloppy about
>guarding their borders.
Brian Shapiro
saying that every civilization follows the same path (I am not some sort of
die-hard dialectical type :); I was just discussing archaeological finds,
and how the art reflects the zeitgeist of a civilization. In the case of the
Egyptians and Romans, the culture was becoming more mystic and irrational.
Surely you agree that naturalistic art is more humanistic? At any rate, I do
think that modern art reflects modern culture in a similar way, but that is
another discussion. I ask you to make that judgement by yourself. You seem
to be eager to want to argue ;)
--Brian Shapiro
<oed...@ibm.net> wrote in message news:36b09...@news1.ibm.net...
Tom C
>"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.
So any form of thinking that doesn't concentrate on the recovery of one
absolute truth - and monolithic views of the world is bullshit? Don't be
infantile.
Barni
mysticism.
In the antiquity (but not only) the mysticism was used to manipulate people
ex:the kings, pharaons pretended to be gods, to have a greater power (it was
used by ALL the great dictators from Alexander the Great till Hitler...)
The modern mysticism, began with the surrealism. This is the base of the
PoMo-nysticism too. It wanted exactly the opposite, to free the people's
mind, to give access to the subconscious (which isn't something concrete)
This type of mysticism has nothing to do whith the first cathegory...
What about this idea?
Barni
peter nelson
It wasn't clear that that was the feature of PoMo that he was
referring to. My personal objection to PoMo is not that it
"doesn't concentrate on the recovery of one absolute truth -
and monolithic views of the world", but rather that its analysis
is not cogent and its practioners appear to try to obscure
this with thick jargon.
Other than the general observation that the understanding
of a literary tract or artistic creation is influenced by the
reader's or viewer's experiences and culture - not exactly
a profound insight - what exactly has postmodern analysis
taught us? Indeed, given its own claims about the limitations
of language to communicate anything at all, what can it
hope to tell us? It seems to be a self-limiting philosophy.
---peter
peter nelson
BeefaloeB wrote in message <19990128111807...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
>It is interesting to note that the term "post-modern" has been in use since
the
>thirties. The simplest way to think about what post-modern means, for me
at
>least, is to try and think about what modern means. Unfortunately, because
the
>terms both mean different things to different people, and because both
terms
>are bandied about indiscriminately, the terms have become rather
meaningless.
It means something different from what it did in the 30's. At that time
people were looking for some way to describe what had developed
*since* modernism but now it refers to a more developed set of
attitudes and beliefs that can be boiled down to saying that nothing
has any intrinsic meaning or nature because that meaning is
imposed by experience or culture. But it takes a vast ocean
of words and university grant money to say it.
I think one thing that saved "postindustrial" from this fate was that
there was a clear set of developments that followed industrialism.
I.e., economic and social systems based on heavy industry
and manufacturing *things* have been getting supplanted with
systems based on information (including genetic research
which is just information biologically).
>By the way, is David Salle a post-modernist painter?
Can't anybody be, if they want, or if someone wants them to be?
A few weeks ago on NPR's Connections show they had some
scholar of postmodernism (Mark Yaylor, maybe?) who said
that Ronald Reagan was our first postmodern president.
---peter
oed...@ibm.net
"It's not just these two examples... archaeology studies have shown that all
civilizations that are in decline have their art become more simple and
geometric."
First, "simple" is a highly subjective term to apply broadly across the art
of any period.
Second, the implication that geometric art is somehow less natural than
realism is unsound. Geometry is a natural phenomenon that can be just as
rightly observed as cowboys hanging their boots, or seagulls skirting
cresting ocean waves, or kittens playing with balls of yarn, or any other of
the common subjects of "realism."
Third, the causal link between art styles and civilizational zeitgeists,
which your thesis does in fact imply, is an arbitrary one. There is no
logical connection in your argument, only coincidences.
Finally, I do not agree that naturalistic art is more humanistic. If I did,
then I should be able to tell you what art is the least humanistic, and then
what lies between. Textbooks would be replaced by cue cards of paintings
with "humanistic percentile scores" written in the corner. But art history
is not that dogmatic.
Brad
Brian Shapiro wrote in message <78qb0c$7dd$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
> Brian Shapiro wrote in message <78oki1$uv$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
> >I wasn't suggesting anything you are saying, and I take great offense at
> you
> >calling me a nazi.
>
> the Soviets also believed that correct art led to correct societies and
> that non-naturalistic art led to incorrect societies. To quote your
> thesis:
>
> #periods of naturalistic art, and then went to less naturalistic
> # art. In both cases, what was happening? The societies
> # were becoming more superstitious and ritualistic. They
> #had lost faith in the world, and had yearned for the
> #afterlife. They were less humanistic and rational,
>
> ---peter
>
The first sequence that I learned of where 'representational' art evolved into
'abstract' was in a long period of petroglyphs found in an area of Baja
California (about 800 years). I thought this was interesting because I had
assumed that artists would begin with clumsy attempts at representation, and
refine their skills with practice. The second sequence where the same thing
happened was in some of the art of the late Roman Empire, which started out as
representational and evolved into greater abstraction. The third was the
transitory period between late Olmec to Early Maya, where the Olmec style of
portraying figures, as if rendered 'in situ,' later became very stylized and
abstracted by the time the practice became common in Yucatan.
Another example, closer to the tradition we often refer to as our own. Hans
Leonhard Schaufelein worked in Dürer's shop in Nüemberg, and subsequently
reflected this greatest 'show-off's' meticulous representational style.
However, later Schaufelein moved out into his own, relocated first in
Augsberg and later in Nordligen, and developed another style completely,
which actually was to stereotype a lot of the little details of a woodcut for
economy and ease of production. Some scholars complain that Schaufelein
'lost it' but I didn't feel that way. He simply made a decision about what
was important about a woodcut illustration and abbreviated (abstracted) the
rest. His prints to me have a 'lyrical' quality that Dürer's lack. But
again, it is the developmental trajectory from representation to abstraction
that is interesting.
I don't think the instances in history of this trajectory is a matter of
declining societies, stygmitization of religious ideas, or any of these other
manifestations mentioned on this thread. It is just stereotyping graphic
elements. Once a viewing public gets used to the visual idea that a
combination of marks can represent an object in nature, all sorts of
shortcuts can be made to convey that image and make it appear believable.
The modern idea of the 'stereotype' has a negative connotation, so it is good
to remember that its actually a matter of language economy -- how to
symbolize an idea in the most efficient way. Tiger = large striped cat.
Along with this idea I think its important to remember the production context
of much of the works of art that we consider to be of the 'Old Masters.'
Often it is difficult to determine if Cranach, Ruebens, Holbein, Dürer and so
on every really put their hand to a painting that has be ascribed to them,
since art was often produced in factories involving teams of artists, and
often produced in lots of twenty or thirty.
When the Italian Art Historian Morelli came along and discovered that an
artist will leave her/his fingerprint in the was insignificant details were
drawn and rendered -- like the curve of the nostril or earlobe, the creases
in a hand. Morelli became the most dispised art historian of the early 20th
century, because his method revealed that about half the paintings in the
most wealthy collections were not painted by the artists who were thought to
have painted them. Millions and millions of dollars were lost to the
Morellian method.
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
mdeli
<Tom.C...@CHEEZbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>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.
>
>
>So any form of thinking that doesn't concentrate on the recovery of one
>absolute truth - and monolithic views of the world is bullshit? Don't be
>infantile.
That's a your conclusion not mine.
The illogic of this conclusion hangs around the word "any."
mdeli
>I think one have to make a difference between the different kinds of
>mysticism.
>
>
>In the antiquity (but not only) the mysticism was used to manipulate people
>ex:the kings, pharaons pretended to be gods, to have a greater power (it was
>used by ALL the great dictators from Alexander the Great till Hitler...)
It is still used to manipulate people but that doesn't define
mysticism. I won't attempt to define it but will mention some, note
some, of its characteristics
- it is the rational behind the superstition business.
-Belief in supernatural causes, myths and legends, any objection to
which are severely punished
-Lots of convoluted repetitious cryptic text.
-a claim to inordinate expertise on mystical matters by a priest
class.
-Testimony rather than logic and evidence as a basis for believing.
-in most cases a refusal to consider mystical beliefs other than the
ones to which one is born to.
-.A claim that it is a very old and wise traditional philosophical
outlook
Present day mysticism of the POMO variety:
-a belief that it is a new philosophical outlook
-sees logic and the scientific method as flawed.
-sees culture rather than rationality and evidence as the arbiter for
the truth of conclusions.
-Confuses aesthetics with reality.
- lots of convoluted repetitious cryptic text.
-nobody knows what any of its advocates are really talking about.
-objects to the conclusions of the Enlightment
>The modern mysticism, began with the surrealism. This is the base of the
>PoMo-nysticism too. It wanted exactly the opposite, to free the people's
>mind, to give access to the subconscious (which isn't something concrete)
>This type of mysticism has nothing to do whith the first cathegory...
>
Art is the place for metaphor, the irrational and anything anyone can
imagine. It is not a method of seeking truth. Surrealism is ancient.
It is a mixture of reality in an unrealistic context. It may be a
metaphor about truth but it isn't truth. Theology is ancient
surrealism which some believe is truth.
POMOs can,t distinguish the aesthetic from the factual, metaphor from
reality
As to freeing peoples minds (whatever exactly that means), If
some cockeyed belief makes you feel good it doesn't prove its true.
mdeli
<ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>I never said it wasn't complicated.. after all, history always is... I was,
>however, hoping to demonstrate that once a culture evolves in one direction,
>it is difficult to turn it back to "the way things used to be".
>
>--Brian Shapiro
Well now that you have stated it more clearly I can say that the
statement is a bit flawed. Do cultures evolve in singular directions?
As to "things the way they used to be," Well---
"The human race now stands at its most important crossroads. One path
leads to missery and unhappiness, the other to total anhiliation. Let
us pray that god grants us the wisdom to make the right choice."
Woody Allen
Tom C
>Other than the general observation that the understanding
>of a literary tract or artistic creation is influenced by the
>reader's or viewer's experiences and culture - not exactly
>a profound insight - what exactly has postmodern analysis
>taught us? Indeed, given its own claims about the limitations
>of language to communicate anything at all, what can it
>hope to tell us? It seems to be a self-limiting philosophy.
I get really frustrated with this kind of discussion. What you have
discussed is not even a particularly postmodern position. It drips of
structuralism, to be honest - possibly even (just) post-structuralism - but
it is not a postmodern position. It is not exactly a profound insight (as
you say) but more to the point it is *not* an insight of postmodernity
(except in the sense that it begins to explore some of the aspects of
'meaning'.
Tom C
>>>"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.
>>So any form of thinking that doesn't concentrate on the recovery of one
>>absolute truth - and monolithic views of the world is bullshit? Don't be
>>infantile.
>
>That's a your conclusion not mine.
>
>The illogic of this conclusion hangs around the word "any."
Actually, no - that it is not the case. Your statement makes it clear that
the things that you describe are not only counter-intuitive, but a polar
opposite of what is "correct". That means that you are arguing that the
opposite is true. I was drawing attention to the fact that you were arguing
for things that do NOT "emphasize fragmentations, discontinuities and
incommensurable aspects of a given object, from intellectual systems to
architecture", instead presumably being comfortable without the
fragmentiations, discontinuities and incommensurable aspects - hence in
essentialism, absolute truths etc.etc.etc....
peter nelson
Tom C wrote in message <78s9n8$2us$1...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>...
Feel free, then, to suggest something that you feel more closely
describes postmodernism. People on this newsgroup are always
telling us what it is *not*; it would be a refreshing improvement
to suggest what it *is*.
---peter
br...@wralaw.com
"Tom C" <Tom.C...@CHEEZbtinternet.com> wrote:
> peter nelson wrote in message <78qjki$4tf$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>...
> >a profound insight - what exactly has postmodern analysis
> >taught us? Indeed, given its own claims about the limitations
> >of language to communicate anything at all, what can it
> >hope to tell us? It seems to be a self-limiting philosophy.
> I get really frustrated with this kind of discussion. What you have
> discussed is not even a particularly postmodern position.
The ambiguity of contemporary art criticism is what is frustrating.
What I see are ambiguities refering to ambiguities, which makes it
more ambigous in the end.
> It drips of
> structuralism,
Oh no! What is structuralism? Besides the greek roots which mean
belief(ism) in structure?
> to be honest - possibly even (just) post-structuralism - but
> it is not a postmodern position.
And it is after the belief in structure!
> It is not exactly a profound insight (as
> you say) but more to the point it is *not* an insight of postmodernity
It is not a profound insight.
> (except in the sense that it begins to explore some of the aspects of
> 'meaning'.
Of course a philosophy that 'explores' language and logic needs to
be restated in clearer and more logical way.
What I have seen pass for POMO text uses obscure terms and then
refers to obscure philosophy. Real philosophy like say an argument
for the existance of God, needs to be clear. After all a POMO
would not buy an argument for the existance of God or an argument
against abortion purely on the grounds that it is obscure and makes
its believers think that their inability to be understood is a sign
of superhuman intelligence.
The real problem I have with POMO is that *in fact* what is stated
as factual in POMO I agree with. However I do not agree with the
it's implied interpretations. "Exploring" language means doubting
language not denying. While POMO does not in fact deny language it
does act like it has in response to clearer, more objective, and
theirfore more impeachable points of view. Oddly POMO proponents
are incabaple of a line by line criticism of other points of view,
destroying them with archimedes(my obscure reference) points! And
this last line has proved it!
Bryn Ayers
"Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
br...@wralaw.com
"Tom C" <Tom.C...@CHEEZbtinternet.com> wrote:
> >>>Another quote:
> >>So any form of thinking that doesn't concentrate on the recovery of one
> >>absolute truth -
Why focus on absolute truth? Everything is perceptual induction and
innate fuzzy logic. Having a philosophy that does not concentrate on
the recovery of absolute truth does not make that philosophy even
relative truth de facto. Doubting logic and language dates back to
Epicurous and Zeno. Why isn't this Classicism?
> >> and monolithic views of the world is bullshit?
And one-stone views of the world?
What are you trying to say by MONO-Lithic?
> >The illogic of this conclusion hangs around the word "any."
> Actually, no -
Yes it does. Your case is focused on the philosophy of art called
Post-Modernism not on any philosophy.
>I was drawing attention to the fact that you were arguing
> for things that do NOT "emphasize fragmentations, discontinuities and
> incommensurable aspects of a given object, from intellectual systems to
> architecture",
And if reality is discontinous and interconnected?
> instead presumably being comfortable without the
> fragmentiations, discontinuities and incommensurable aspects - hence in
> essentialism, absolute truths etc.etc.etc....
Presumable being comfortable ..... absolute truth?
Are you stating that the position that states that pomo is too ambigous
to be taken too seriously is the strawman of absolute truth(and etc.)?
If there is no absolute truth, the statement there is no absolute
truth is an absolute truth.
oed...@ibm.net
all of that Big '80s wealth. Ditto Schnabel. Ditto Longo. Well, actually,
Longo also moonlights as a B-movie director.
Good riddance '80s,
Brad
BeefaloeB wrote in message <19990128111807...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
>It is interesting to note that the term "post-modern" has been in use since
the
>thirties. The simplest way to think about what post-modern means, for me
at
>least, is to try and think about what modern means. Unfortunately, because
the
>terms both mean different things to different people, and because both
terms
>are bandied about indiscriminately, the terms have become rather
meaningless.
Marilyn
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Gian Pietro Bellori criticizes the inclination of the public
who:
"praise things painted from life because they are accustomed to
seeing such things,
who appreciate fine colors and not beautiful forms which they
do not understand,
who grow weary of elegance,
look for novelty,
despise reason,
follow common opinion and
depart from the truth of art."
[written in the year:]
1672
Marilyn
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
> Tom C wrote in message <78s9n8$2us$1...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>...
> >>of a literary tract or artistic creation is influenced by the
> >>a profound insight - what exactly has postmodern analysis
> >>taught us? Indeed, given its own claims about the limitations
> >>of language to communicate anything at all, what can it
> >>hope to tell us? It seems to be a self-limiting philosophy.
> >
> >
> >I get really frustrated with this kind of discussion. What you have
> >structuralism, to be honest - possibly even (just) post-structuralism - but
> >it is not a postmodern position. It is not exactly a profound insight (as
> >you say) but more to the point it is *not* an insight of postmodernity
> >'meaning'.
>
> describes postmodernism. People on this newsgroup are always
> telling us what it is *not*; it would be a refreshing improvement
> to suggest what it *is*.
>
> ---peter
>
demystification (or demythification), has itself become discourse, stock of
phrases, catechistic declaration;.."
Barthes, Roland, "Change the Object Itself: Mythology Today [1971]," in
Image- Music-Text, S. Heath trans., New York: The Noonday Press, 1988, pp.
165-169.
This little reference is just to comment on the problem with terms that is
cited by contributors to this thread. The essay is worthwhile reading, as
Barthes is commenting on a central problem of semiotics (and more broadly
Critical Theory, Structuralism and the various "post-s."
Edward Said commented in an essay that his reserch into the publishing record
of texts dealing with these branches of the social sciences shows that these
books are published in rather small lots, and the active, book-buying
readership is around 20 - 30,000 -- which is very small.
Discussions of issues such as 'post modernism' within this active readership
are usually heavily referenced insofar as who is saying what, since it is
recognized that their is no real consensus of opinion about the concepts
which have become the 'theoretical objects' of this interdisciplinary
discourse.
That is what I see as lacking in the discussions about post-modern things on
ths ng -- actual reference to authors or scholars who have published theories
and authors and scholars who have challenged them. What we have here,
instead, is the "discourse, stock of phrases, catechistic declaration" which
Barthes noted as the fate of semiotics unless it is continually refreshed
with rigorous theoretical underpinnngs and some semantic discipline.
Unfortunately the problem of terminology has only one solution -- to learn
the terminology. In this it is like any other field, or groups of fields,
you have to learn the terminology. This is as true for molecular biology as
it is for the Structural Analysis of Narrative. As a project it is
difficult, and the rewards are that you can read Craig Owens, Selya Benhabib,
Michel Foucault or Richard Rorty and understand what they are talking about.
Once some understanding of the terminology is attained, the theories become
much less ambiguous and more meaningful (naturally).
G*rd*n
| ...
| ths ng -- actual reference to authors or scholars who have published theories
| and authors and scholars who have challenged them. What we have here,
| instead, is the "discourse, stock of phrases, catechistic declaration" which
| Barthes noted as the fate of semiotics unless it is continually refreshed
| with rigorous theoretical underpinnngs and some semantic discipline.
You're posting to two newsgroups with rather different
audiences. There are some people who show up in alt.pomo
from time to time who have actually done the reading. In
rec.arts.fine, as far as I can see, almost all who dip into
criticism are either conservative or reactionary and don't
believe the reading (or the viewing) is necessary. Hence
people disparaging Rothko who have apparently never seen
one of his paintings except in an Arts Appreciation 101
textbook -- and feeling that they don't have to go beyond
that to produce an opinion worth anyone's attention!
In any case, _postmodern_ as in the plastic arts and
_postmodern_ as in philosophy and lit-crit are two very
different things, although both give the more rigid
types stomach-aches of the mind.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/10 <-adv't
mdeli
<Tom.C...@CHEEZbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>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.
>
>>>So any form of thinking that doesn't concentrate on the recovery of one
>>>absolute truth - and monolithic views of the world is bullshit? Don't be
>>>infantile.
>>
>>That's a your conclusion not mine.
>>
>>The illogic of this conclusion hangs around the word "any."
>
>
>Actually, no - that it is not the case. Your statement makes it clear that
>the things that you describe are not only counter-intuitive, but a polar
>opposite of what is "correct". That means that you are arguing that the
>opposite is true. I was drawing attention to the fact that you were arguing
>for things that do NOT "emphasize fragmentations, discontinuities and
>incommensurable aspects of a given object, from intellectual systems to
>architecture", instead presumably being comfortable without the
>fragmentiations, discontinuities and incommensurable aspects - hence in
>essentialism, absolute truths etc.etc.etc....
>
If you would translate the above paragraph from Artspeak into English
I might be able to say something about it.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Note: There was an address error in former messages
The above address is correct. Please try again.
G*rd*n
|>| ...
|>| That is what I see as lacking in the discussions about post-modern things on
|>| ths ng -- actual reference to authors or scholars who have published theories
|>| and authors and scholars who have challenged them. What we have here,
|>| instead, is the "discourse, stock of phrases, catechistic declaration" which
|>| Barthes noted as the fate of semiotics unless it is continually refreshed
|>| with rigorous theoretical underpinnngs and some semantic discipline.
|>| ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > You're posting to two newsgroups with rather different
| > audiences. There are some people who show up in alt.pomo
| > from time to time who have actually done the reading. In
| > rec.arts.fine, as far as I can see, almost all who dip into
| > criticism are either conservative or reactionary and don't
| > believe the reading (or the viewing) is necessary. Hence
| > people disparaging Rothko who have apparently never seen
| > one of his paintings except in an Arts Appreciation 101
| > textbook -- and feeling that they don't have to go beyond
| > that to produce an opinion worth anyone's attention!
| >
| > In any case, _postmodern_ as in the plastic arts and
| > _postmodern_ as in philosophy and lit-crit are two very
| > different things, although both give the more rigid
| > types stomach-aches of the mind.
emat...@tomatoweb.com:
| I agree with your comments. However, in either context, the very terminology
| associated with postmodernism should be understood if it is to be cited at
| all. The only way to get at the terms is to have some sense of how these
| words are used by various authors. Otherwise the term postmodernism becomes
| nothing more than a slogan or 'loaded' word like 'communisn' or 'fascist' or
| 'bullshitology.' Not too much intelligence in this sort of language, except
| as positional statements: "I'm against this or that, I'm for this or that'
| sort of thing.
Well, it serves certain peoples' puposes. Cornball
anti-intellectualism has been a staple of American life for
probably the whole history of the country. It's boring, but
then, so is pro ball. Not knowing what you're talking
about, as well as other forms of ignorance and stupidity,
are held to be virtues. It's just another game people play,
although it does sometimes edge off into some pretty nasty
political stuff. Otherwise, I'd say it's not worth paying
much attention to, with the exceptional moments of
hilarity.
| But I dip into criticism all the time, and I don't see myself conservative or
| reactionary (maybe others do). I may be misunderstnding you. But there's a
| term in itself that needs clarification: 'criticism.' Some understand this
| to be disparaging something, and insofar as popular use of the term goes,
| they are correct. But in the body of theory, including concepts of modernism
| and postmodernism, 'criticism' means something else -- more along the line of
| asking 'how did this come to be, and what are its rules, and how does it
| stand in culture.' For example, when Kant wrote "The Critique of Pure
| Reason" he wasn't knocking 'reason' but rather asking where and how his
| society acquired the concept of 'reason.' I think the confusion over terms,
| which is certainly a fundamental problem with theory and how it seats in
| society, leads to a lot of antagonistic feelings and even pointless
| arguments.
By _criticism_ I mean _any_ examination of art, but
especially a comparative one, not excluding issues of
evaluation and judgment if one believes in such
things, but not confined to them either.
Finding Rothko or Picasso admirable is conservative;
finding them abominable is reactionary (unless of course
one finds them abominable for some postmodern reason,
but I haven't seen much of this).
-N.
> Finding Rothko or Picasso admirable is conservative;
> finding them abominable is reactionary (unless of course
> one finds them abominable for some postmodern reason,
> but I haven't seen much of this).
I very much disagree with this characterization: it does not address the
infinite variation of the terms you are using.
Rothko and Picasso are nothing outside of how ones imagination posits and
processes them, and that, G*rd*n, is nearly infinite. One can even hold
more than one, contradictory opinions an artist.
Your analysis has more to do perhaps with a doctrinaire critical/political
polemical stereotyping, than it does with how one processes these artists
in their imagination, combining them with any and every other possible
cultural experience.
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
-N.
> The message is by no means the same as the carrier of the message.
> Pace Marshall Mc:Luhan. Saint Benedict of Clairvaux knew the
> difference.
>
> So what is the message. That thefragmentation in POMO is abhorrent.
>
> Saying that does not mean that the sayer believes in one thing! You
> may think that the original sayer believes in one thing, but that
> doesnot inva;lidate his opinion I agree with it. As I have said I
> know quite a number of these people andhave heard them talk
> unguardedly, and in some cases have had their encounters with students
> reported to me. None of them have any idea that their work would go
> over the top because it was fragemnted. They all were clever
> proponents of the avant garde notion which can now be played like a
> fiddle by those who care to play it. That the next great thing that
> comes along will break the rules of the last one. And also the one
> thing it dare not do is have any kind of rapprochment with classic
> modernism [that modernism of Matisse, Miro, Picasso, Gris, Braque,
> Mondrian, Torres=Garcia or Klee] or with any part of the tradition of
> painting in the western world between the Gothic Period and the end of
> the nineteenth centutry. That then becomes an easily scripted game.
> The art world then becomes an oyster which is easy to crack. That is
> what all the pomo's were doing. They were safecrackingin the art
> world. And the critics were, too. They wanted to be the next one to
> inherit Clement Greenberg's mantle. And the collectors -they wanted
> Ben Heller's mantle. There are some people on that list who are self
> deluded. But not the artists. And you are not going to find an
> intellectual in the lot., Or one who can discuss anything with more
> insight than the neigborhood plumber.
>
> Now, I have not personally stigmatized anyone on this group. I do
> believe that you plural who impute serious reasons behind the work of
> the pomos have been had by the media hype and by either your youth
> [the thing was in place when you arrived] or your distance from the
> center -New York.
> I am sure you know the real motivation behind th local successes and
> their real worth as artists, as separated by their careers. Why should
> it be any different in the center?
> Gabriel
Are you suggesting this is the TRUTH, or just another opinion?
I completely disagree with your reading of the artworld and of
contemporary art.
I have already earlier this year experienced your stereotyping wrath
against an entire generation of contemporary artists (for interested
parties, do a DejaNews search in Feb, March, April). It is blind, ignorant
demagoguery (and hateful to boot), pure and simple.
I have another theory: you are out of touch with the times, and with this
generation.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> emat...@tomatoweb.com:
> | ...
> | That is what I see as lacking in the discussions about post-modern things on
> | ths ng -- actual reference to authors or scholars who have published theories
> | and authors and scholars who have challenged them. What we have here,
> | instead, is the "discourse, stock of phrases, catechistic declaration" which
> | Barthes noted as the fate of semiotics unless it is continually refreshed
> | with rigorous theoretical underpinnngs and some semantic discipline.
> | ...
>
> audiences. There are some people who show up in alt.pomo
> from time to time who have actually done the reading. In
> rec.arts.fine, as far as I can see, almost all who dip into
> criticism are either conservative or reactionary and don't
> believe the reading (or the viewing) is necessary. Hence
> people disparaging Rothko who have apparently never seen
> one of his paintings except in an Arts Appreciation 101
> textbook -- and feeling that they don't have to go beyond
> that to produce an opinion worth anyone's attention!
>
> In any case, _postmodern_ as in the plastic arts and
> _postmodern_ as in philosophy and lit-crit are two very
> different things, although both give the more rigid
> types stomach-aches of the mind.
>
I agree with your comments. However, in either context, the very terminology
associated with postmodernism should be understood if it is to be cited at
all. The only way to get at the terms is to have some sense of how these
words are used by various authors. Otherwise the term postmodernism becomes
nothing more than a slogan or 'loaded' word like 'communisn' or 'fascist' or
'bullshitology.' Not too much intelligence in this sort of language, except
as positional statements: "I'm against this or that, I'm for this or that'
sort of thing.
But I dip into criticism all the time, and I don't see myself conservative or
reactionary (maybe others do). I may be misunderstnding you. But there's a
term in itself that needs clarification: 'criticism.' Some understand this
to be disparaging something, and insofar as popular use of the term goes,
they are correct. But in the body of theory, including concepts of modernism
and postmodernism, 'criticism' means something else -- more along the line of
asking 'how did this come to be, and what are its rules, and how does it
stand in culture.' For example, when Kant wrote "The Critique of Pure
Reason" he wasn't knocking 'reason' but rather asking where and how his
society acquired the concept of 'reason.' I think the confusion over terms,
which is certainly a fundamental problem with theory and how it seats in
society, leads to a lot of antagonistic feelings and even pointless
arguments.
Erik
zi...@interport.net
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:09:50 -0000, "Tom C"
G*rd*n
| > Finding Rothko or Picasso admirable is conservative;
| > finding them abominable is reactionary (unless of course
| > one finds them abominable for some postmodern reason,
| > but I haven't seen much of this).
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.):
| I very much disagree with this characterization: it does not address the
| infinite variation of the terms you are using.
| Rothko and Picasso are nothing outside of how ones imagination posits and
| processes them, and that, G*rd*n, is nearly infinite. One can even hold
| more than one, contradictory opinions an artist.
| Your analysis has more to do perhaps with a doctrinaire critical/political
| polemical stereotyping, than it does with how one processes these artists
| in their imagination, combining them with any and every other possible
| cultural experience.
May I suggest that you go to the trouble of observing that I
was not talking about Picasso or Rothko, or their works, but
about two species of art criticism and how one talks about
them? Then, if you had something to say, it might be relevant.
peter nelson
>Unfortunately the problem of terminology has only one solution -- to learn
>the terminology. In this it is like any other field, or groups of fields,
>you have to learn the terminology. This is as true for molecular biology
as
>it is for the Structural Analysis of Narrative. As a project it is
>difficult, and the rewards are that you can read Craig Owens, Selya
Benhabib,
>Michel Foucault or Richard Rorty and understand what they are talking
about.
>
>Once some understanding of the terminology is attained, the theories become
>much less ambiguous and more meaningful (naturally).
Except that what I was asking for was evidence that learning
the terminology was a worthwhile enterprise in the sense that
the terminology describes something real in the first place.
My question was, after all, "what exactly has postmodern analysis
taught us? " It's easy enough to point to other fields with arcane
terminology - molecular biology, for instance, or computer networking,
or atomic physics, and demonstrate that these fields relate to
something real and concrete and genuinely complex which continues
to advance in a demonstrable way, perhaps due in part to eggheaded
academics talking to each other in dense, esoteric lingo. You don't
have to be a computer expert to see that real advances are being
made in the fields of telecommunications or internet technology,
for instance.
The suspicion which is raised here by me and others is that the
dense esoteric lingo of postmodernists does not ultimately
describe anything real and concretely complex; in other words
that it is simply a pastime of certain academics to try to give
their field the illusion of intellectual rigor by adopting the posture
and dense terminology of other fields which actually need their
terminology to describe nontrivially meaty subjects.
---peter
mdeli
>There are some people who show up in alt.pomo
>from time to time who have actually done the reading.
Life is too short to do all the reading. One reads a bit and should he
reject the logic and conclusions of what he reads he goes on to other
things.
I don't delve into religious tracts, do you?
> In
>rec.arts.fine, as far as I can see, almost all who dip into
>criticism are either conservative or reactionary and don't
>believe the reading (or the viewing) is necessary.
In other words I'm conservative or reactionary because you say so.
Does one have to read the Bible cover to cover to reject religion?
> Hence
>people disparaging Rothko who have apparently never seen
>one of his paintings except in an Arts Appreciation 101
>textbook -- and feeling that they don't have to go beyond
>that to produce an opinion worth anyone's attention!
Most people here have seen Rothko as he is represented in most
museums. My conclusion about Rothko is that his "practically nothing"
stuff isn't worth the bother.
Furthermore one doesn't have to read a damned thing about an artist in
order to accept or reject his work.
>In any case, _postmodern_ as in the plastic arts and
>_postmodern_ as in philosophy and lit-crit are two very
>different things, although both give the more rigid
>types stomach-aches of the mind.
>
Begging the points as usual.
POMO :
-a belief that it is a new philosophical outlook
-sees logic and the scientific method as flawed.
-sees culture rather than rationality and evidence as the arbiter for
the truth of conclusions.
-objects to the conclusions of the Enlightment
Is this wrong? Are the above true or not?
My conclusions: POMOs
-Confuse aesthetics with reality.
-are into convoluted repetitious cryptic rhetoric.
-don't even know what any of their own advocates are really talking
about.
As to confusion consult your own FAQ.
I bet any answer to the above if it comes, will be the usual tangent
or a declaration of a label.
mdeli
>Well, it serves certain peoples' puposes. Cornball
>anti-intellectualism has been a staple of American life for
>probably the whole history of the country.
So has your sort of cornball intellectualism
>Finding Rothko or Picasso admirable is conservative;
>finding them abominable is reactionary (unless of course
>one finds them abominable for some postmodern reason,
>but I haven't seen much of this).
And where do you find yourself?
Brian Shapiro
>First, "simple" is a highly subjective term to apply broadly across the art
>of any period.
I think that you know by "simple" I mean simplicity in visual
representation, characteristic of minimalism. I really don't see why you are
arguing this, except for the purpose of semantics.
>Second, the implication that geometric art is somehow less natural than
>realism is unsound. Geometry is a natural phenomenon that can be just as
>rightly observed as cowboys hanging their boots, or seagulls skirting
>cresting ocean waves, or kittens playing with balls of yarn, or any other
of
>the common subjects of "realism."
Geometric art is less natural, not because it uses geometry, but because it
imposes a rigid and artificial geometric structure. I think you understand
what I mean; once again, I don't see why you are arguing this, except for
the purpose of semantics.
>Third, the causal link between art styles and civilizational zeitgeists,
>which your thesis does in fact imply, is an arbitrary one. There is no
>logical connection in your argument, only coincidences.
I'm sure I can find similar "coincidences" all throughout history. At any
rate, I don't know why you find the idea that art reflects the zeitgeist so
illogical. It is hard to ignore "coincidences" like Mannerist art appearing
at the same time that you see invasion and destruction in Italy.
>Finally, I do not agree that naturalistic art is more humanistic. If I
did,
>then I should be able to tell you what art is the least humanistic, and
then
>what lies between. Textbooks would be replaced by cue cards of paintings
>with "humanistic percentile scores" written in the corner. But art history
>is not that dogmatic.
I think would be possible to have a humanistic percentile score, but it
would be no more useful than the current left-right political spectrum. Just
as the left-right political spectrum doesn't always work in reality, the
humanistic percentile score woudn't either. But it doesn't mean it couldn't
be done.
Brian Shapiro
fuzzy logic."
Apparently, you hold the statement "Everything is perceptual induction and
innate fuzzy logic" to be an absolute truth. This is as paradoxical as
someone who hates all bigots.
At any rate, fuzzy logic does not negate 'classical' logic. In fact, I think
it took 'classical' logic to come up with the idea of fuzzy logic in the
first place.
Cheers,
Brian Shapiro
Brian Shapiro
>anti-intellectualism has been a staple of American life for
>probably the whole history of the country.
I get angry at the fact that some conservatives proclaim all intellectualism
is bad, and some liberals proclaim all intellectualism is good. They do this
without realizing that there can be both liberal and conservative
intellectuals. I don't like cornball anything, whether it is
anti-intellectualism or intellectualism.
>Finding Rothko or Picasso admirable is conservative;
>finding them abominable is reactionary (unless of course
>one finds them abominable for some postmodern reason,
>but I haven't seen much of this).
Was Michaelangelo reactionary for wanting to recapture values of an earlier
age?
G*rd*n
| ...
| rate, I don't know why you find the idea that art reflects the zeitgeist so
| illogical. It is hard to ignore "coincidences" like Mannerist art appearing
| at the same time that you see invasion and destruction in Italy.
Lots of people have enjoyed doing this sort of thing, but I
can't say as I've ever seen a convincing theory with any
substantial reference to facts. It's a pretty tough row to
hoe: you've got to set up objective criteria for works of
art, objective criteria for historical (political and
economic) situations, and an objective, that is, non-
interpreting, way of correlating the two. Saying Mannerist
art appears in Italy at the same time as war and destruction
isn't enough unless it appears _every_time_ war and
destruction appears -- which would make for quite a bit of
Mannerist art in the last several centuries.
But don't let me discourage you.
G*rd*n
| >Well, it serves certain peoples' puposes. Cornball
| >anti-intellectualism has been a staple of American life for
| >probably the whole history of the country.
"Brian Shapiro" <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu>:
| I get angry at the fact that some conservatives proclaim all intellectualism
| is bad, and some liberals proclaim all intellectualism is good. They do this
| without realizing that there can be both liberal and conservative
| intellectuals. I don't like cornball anything, whether it is
| anti-intellectualism or intellectualism.
How much choice do you have? Cornball is one of the major
superstyles of American life, with the power even to elect
Presidents. But, let's move on....
G*rd*n:
| >Finding Rothko or Picasso admirable is conservative;
| >finding them abominable is reactionary (unless of course
| >one finds them abominable for some postmodern reason,
| >but I haven't seen much of this).
"Brian Shapiro" <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu>:
| Was Michaelangelo reactionary for wanting to recapture values of an earlier
| age?
Maybe. But I was talking about art criticism in the passage
above, and I'm unfamiliar with M.'s efforts in that line.
Brian Shapiro
I never said that there was a concrete formula, eg. this kind of situation =
this kind of art. People and cultures aren't that simple so that they fit
into simplistic formulas. ;) As such, it would be absurd to suggest that
every time there is war and destruction, there should be Mannerist art.
However, the art that a culture produces correlates to a view on what art
should be, which in turn correlates to a general view of the world, which in
turn is most often correlated to the earthly situation that the culture
finds itself in ;)
--Brian Shapiro
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:792t4q$18u$1...@panix2.panix.com...
G*rd*n
| >There are some people who show up in alt.pomo
| >from time to time who have actually done the reading.
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli):
| Life is too short to do all the reading. One reads a bit and should he
| reject the logic and conclusions of what he reads he goes on to other
| things.
Well, Mani, you're the one who's always complaining that
people try to do art without learning the basic skills
properly.
-N.
<ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Geometric art is less natural, not because it uses geometry, but because it
> imposes a rigid and artificial geometric structure. I think you understand
> what I mean; once again, I don't see why you are arguing this, except for
> the purpose of semantics.
Your appeal to nature as a criteria off the mark. Neither geometric or
non-geometric art are by any degree or measure 'natural'. Both these
forms of art are CULTURAL constructs. Your premise is false and your
reasoning does not float.
-N.
> gor...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> | > Finding Rothko or Picasso admirable is conservative;
> | > finding them abominable is reactionary (unless of course
> | > one finds them abominable for some postmodern reason,
> | > but I haven't seen much of this).
>
> redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.):
> | I very much disagree with this characterization: it does not address the
> | infinite variation of the terms you are using.
> | Rothko and Picasso are nothing outside of how ones imagination posits and
> | processes them, and that, G*rd*n, is nearly infinite. One can even hold
> | more than one, contradictory opinions an artist.
> | Your analysis has more to do perhaps with a doctrinaire critical/political
> | polemical stereotyping, than it does with how one processes these artists
> | in their imagination, combining them with any and every other possible
> | cultural experience.
>
> May I suggest that you go to the trouble of observing that I
> was not talking about Picasso or Rothko, or their works, but
> about two species of art criticism and how one talks about
> them? Then, if you had something to say, it might be relevant.
If you went to the trouble of clarifying this in your original statement,
it would have pre-emted such a misundersatnading. Such a reading was not
evident in your post. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Peter H.M. Brooks
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx "-N." writes:
> > Geometric art is less natural, not because it uses geometry, but because it
> > imposes a rigid and artificial geometric structure. I think you understand
> > what I mean; once again, I don't see why you are arguing this, except for
> > the purpose of semantics.
>
> Your appeal to nature as a criteria off the mark. Neither geometric or
> non-geometric art are by any degree or measure 'natural'. Both these
> forms of art are CULTURAL constructs. Your premise is false and your
> reasoning does not float.
>
I am not sure if this criterion is so wrong. If you look at the geometric
curves on sea shells, snails, leaves, fruit and animals, you see plenty
of natural origins for them. Since these geometric forms are found in
art of all cultures, I don't think they are cultural constructs.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Tom C
>to be taken too seriously is the strawman of absolute truth(and etc.)?
>
>If there is no absolute truth, the statement there is no absolute
>truth is an absolute truth.
The impossibility of generating statements that escape the discourse is one
of the concerns of postmodern thought - the statement that there is no such
thing as a metanarrative for example. Language reflecting extra-discursive
reality, seems to be your opinion. I would instead say that you have
identified a crisis or collapse of language - and thus identified a quality
of the discourse itself. Well done.
Tom C
mdeli wrote in message <36b4cc9e...@news.interlog.com>...
>>Well, it serves certain peoples' puposes. Cornball
>>anti-intellectualism has been a staple of American life for
>>probably the whole history of the country.
>
>So has your sort of cornball intellectualism
Oh for god's sake. Please keep in mind that there can SURELY not be anything
wrong with being an intellectual and thinking about things. I am not making
any statements about who is or isn't an intellectual, but you MUST agree
that thought, discussion and involvement are valuable things. A general
anti-intellectual sentiment is, i am afraid, a dismal way for the world to
be. An uncritical pro-intellectual sentiment might be considered as bad -
but academic / intellectual circles are communities which operate as checks
and balances on the excesses and stupidities of some of its participants.
So please - argue about the facts of the statement (is America
anti-intellectual) rather than confirming it...
Tom C
>describes postmodernism. People on this newsgroup are always
>telling us what it is *not*; it would be a refreshing improvement
>to suggest what it *is*.
Surely finding out the subject of a newsgroup is your job. That is why the
group has a FAQ. If you were to read the FAQ, then perhaps people like
myself would not have to go "that isn't postmodernity in any form I
recognise" every ten minutes.
Tom C
>>finding them abominable is reactionary (unless of course
>>one finds them abominable for some postmodern reason,
>>but I haven't seen much of this).
>
>age?
Not liking or not believing is different from finding abominable, surely? I
think it is reactionary to consider Rothko or Picasso corrupt or abominable,
but not to think that they are boring or clumsy. That's another matter
entirely.
Tom C
>-a belief that it is a new philosophical outlook
Not always the case - many post-modernists view it as an outgrowth or
development of modernity - modernity taken to its logical extreme,
collapsing under its own weight. Postmodernity in many ways is the ideology
of the collapse - it concentrates on where our systems, which we cannot live
without are self-deconstructing. A new way of looking at the world is often
advocated, whereby the attempt to enfore continuity onto discontinuous facts
is not taken as the only logical objective, but play in the discontinuity is
seen to have its own worth..
>-sees logic and the scientific method as flawed.
But does not seek to replace them or develop unflawed models.
>-sees culture rather than rationality and evidence as the arbiter for
>the truth of conclusions.
Is not interested in the truth of conclusions. Actually I don't know how
exactly you can even attempt to separate culture, rationality and evidence.
Where are the boundaries in those three areas. Brief example - commonly said
that there are an infinite amount of interpretations for any body of
evidence - hence relationship between theory and evidence must always be a
suspicious one. No scientific method is ever proven, merely not refuted
yet - this is a standard scientific belief - explored by postmodernity. The
modernist project believed in total isolation from the object of study - you
remove all auxiliary variables from an experiment in order to determine
whether or not the factor left is the cause. It has become materially clear
through quantum physics that the act of viewing itself can never be removed
from an experiment and has a quantifiable result. There are so many areas in
which the modernist ideals of totality, comprehensibility, distance and
metanarrative have been problematised. That is not the same as saying
culture is the arbiter for truth, but rather that truth is a problem rather
than a given and worthy of further investigation. How do truth claims
operate? Can they operate effectively?
>-objects to the conclusions of the Enlightment
Indeed, see above...
>My conclusions: POMOs
>-Confuse aesthetics with reality.
>-are into convoluted repetitious cryptic rhetoric.
Look - I spent years fighting what I saw to be postmodernitys flaws, but I
was completely persuaded by a friend a few years ago. You ONLY have to
accept that what happens is that you push and push and push at the
enlightenment project and modernity until you see the collapse. When you see
the collapse you can respond in two ways, by trying to patch it up, or by
exploring the reasons for the collapse and allowing that to reinfluence your
view of the enlightenment project. The first one stays true to principles
that are placed outside experience (truth, progess, totality), the second
one is prepared to re-examine them. In the second case your view of all
things is altered, although it is one based upon a recognition of
fundamental hypocrisy (attempting to discuss the undiscussable) rather than
the denial of fundamental hypocrisy (attempting to discuss the undiscussable
without acknowledging its undiscussability).
G*rd*n
| >>Well, it serves certain peoples' puposes. Cornball
| >>anti-intellectualism has been a staple of American life for
| >>probably the whole history of the country.
mdeli wrote in message <36b4cc9e...@news.interlog.com>...
| >So has your sort of cornball intellectualism
I sort of passed this by, but on seeing it again, I can't
see how cornball intellectualism has had much of a run in
the U.S. What are you thinking of, Chautauquas? Emerson?
By and large intellectualism has been pretty firmly
construed as foreign, haut-bourgeois if not even
aristocratic, urban, deeply suspect. Things have changed
some in the last few decades, but I'm talking about
history.
"Tom C" <Tom.C...@CHEEZbtinternet.com>:
| Oh for god's sake. Please keep in mind that there can SURELY not be anything
| wrong with being an intellectual and thinking about things. ...
That's two different categories, Tom.
peter nelson
>
>mdeli wrote in message <36b4cc9e...@news.interlog.com>...
>
>>>Well, it serves certain peoples' puposes. Cornball
>>>anti-intellectualism has been a staple of American life for
>>>probably the whole history of the country.
>>
>>So has your sort of cornball intellectualism
>
>
anything
>wrong with being an intellectual and thinking about things.
I didn't interpret mdeli's comments to refer to any and all
intellectual activities, but specifically to "cornball" intellectualism.
Specifically there are many people, especially in the art world,
who cloak the fact that they are not really describing anything
and have not really developed the sort of intellectually rigorous
model of their subject matter which, say, scientists, have done,
with a dense intellectual-sounding jargon designed to convince
outsiders that they are truly thinking deep thoughts.
In other words, because of the nature of the subject matter
the world of modern art admits quite a few poseurs and they
can get away with it more easily than they can in other fields.
John Cage wrote a composition consisting of 4 minutes and
33 seconds of silence. Any ordinary person using common sense
would quickly conclude "that's not music!". But the intellectual
community embraced this as a deep new musical insight.
When they do this they play into the hands of the anti-intellectuals
by making themselves look foolish and trivial.
Sure, it's interesting to ask about the relative importance of
notes and silence in music or "positive" and "negative" space
in drawing. But imagine the field were structural engineering
and they were asking about how little tensile strength material
they could get away with in building a suspension bridge. If
they created a "bridge" out of nothing at all how many cars or
people could cross it. Would anyone in THAT community call
it a "bridge"?
---peter
Tom C
>I might be able to say something about it.
Or alternatively you could sit down with some books on postmodernity and a
dictionary and catch up. When I started working in academic circles I had to
catch up with a lot of vocabulary in order to engage in debates. From
classics I had to learn ancient greek, words like autochthon and ephebe,
from psychoanalysis I had to learn unconscious, cathected, id, analysand -
from structuralism I had to learn discourse, signifier and signified - from
deconstruction I had to learn logocentrism, from film theory I had to learn
the language of film-makers, identificants, identifiers etc. To understand
aspects of philosophy, art history, literature, thought it is necessary to
catch up on the vocabulary. It is not my job to explain these things to you,
particularly when you are so patently rude about it. I suggest a primer, a
dictionary and a couple of weeks to think.
John Haber
>> on postmodernity and a dictionary and catch up.
Thanks for that. It's just plain no-nothingism to equate new ideas
with obfuscation. Of course, these guys make exceptions for
themselves, because their technical mastery and spritual understanding
as artists are beyond the public's understanding. <grin>
Fortunately, language changes every day: the word "postmodern" came
into circulation because people were using it, not because the
Sorbonne issued a policy statement.
Seriously, though, I don't agree that we needn't offer suggestions of
our own when someone raises the question of what it is. First, it's a
serious enough question that we should at least point to some critical
sources, such as The Anti-Esthetic (Foster, ed.) or The Postmodern
Condition (Lyotard) or some such. Second, it's not one of those
things that will ever be resolved. It's controversial what it means
or even whether it's meaningful, and we should admit that and enjoy
entering the controversy. Just so long as it's a genuine controversy,
not an attack on ideas.
In this spirit, I'll throw in a plug for my own Web page, which tries
to give different perspectives on the ideas of the modern and
postmodern, mostly in context of reviewing current exhibitions. See
particularly
http://www.haberarts.com/postdox.htm
and
http://www.haberarts.com/mythemes.htm#pomo
or a recent review of the Guggenheim's Pompidou Center show, with its
own construction of the modern:
http://www.haberarts.com/pompidou.htm
John (jha...@haberarts.com)
peter nelson
Tom C wrote in message <794a6h$14v$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
Have you actually read this? It also describes postmodernism
mainly in terms of what it is NOT, contrasting it with earlier views
and movements and suggesting that it is a rejection of this or
a departure from that. It also says that, "It must be realized though,
that post-modernism has many interpretations and that no single
definition is adequate" The best it can do is not that PoMo is
"often characterized by . . . " one thing or another or that "some
theorists" describe it as thus and such. So let's face it,
postmodernism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Anyway, the real gist of my question/comment is to ask
what evidence there is that postmodernist jargon actually
represents a rigorous view or model of ANYTHING, and is
not just at attempt to create the impression of intellectual
rigor by inventing a dense terminology in the manner of
other fields such as science or computers which really
NEED their arcane language to describe things which
really are meaty and complex with adequate rigor.
If I go to the trouble of learning computer network terminology
it is because when I'm done I know I'll really know something,
not just a bunch of words. I know that I'l have a language
which actually describes the way something actually works
in the real world. What evidence is there that someone who takes
the trouble to learn PoMo jargon will acquire any such real world
knowledge. From what I can tell, many PoMo thinkers reject
the idea that such a result is even possible. As the FAQ
notes, "postmodernity is seen as involving an end of the
dominance of an overarching belief in scientific rationality"
This being the case, it calls into question whether signs
and symbols such as PoMo jargon can describe anything
in the first place.
---peter
Tom C
>33 seconds of silence. Any ordinary person using common sense
>would quickly conclude "that's not music!". But the intellectual
>community embraced this as a deep new musical insight.
>When they do this they play into the hands of the anti-intellectuals
>by making themselves look foolish and trivial.
I think the point with something like this is that it can only be done once,
but still needs to be done once. I mean, it is not something that I would
want to 'listen' to, but at the same time it does provide a different idea
on what music "is" (conceive of music as careful selection of notes built up
from nothing or as the removal of extraneous noise - henry moore thing - you
know). Once, once only. Fine by me.
>Sure, it's interesting to ask about the relative importance of
>notes and silence in music or "positive" and "negative" space
>in drawing. But imagine the field were structural engineering
>and they were asking about how little tensile strength material
>they could get away with in building a suspension bridge. If
>they created a "bridge" out of nothing at all how many cars or
>people could cross it. Would anyone in THAT community call
>it a "bridge"?
Yeah - but that is also about utility. It is about what you think music is
FOR, just as it is for what you think a bridge is FOR. A piece of music can
be viewed as entertainment involving noise, or as a piece of conceptual art,
or as something to help you buy things (piped music, adverts etc). The
silence fails in many definitions of music, but doesn't as art - it is
thought provoking, irritating, obvious and yet scandalous. Seems quite a
good idea to me. Now a bridge serves a material purpose, and without that
materiality it would not generally be made. But if someone makes a bridge
three inches long out of , um, cat hair or something then it is still a
BRIDGE, but it is not being used for its material end. And then you have to
estimate whether or not it is art.
The silence thing is also a cool political thing - it exposes hypocrisy just
as its exposure of hypocrisy makes the whole thing art again - can you
imagine the audiences noises during those minutes - it would be embarrasing,
uncomfortable, laughable, confusing. This reaction could be seen to be an
appropriate one for art, which makes the silence suddenly art. This then
undermines the position of the critic (I include myself in that one), who is
accounting for the reaction of the audience, and thus is left to say that
the 'nothing' works effectively as a piece of art. The critic the artist and
the audience are all hypocrites, making an absence into art by their
reaction, while simultaneously having those reactions because it is not art,
it is nothing.
Phew.
I mean - basically I would't want to go to a performance, but it had a point
and the point is made. Noone will do it again, unless a point needs to be
made about originality.
Brian Shapiro
boring and clumsy? And they perpetuated boringness and clumsiness in the art
world?
--Brian Shapiro
Brian Shapiro
-N. <redi...@earthlink.net_xxx> wrote in message
news:redirect-010...@1cust14.tnt9.nyc3.da.uu.net...
>In article <792qv9$9hi$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, "Brian Shapiro"
><ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>> Geometric art is less natural, not because it uses geometry, but because
it
>> imposes a rigid and artificial geometric structure. I think you
understand
>> what I mean; once again, I don't see why you are arguing this, except for
>> the purpose of semantics.
>
>Your appeal to nature as a criteria off the mark. Neither geometric or
>non-geometric art are by any degree or measure 'natural'. Both these
>forms of art are CULTURAL constructs. Your premise is false and your
>reasoning does not float.
>
Tom C
>mainly in terms of what it is NOT, contrasting it with earlier views
>and movements and suggesting that it is a rejection of this or
>a departure from that.
I have read it. And it is generally pretty accurate. Postmodernity (oddly
enough) is a form of thinking concerning with going beyond modernity,
whether that be in terms of a rejection of modernity or a development past
it.
It also says that, "It must be realized though,
>that post-modernism has many interpretations and that no single
>definition is adequate" The best it can do is not that PoMo is
>"often characterized by . . . " one thing or another or that "some
>theorists" describe it as thus and such. So let's face it,
>postmodernism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
That is not the case. There are threads and strains that are common to
many/all of the theorists. Similarly if you compare Marx and Althusser you
will see that while one is truly marxist another is a development from
marxism which incorporates other ideas. Postmodernity it not characterised
by one author, and so of course you will get dissent over practice, or
different attitudes, viewpoints, different theorical positions. That is the
way that it is with ALL branches / types / periods of philosophy. There are
common features though - common concerns and developments. Read the FAQ.
>Anyway, the real gist of my question/comment is to ask
>what evidence there is that postmodernist jargon actually
>represents a rigorous view or model of ANYTHING, and is
>not just at attempt to create the impression of intellectual
>rigor by inventing a dense terminology in the manner of
>other fields such as science or computers which really
>NEED their arcane language to describe things which
>really are meaty and complex with adequate rigor.
OK. I'll give you the nicest piece of meat you could ever ask for. Read some
Lacan and you will find it completely impenetrable, dripping in neologisms,
with words like phallogocentrism conjured from the ether. Read further and
you will find that his philosophy is concerned with language, how it means,
if it means, and that the style of his writing is his philosophy. If you are
not interested, that is one thing, if you can't be bothered, then that is
another, but I wouldn't presume to slam it unless you've done the reading,
thought about it and worked from there.
>If I go to the trouble of learning computer network terminology
>it is because when I'm done I know I'll really know something,
>not just a bunch of words.
Actually, all you will have is a language that is interpreted by a device in
order to perform actions. You learn a computer language in order to know
INSTRUCTIONS. Language generally, and philosophy in particular is not
concerned with only making statements that are instructions. The analogy is
completely false.
>I know that I'l have a language
>which actually describes the way something actually works
>in the real world. What evidence is there that someone who takes
>the trouble to learn PoMo jargon will acquire any such real world
>knowledge. From what I can tell, many PoMo thinkers reject
>the idea that such a result is even possible.
If you look for "real world knowledge" in philosophy then you will generally
be disappointed. If it is that form of utility yuo are looking for in
postmodernity - then you won't find it.
But if you are not reading postmodernity because you don't think you'll find
it, then I don't know why you think you are in a position to comment.
>As the FAQ
>notes, "postmodernity is seen as involving an end of the
>dominance of an overarching belief in scientific rationality"
>This being the case, it calls into question whether signs
>and symbols such as PoMo jargon can describe anything
>in the first place.
Yes it does precisely that. Thank yuo for listening. The inability to escape
discourse does not mean that we should accept it as a given. Describing the
edges of the human experience is valuable even when you can't go beyond
them. etc etc etc
Dao Jones
says...
>
> Life is too short to do all the reading.
Life is too short not to / Life is is long as you make it.
> Most people here have seen Rothko as he is represented in most
> museums. My conclusion about Rothko is that his "practically nothing"
> stuff isn't worth the bother.
Then it clearly isn't annoying enough - and yet here you are, using
your (short) time and your mind to argue about Rothko...perhaps that's
what it's all about.
> Furthermore one doesn't have to read a damned thing about an artist in
> order to accept or reject his work.
No, but to have an inkling of what has gone into what is being rejected,
and why one is rejecting it, it pays to know what has gone before. Just
because we are told History is Over doesn't mean that knowledge of the
past cannot tell you anything about the present or the future.
>
> >In any case, _postmodern_ as in the plastic arts and
> >_postmodern_ as in philosophy and lit-crit are two very
> >different things, although both give the more rigid
> >types stomach-aches of the mind.
> >
> Begging the points as usual.
How so?
>
> POMO :
> -a belief that it is a new philosophical outlook
Belief is error. Narrative entails collapse. Perhaps.
> -sees logic and the scientific method as flawed.
But not necessarily the worse for it.
> -sees culture rather than rationality and evidence as the arbiter for
> the truth of conclusions.
As the arbiter of truth, but not necessarily an infallible one.
> -objects to the conclusions of the Enlightment
Derives from the Enlightenment in that the ethos of the Enlightenment
subjects everything to scrutiny, and, turned upon itself, finds its own
preconceptions as flawed as previous attempts to explain the world.
Post-Modernity springs from the understanding that the preconceptions of
the Enlightenment are as vulnerable and false as those of Classical Myth
or Pre-Copernican Cosmology.
>
> Is this wrong? Are the above true or not?
As you see.
>
> My conclusions: POMOs
> -Confuse aesthetics with reality.
May propose that everything we see is filtered, that the 'real world' is
a construct of mind and culture, that mind and culture are themselves
constructs of some kind, that matter and energy themselves may be no more
than a glamour of information; there is no 'reality' in the sense you
mean. I'm not saying the world is composed of green jellyfish. I'm
saying you can't put your theoretical finger on what's real any more. [I
say 'theoretical' because I really don't want to argue about
phenomenalism.]
> -are into convoluted repetitious cryptic rhetoric.
Sometimes truth - such as it is - can only be expressed through
complex language, because the simpler, more elegant statement is
meaningless. 'The Universe Is' might be thought of as the ultimate
statement of science. It won't fly an aeroplane, however.
That's not to say POMO isn't as prone as any other idea to being hijacked
by poseurs who want to look good in black and smoke expensive imported
cigarettes. That just isn't the whole of it any more than red y-fronts
define Superman.
> -don't even know what any of their own advocates are really talking
> about.
There's been a great deal of confusion. It's natural. Much of the
confusion has yielded interesting discussion. Much of it has yielded
nonsense. There is no truth, there's just your next guess. Cope.
> I bet any answer to the above if it comes, will be the usual tangent
> or a declaration of a label.
You owe me a pint.
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
And what do you smoke, Darling?
Dao Jones
--
Dao Jones
says...
> Anyway, the real gist of my question/comment is to ask
> what evidence there is that postmodernist jargon actually
> represents a rigorous view or model of ANYTHING, and is
> not just at attempt to create the impression of intellectual
> rigor by inventing a dense terminology in the manner of
> other fields such as science or computers which really
> NEED their arcane language to describe things which
> really are meaty and complex with adequate rigor.
This is an Enlightenment-style viewpoint, a 'hard-science' approach. It
has immense value in certain fields, less in others. Cultural and
artistic efforts of any kind tend to slip through this kind of
calculation, as do ethics and ideas of human justice. 'Adequate rigour'
breaks down when it meets things which cannot be repeated and described
completely, and situations where consequences are not calculable. What
evidence is there that your shoes are comfortable?
> If I go to the trouble of learning computer network terminology
> it is because when I'm done I know I'll really know something,
> not just a bunch of words. I know that I'l have a language
> which actually describes the way something actually works
> in the real world.
This is goal-orientated - ideas must serve a useful end, as defined by
the idea of control, of the idea producing a lever with which to move the
world. You are using the mental tools of the Enlightenment, which
eventually collapses when applied to itself, to attack 'postmodernity'
(admittedly an overused buzzword, beloved of mediacrats and
mediocrities), which is what happens *after* the Enlightenment has
fallen. Your stance is that of the observer trying to decide whether or
not to get involved - postmodernity knows you already are. Whether you
chose to learn postmodernity or not, you will exist within it - though
you may never notice unless you look.
> What evidence is there that someone who takes
> the trouble to learn PoMo jargon will acquire any such real world
> knowledge. From what I can tell, many PoMo thinkers reject
> the idea that such a result is even possible. As the FAQ
> notes, "postmodernity is seen as involving an end of the
> dominance of an overarching belief in scientific rationality"
> This being the case, it calls into question whether signs
> and symbols such as PoMo jargon can describe anything
> in the first place.
They cannot describe anything chunky and satisfying in the scientific
sense. You won't be able to go out and raise an army or fly like a bird
just because you've learned about postmodernity, any more than you could
on the strength of reading about Newtonian physics or Marxism. Durkheim
and co. wanted to make sociology into a precise science, Marcuse and
Adorno thought they could bend art and cultural criticism to their
service in exposing the Enlightenment's folly and Capitalism's internal
rot. It ain't so, Joe. Chaos thumbs its butterfly nose at you.
To be honest, though, I'd say it was well worth your while to look at
some postmodern thought. The world has gone down this road, and there
truly is no going back - the path behind us is gone in the shifting
sand. The political situation becomes more comprehensible in the light
of the Enlightenment's collapse and Modernity's whimpering conclusion
(not that it's really over - we just say it is because we
Northerners/Westerners like to imagine that we are the whole world and
that we, who made up our precious Enlightenment and watched it crumble,
have somehow got past the icky adolescence of war and famine and rhetoric
and nonsense to a place beyond Modernity and its Holocaust into a more
exciting, perilous, and adult Postmodernity), the economic crisis George
Soros fears results from the mysterious ghost of money which does not
exist, and on which our economies rely. We need Narratives - our
world's pillars are founded and capped in story - but we know that they
are myths, which will evaporate if we scrutinise them.
Tough break, huh?
Dao Jones
Dao Jones
Tom.C...@CHEEZbtinternet.com says...
> [Bryn Ayers wrote]
> >
> >If there is no absolute truth, the statement there is no absolute
> >truth is an absolute truth.
'Absolute' is a construct, a cypher which cannot be understood. This
paradox is a wordgame older than the English language. It is valuable in
that it provokes radical rethinking in some more hidebound individuals.
It is useful as an example of the limitations and false facilities of
language which can describe the edges of concepts the mind is incapable
of embracing in their entirety.
That's about all it does.
> The impossibility of generating statements that escape the discourse is one
> of the concerns of postmodern thought - the statement that there is no such
> thing as a metanarrative for example.
Perhaps we might say that metanarratives do not exist outside of nature
- in the sense that although the Universe *may* know what it's doing, we
certainly do not.
> Language reflecting extra-discursive
> reality, seems to be your opinion. I would instead say that you have
> identified a crisis or collapse of language - and thus identified a quality
> of the discourse itself. Well done.
Indeed. Having identified it, can you pin a tail on it and do something
about it? That's a trick worth seeing.
Dao Jones
peter nelson
>>Anyway, the real gist of my question/comment is to ask
>>what evidence there is that postmodernist jargon actually
>>represents a rigorous view or model of ANYTHING, and is
>>not just at attempt to create the impression of intellectual
>>rigor by inventing a dense terminology in the manner of
>>other fields such as science or computers which really
>>NEED their arcane language to describe things which
>>really are meaty and complex with adequate rigor.
>
>
>OK. I'll give you the nicest piece of meat you could ever ask for. Read
some
>Lacan and you will find it completely impenetrable, dripping in neologisms,
>with words like phallogocentrism conjured from the ether. Read further and
>you will find that his philosophy is concerned with language, how it means,
>if it means, and that the style of his writing is his philosophy. If you
are
>not interested, that is one thing, if you can't be bothered, then that is
>another, but I wouldn't presume to slam it unless you've done the reading,
>thought about it and worked from there.
It doesn' matter if his philosophy "is concerned with language, ow it means,
if it means, and that the style of his writing is his philosophy" unless he
has generated some new insights.
You're STILL missing the point. Before I start such an
arduous journey I'm asking for evidence that there's something
at the other end. You (or somone here) proposed molecular
biology as an example of something with dense terminology.
I suggested computer network technology as another. Nuclear
physics might be another. In *ALL* of these cases the fact that
there is something real being described is apparent BEFORE
one makes the investment in effort of learning the jargon. We
can at least see that the conceptual models employed by the
people who have learned the jargon provide a powerful description
of the field in question - we can see that the people who use
this jargon can actually USE their knowledge in some way which
is demonstrable to laymen (antibiotics, The Internet, x-rays, etc).
Whether or not they NEED their mysterious jargon may not be
clear, but at least the fact that they have powerful conceptual
models is.
All I'm asking is evidence that the PoMo philosophers also
have insightful conceptual models, since the suggestion has been
raised that they are nothing but poseurs.
>>If I go to the trouble of learning computer network terminology
>>it is because when I'm done I know I'll really know something,
>>not just a bunch of words.
>
>Actually, all you will have is a language that is interpreted by a device
in
>order to perform actions. You learn a computer language in order to know
>INSTRUCTIONS. Language generally, and philosophy in particular is not
>concerned with only making statements that are instructions. The analogy is
>completely false.
As a software engineer I can assure you that you learn technical
terminology in order to develop a conceptual model of a system.
Instructions are not necessary for this. If I'm using, say, UML,
to describe a object system it doesn't matter whether that system
is implemented in Java or C++ or smalltalk or whatever.
>If you look for "real world knowledge" in philosophy then you will
generally
>be disappointed. If it is that form of utility yuo are looking for in
>postmodernity - then you won't find it.
Then suggest another. All I'm asking for is evdence that they
are not poseurs. If they are posers then I'd be wasting my time
studying Lacan.
Relativity is not utilitarian, or at least it wasn't until very recently.
It was a just a conceptual model; a discovery, an insight. Understanding
how Einstein arrived at it required years of advanced study in physics
and mathematics, but understanding what it said, what it concluded,
could be expressed to an intelligent layman in a paragraph or two
without resort to specialized jargon.
---peter
.
peter nelson
Dao Jones wrote in message ...
>> what evidence there is that postmodernist jargon actually
>> represents a rigorous view or model of ANYTHING, and is
>> not just at attempt to create the impression of intellectual
>> rigor by inventing a dense terminology in the manner of
>> other fields such as science or computers which really
>> NEED their arcane language to describe things which
>> really are meaty and complex with adequate rigor.
>
>has immense value in certain fields, less in others. Cultural and
>artistic efforts of any kind tend to slip through this kind of
>calculation, as do ethics and ideas of human justice. 'Adequate rigour'
>breaks down when it meets things which cannot be repeated and described
>completely, and situations where consequences are not calculable. What
>evidence is there that your shoes are comfortable?
None. But I don't invoke a dense jargon in an effort to claim that
the are. Nor do I seek the status of university chairs, institutional
grants, scholarly publication, etc in an effort to justify such a claim.
Remember, my central thesis is that PoMo philosophers are poseurs
who don't really have any insights into anything which is not
trivially obvious to any casual observer, and that in an effort to
justify their activities and writings they cloak their triviality
and ignorance in dense jargon.
Remember, *I* wasn't the one who proposed molecular biology as an
analogously arcane field requiring initiation to understand, I just
accepted such a utilitarian example because it helped me make my
point. If you prefer a NON-utilitarian justification for PoMo's
adopting the FORM of an intellectual pursuit feel free to suggest
one. Personally I prefer to think of PoMo philosophers as a
sort of comedy troupe doing parodies of academic research
and publication. A bit like "professional wrestlers" and their
relationship with actual athletic competition.
---peter
mdeli
snip snip
>The suspicion which is raised here by me and others is that the
>dense esoteric lingo of postmodernists does not ultimately
>describe anything real and concretely complex; in other words
>that it is simply a pastime of certain academics to try to give
>their field the illusion of intellectual rigor by adopting the posture
>and dense terminology of other fields which actually need their
>terminology to describe nontrivially meaty subjects.
>
Or as a curmudgeon would describe it in a word, Bullshitology.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Note: There was an address error in former messages
The above address is correct. Please try again.
mdeli
I wrote:
>>POMO :
>>-a belief that it is a new philosophical outlook
>
>
>Not always the case - many post-modernists view it as an outgrowth or
>development of modernity - modernity taken to its logical extreme,
>collapsing under its own weight. Postmodernity in many ways is the ideology
>of the collapse - it concentrates on where our systems, which we cannot live
>without are self-deconstructing.
It doesn't. The way out of this is by rational means not mystical
means or muddled double talk.
> A new way of looking at the world is often
>advocated, whereby the attempt to enfore continuity onto discontinuous facts
>is not taken as the only logical objective, but play in the discontinuity is
>seen to have its own worth..
?
>>-sees logic and the scientific method as flawed.
>
>
>But does not seek to replace them or develop unflawed models.
>
Of course not, because it can't. A lot of POMO is just a big kvetch
posing as philosophy.
>>-sees culture rather than rationality and evidence as the arbiter for
>>the truth of conclusions.
>
>
>Is not interested in the truth of conclusions.
I agree. It is interested in advancing another cult of cryptic
baloney.
>Actually I don't know how
>exactly you can even attempt to separate culture, rationality and evidence.
>Where are the boundaries in those three areas. Brief example - commonly said
>that there are an infinite amount of interpretations for any body of
>evidence - hence relationship between theory and evidence must always be a
>suspicious one.
However, there aren't an infinity of correct ones.
>No scientific method is ever proven, merely not refuted
>yet - this is a standard scientific belief - explored by postmodernity.
And POMO arrives at incorrect conclusions.
The
>modernist project believed in total isolation from the object of study - you
>remove all auxiliary variables from an experiment in order to determine
>whether or not the factor left is the cause. It has become materially clear
>through quantum physics that the act of viewing itself can never be removed
>from an experiment and has a quantifiable result. There are so many areas in
>which the modernist ideals of totality, comprehensibility, distance and
>metanarrative have been problematised. That is not the same as saying
>culture is the arbiter for truth, but rather that truth is a problem rather
>than a given and worthy of further investigation.
Clarify--
> How do truth claims
>operate? Can they operate effectively?
That is not an exclusive POMO question. It has been dealt with through
the ages.
>>-objects to the conclusions of the Enlightment
>
>
>Indeed, see above...
>
>>My conclusions: POMOs
>>-Confuse aesthetics with reality.
>
>
>>-are into convoluted repetitious cryptic rhetoric.
>
>
>Look - I spent years fighting what I saw to be postmodernitys flaws, but I
>was completely persuaded by a friend a few years ago. You ONLY have to
>accept that what happens is that you push and push and push at the
>enlightenment project and modernity until you see the collapse.
So you're a born again POMO.
> When you see
>the collapse you can respond in two ways, by trying to patch it up, or by
>exploring the reasons for the collapse and allowing that to reinfluence your
>view of the enlightenment project.
What about those who don't see it collapse?
> The first one stays true to principles
>that are placed outside experience (truth, progess, totality), the second
>one is prepared to re-examine them. In the second case your view of all
>things is altered, although it is one based upon a recognition of
>fundamental hypocrisy (attempting to discuss the undiscussable) rather than
>the denial of fundamental hypocrisy (attempting to discuss the undiscussable
>without acknowledging its undiscussability).
?
>>- POMO's don't even know what any of their own advocates are really talking
>>about.
mdeli
>G*rd*n:
>| >>Well, it serves certain peoples' puposes. Cornball
>| >>anti-intellectualism has been a staple of American life for
>| >>probably the whole history of the country.
>
>mdeli wrote in message <36b4cc9e...@news.interlog.com>...
>| >So has your sort of cornball intellectualism
>
>I sort of passed this by, but on seeing it again, I can't
>see how cornball intellectualism has had much of a run in
>the U.S. What are you thinking of, Chautauquas? Emerson?
Cornball, try reading the last 50 years of NY Times Art reviews and
about five years of Artforum. We are speaking of art here. However, it
your looking for more read some theology and don't forget some highly
pedigreed POMO advocates.
>By and large intellectualism has been pretty firmly
>construed as foreign, haut-bourgeois if not even
>aristocratic, urban, deeply suspect. Things have changed
>some in the last few decades, but I'm talking about
>history.
Going off on a tangent, as usual.
mdeli
wrote:
>>>Or alternatively you could sit down with some books
>>> on postmodernity and a dictionary and catch up.
It always tempts the speaker who rattles a bunch of nonsense to
suggest that the listener is uninformed. Modern Art buffs,
religio-nuts and POMO obscurantists are experts at this.
When someone disagrees with you it doesn't automatically mean he is
uninformed.
>Seriously, though, I don't agree that we needn't offer suggestions of
>our own when someone raises the question of what it is. First, it's a
>serious enough question that we should at least point to some critical
>sources, such as The Anti-Esthetic (Foster, ed.) or The Postmodern
>Condition (Towards) or some such. Second, it's not one of those
>things that will ever be resolved.
-No proposition that presuposes complicated experiences and
appeals to vague uses of colloqual language can serve as the
starting point of a rigously systematized branch of anything.
mdeli
<Tom.C...@CHEEZbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>If you would translate the above paragraph from Artspeak into English
>>I might be able to say something about it.
>
>
>Or alternatively you could sit down with some books on postmodernity and a
>dictionary and catch up. When I started working in academic circles I had to
>catch up with a lot of vocabulary in order to engage in debates. From
>classics I had to learn ancient greek, words like autochthon and ephebe,
>from psychoanalysis I had to learn unconscious, cathected, id, analysand -
>from structuralism I had to learn discourse, signifier and signified - from
>deconstruction I had to learn logocentrism, from film theory I had to learn
>the language of film-makers, identificants, identifiers etc. To understand
>aspects of philosophy, art history, literature, thought it is necessary to
>catch up on the vocabulary. It is not my job to explain these things to you,
>particularly when you are so patently rude about it. I suggest a primer, a
>dictionary and a couple of weeks to think.
>
I think you are hiding behind a bunch of baloney and you can't explain
it. The best you can do as a cranky academic is assign homework.
mdeli
<Tom.C...@CHEEZbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>John Cage wrote a composition consisting of 4 minutes and
>>33 seconds of silence. Any ordinary person using common sense
>>would quickly conclude "that's not music!". But the intellectual
>>community embraced this as a deep new musical insight.
>>When they do this they play into the hands of the anti-intellectuals
>>by making themselves look foolish and trivial.
>
>
>I think the point with something like this is that it can only be done once,
>but still needs to be done once. I mean, it is not something that I would
>want to 'listen' to, but at the same time it does provide a different idea
>on what music "is" (conceive of music as careful selection of notes built up
>from nothing or as the removal of extraneous noise - henry moore thing - you
>know). Once, once only. Fine by me.
You will also die only once. However it has nothing to do with art and
I doubt that many people will be interested , even once.
>
>>Sure, it's interesting to ask about the relative importance of
>>notes and silence in music or "positive" and "negative" space
>>in drawing. But imagine the field were structural engineering
>>and they were asking about how little tensile strength material
>>they could get away with in building a suspension bridge. If
>>they created a "bridge" out of nothing at all how many cars or
>>people could cross it. Would anyone in THAT community call
>>it a "bridge"?
>
What's that supposed to mean?
>Yeah - but that is also about utility. It is about what you think music is
>FOR, just as it is for what you think a bridge is FOR. A piece of music can
>be viewed as entertainment involving noise, or as a piece of conceptual art,
>or as something to help you buy things (piped music, adverts etc). The
>silence fails in many definitions of music, but doesn't as art - it is
>thought provoking, irritating, obvious and yet scandalous. Seems quite a
>good idea to me. Now a bridge serves a material purpose, and without that
>materiality it would not generally be made. But if someone makes a bridge
>three inches long out of , um, cat hair or something then it is still a
>BRIDGE, but it is not being used for its material end. And then you have to
>estimate whether or not it is art.
>
>The silence thing is also a cool political thing - it exposes hypocrisy just
>as its exposure of hypocrisy makes the whole thing art again - can you
>imagine the audiences noises during those minutes - it would be embarrasing,
>uncomfortable, laughable, confusing.
If you want to stir up a fuss I advise you to take a hot lead enema on
top of the front desk at the MOMA.
It would also be a first.
>This reaction could be seen to be an
>appropriate one for art, which makes the silence suddenly art.
Indeed.
>This then
>undermines the position of the critic (I include myself in that one), who is
>accounting for the reaction of the audience, and thus is left to say that
>the 'nothing' works effectively as a piece of art. The critic the artist and
>the audience are all hypocrites, making an absence into art by their
>reaction, while simultaneously having those reactions because it is not art,
>it is nothing.
>.
>
>I mean - basically I would't want to go to a performance, but it had a point
>and the point is made. Noone will do it again, unless a point needs to be
>made about originality.
>
One point is that it gets people like you to write baloney.
Kay Kane
mdeli wrote in message <36b6293c...@news.interlog.com>...
>On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:11:38 -0000, "Tom C"
><Tom.C...@CHEEZbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>>If you would translate the above paragraph from Artspeak into English
>>>I might be able to say something about it.
>>
>>
>>Or alternatively you could sit down with some books on postmodernity and a
>>dictionary and catch up. When I started working in academic circles I had
to
>>catch up with a lot of vocabulary in order to engage in debates. From
>>classics I had to learn ancient greek, words like autochthon and ephebe,
>>from psychoanalysis I had to learn unconscious, cathected, id, analysand -
>>from structuralism I had to learn discourse, signifier and signified -
from
>>deconstruction I had to learn logocentrism, from film theory I had to
learn
>>the language of film-makers, identificants, identifiers etc. To understand
>>aspects of philosophy, art history, literature, thought it is necessary to
>>catch up on the vocabulary. It is not my job to explain these things to
you,
>>particularly when you are so patently rude about it. I suggest a primer, a
>>dictionary and a couple of weeks to think.
>>
>I think you are hiding behind a bunch of baloney and you can't explain
>it. The best you can do as a cranky academic is assign homework.
>
>...no skill no art
>
pompous, tunnel-visioned views. In today's thread, I find myself agreeing
with him and enjoying his responses. I agree, Mani, one doesn't have to do
the assigned reading. All readings lead to other readings and since one can
presumably give a one or two paragraph overview describing art of the
Renaissance, Baroque, Impressionism, Color-Field painting, and on and on, it
doesn't seem unreasonable to answer to original poster's request in a
pared-down simplistic form. If, as many of you profess, you are also
artmakers, you simply wouldn't have the time. I recommend this n.g. to my s
tudents who are taking a survey class from me because of the intelligent
discourse found here and I would hope that questions posted by inquiring
newcomers could be answered simply and without the rudeness. I can learn
about postmodern art without touching a philosophy book. It is important to
keep reading and learning throughout your entire life, but, unless one is
working on their PhD. in art history, philosophy, lit., etc. this excess
reading is nice, but not necessary to: 1. Know what postmodernism is...2.
Appreciate postmodernism...3. BE a postmodernist!
Kay Kane
Dao Jones
says...
> >>>Or alternatively you could sit down with some books
> >>> on postmodernity and a dictionary and catch up.
>
> suggest that the listener is uninformed. Modern Art buffs,
> religio-nuts and POMO obscurantists are experts at this.
You, on the other hand, excel in the arena of the "pseudo-layman's
whinge". Tom's post was not obscurantist or incomprehensible, it was
merely involved - but that was the nature of the discussion. If you
didn't understand it, you shouldn't be putting yourself up as an
authority. If you did, you took a cheap shot.
> >Seriously, though, I don't agree that we needn't offer suggestions of
> >our own when someone raises the question of what it is. First, it's a
> >serious enough question that we should at least point to some critical
> >sources, such as The Anti-Esthetic (Foster, ed.) or The Postmodern
> >Condition (Towards) or some such. Second, it's not one of those
> >things that will ever be resolved.
>
> -No proposition that presuposes complicated experiences and
> appeals to vague uses of colloqual language can serve as the
> starting point of a rigously systematized branch of anything.
Why this need for a 'rigorously systematised' discipline? I think you
may be applying the criteria of Modernity to the theory of Postmodernity.
If you are, that's not even close to rigorous. You collapse and find
yourself...in postmodernity. How nice.
Dao Jones
Dao Jones
says...
> I think you are hiding behind a bunch of baloney and you can't explain
> it. The best you can do as a cranky academic is assign homework.
Goodness. I am stunned by the depth and breadth of your erudition, wit,
and intellect.
Dao Jones
Dao Jones
says...
> Remember, my central thesis is that PoMo philosophers are poseurs
> who don't really have any insights into anything which is not
> trivially obvious to any casual observer, and that in an effort to
> justify their activities and writings they cloak their triviality
> and ignorance in dense jargon.
I'd say that was overly harsh; as I suggested in my last post, I think
there are social, political, and economic features of the world in which
we live which require explanation and examination. Some of the theory of
Postmodernity provides useful insights into these areas. The ethic of
the postmodern is creeping into science, just as science is in part
responsible for the (possibly postmodern) state of the world in the first
place. This phenomenon (called 'hermeneutic reinsertion' by sociologist
Anthony Giddens, and 'wiggly in-out idea stuff' by one of his students a
few years ago - take your pick as to which is more descriptive) is
obviously far more subtle than a simple two-way relationship. It is a
web, or a fractal, or what have you. Postmodernity is all-pervading.
You are studying it and living it anyway - you may as well make the
effort to know what you are inside.
> Personally I prefer to think of PoMo philosophers as a
> sort of comedy troupe doing parodies of academic research
> and publication. A bit like "professional wrestlers" and their
> relationship with actual athletic competition.
I think you are wildly over-indulgent towards traditional academics, many
of whom spend years without having a single interesting idea.
You are affected by the world as it is. Much of pomo (hate the
abbreviation) theory is useless. Much of it is not. Think of Terramac.
The parts may be faulty, but the software can find a way through to make
useful calculations. It may help you deal with an increasingly
destabilised world in which the illusion of money is rocking, the
traditions, certainties, and fears of even ten years ago are meaningless,
and even the concept what it is to be human may change radically as we
use more prosthetics, artifical biological organs, genetic modification
and so on.
Postmodernity can make the future fun. The Enlightenment can only make
it fearful. Try it and see.
Dao Jones
Brian Shapiro
>The impossibility of generating statements that escape the discourse is one
>of the concerns of postmodern thought - the statement that there is no such
>thing as a metanarrative for example. Language reflecting extra-discursive
G*rd*n
| >| >>Well, it serves certain peoples' puposes. Cornball
| >| >>anti-intellectualism has been a staple of American life for
| >| >>probably the whole history of the country.
mdeli wrote in message <36b4cc9e...@news.interlog.com>...
| >| >So has your sort of cornball intellectualism
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >I sort of passed this by, but on seeing it again, I can't
| >see how cornball intellectualism has had much of a run in
| >the U.S. What are you thinking of, Chautauquas? Emerson?
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli):
| Cornball, try reading the last 50 years of NY Times Art reviews and
| about five years of Artforum. We are speaking of art here. However, it
| your looking for more read some theology and don't forget some highly
| pedigreed POMO advocates.
The _New_York_Times_ and _Artforum_ are unAmerican in the
cornball sense. They're very bourgeois, very wrought up
about Europe and the World and stuff like that. We've been
talking down-home here, not some foreign country like New
York City.
G*rd*n:
| >By and large intellectualism has been pretty firmly
| >construed as foreign, haut-bourgeois if not even
| >aristocratic, urban, deeply suspect. Things have changed
| >some in the last few decades, but I'm talking about
| >history.
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli):
| Going off on a tangent, as usual.
It's a tangent to you, because you apparently don't know
what I'm talking about. But that's okay. It's not
important.
peter nelson
>says...
>> Remember, my central thesis is that PoMo philosophers are poseurs
>> who don't really have any insights into anything which is not
>> trivially obvious to any casual observer, and that in an effort to
>> justify their activities and writings they cloak their triviality
>> and ignorance in dense jargon.
>
>I'd say that was overly harsh; as I suggested in my last post, I think
>there are social, political, and economic features of the world in which
>we live which require explanation and examination.
I don't deny that. I'm just saying that I've seen no evidence that
they have provided any explanations.
>
Some of the theory of
>Postmodernity provides useful insights into these areas.
"Useful"? In your previous posting you were complaining
about my overly-utilitarian criteria.
>
The ethic of
>the postmodern is creeping into science, just as science is in part
>responsible for the (possibly postmodern) state of the world in the first
>place. This phenomenon (called 'hermeneutic reinsertion' by sociologist
>Anthony Giddens, and 'wiggly in-out idea stuff' by one of his students a
>few years ago - take your pick as to which is more descriptive) is
>obviously far more subtle than a simple two-way relationship. It is a
>web, or a fractal, or what have you.
This is typical of the vague hand-waving of PoMo thinking. The above
is totally content-free. And again, I don't begrudge a Usenet poster
making comments like that, but I don't think that the serious philosophers
of postmodernism have anything MORE to offer; they just use more
words to say it.
> Postmodernity is all-pervading. You are studying it and living it anyway
> - you may as well make the effort to know what you are inside.
Of course. I'm just challenging anyone who thinks that the postmodern
philosophers know any more about "what we are inside" than I do.
>> Personally I prefer to think of PoMo philosophers as a
>> sort of comedy troupe doing parodies of academic research
>> and publication. A bit like "professional wrestlers" and their
>> relationship with actual athletic competition.
>
>I think you are wildly over-indulgent towards traditional academics, many
>of whom spend years without having a single interesting idea.
"Interesting" is a matter of opinion. Someone working in, say,
botany or archeology or astronomy may make discoveries which
are original but which may not seem very interesting at the time.
So I'm not sure what your point is.
>You are affected by the world as it is. Much of pomo (hate the
>abbreviation) theory is useless. Much of it is not.
Again, there's this emphasis on "use". If "much of it is not
useless" then give us some examples of the latter.
>
Think of Terramac.
>The parts may be faulty, but the software can find a way through to make
>useful calculations. It may help you deal with an increasingly
>destabilised world in which the illusion of money is rocking, the
>traditions, certainties, and fears of even ten years ago are meaningless,
>and even the concept what it is to be human may change radically as we
>use more prosthetics, artifical biological organs, genetic modification
>and so on.
No one is disputing that the world is changing rapidly and these
changes confront and challenge traditional values, beliefs and
social institutions in ways which will produce unpredictable results.
And that's my point: ANYONE can see that. You don't need to
be a social philosopher to see that. You don't need any special
jargon to talk about it. All I'm saying is that that postmodernist
thinkers
and philosophers have in any way helped us to understand these
changes or deal with them.
>Postmodernity can make the future fun. The Enlightenment can only
>make it fearful. Try it and see.
Speak for yourself. I'm a rationalist and I'm having a blast.
---peter
G*rd*n
| ...
| notes and silence in music or "positive" and "negative" space
| in drawing. But imagine the field were structural engineering
| and they were asking about how little tensile strength material
| they could get away with in building a suspension bridge. If
| they created a "bridge" out of nothing at all how many cars or
| people could cross it. Would anyone in THAT community call
| it a "bridge"?
If you created a bridge out of nothing that cars could get
across, you'd win the goddamned Nobel prize for structural
engineering. You're talking about a field where minimalism
is very highly valued -- if it accomplishes something.
Now, 4'33" has accomplished a lot -- it's been the butt of a
huge amount of _intellectual_ humor. It's probably Cage's
most famous work. Empty Cage! And it's one of a species of
works that served to finish off Modernism in more than one
sense. So it's not nothing -- appearances to the contrary
notwithstanding.
Brian Shapiro
modeled after a 19th century painting of the source of the Loue river in
France (I forget the artist). Depicted in that painting are the river waters
which flow from a cave. Except in Mark Tansey's version, the cave is being
blocked off by bricks and barbed wire, the surrounding area having been
turned into a military installation.
Is this a reference to what intellectuals have done to Plato's cave?
--Brian Shapiro
Tom C <Tom.C...@CHEEZbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:794a6h$14v$2...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>
>mdeli wrote in message <36b4cc9e...@news.interlog.com>...
>
>>>Well, it serves certain peoples' puposes. Cornball
>>>anti-intellectualism has been a staple of American life for
>>>probably the whole history of the country.
>>
>>So has your sort of cornball intellectualism
>
>
>Oh for god's sake. Please keep in mind that there can SURELY not be
anything
>wrong with being an intellectual and thinking about things. I am not making
>any statements about who is or isn't an intellectual, but you MUST agree
>that thought, discussion and involvement are valuable things. A general
>anti-intellectual sentiment is, i am afraid, a dismal way for the world to
>be. An uncritical pro-intellectual sentiment might be considered as bad -
>but academic / intellectual circles are communities which operate as checks
>and balances on the excesses and stupidities of some of its participants.
>
>So please - argue about the facts of the statement (is America
>anti-intellectual) rather than confirming it...
>
>
oed...@ibm.net
message, but I'll answer anyway...
I am not, I repeat, NOT advocating any art as being more or less natural.
Nor am I asserting that naturalism is the ideal. My intentions were to show
that appeals to nature can be just as indecisive a canon of quality as Mr.
Shapiro feels is Pomo crit.
Brad
Brian Shapiro wrote in message <794oq5$hed$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
oed...@ibm.net
>As a software engineer I can assure you that you learn technical
>terminology in order to develop a conceptual model of a system.
>Instructions are not necessary for this. If I'm using, say, UML,
>to describe a object system it doesn't matter whether that system
>is implemented in Java or C++ or smalltalk or whatever.
Yes, yes, yes, and you could also program an HP financial calculator to
calculate property depreciation on a whorehouse, but these are all still
offshoots of a "computer programming conceptual model" which describes the
limits of influence of these and any other programming languages.
>>If you look for "real world knowledge" in philosophy then you will
>generally
>>be disappointed. If it is that form of utility yuo are looking for in
>>postmodernity - then you won't find it.
>
>Then suggest another. All I'm asking for is evdence that they
>are not poseurs. If they are posers then I'd be wasting my time
>studying Lacan.
>
>---peter
Postmodernism is not an obvious informer. What I mean is, you will not be
likely to see postmodernism inform a real estate agent or a building
engineer. However, postmodernism has had a shattering effect on graphic
design, movies, video games, and journalism to name a few. These are all
applications that lie somewhere between art and survival, serving no
hardened purpose of the Life Force yet only rarely reaching for art.
As an editorial artist, I don't think that I could count on myself to
consistently walk into my office and solve the visual problems that fill my
baskets each day without some postmodernist doubt. I count on that doubt
and that pessimism to break down the stories that come to me in tight,
neatly wound, 20 inch packets. I break out the facets, I identify the
genres (more than any other craft, believe me, journalism has its genres), I
obviate the assumptions, I expose the assumptions, I do anything and
everything until it all becomes meaningless -- then I start.
I like to think of it as "Occam's shaving cream." Postmodernist theory may
be useless to the architect but for me it is the perfect tool for generating
metaphors. And I mean like ON DEMAND. Once that shaving cream has built up
a nice textured lather, I can pose the jaw and make the cuts with "Occam's
razor." Once the story's been deconstructed, it's far easier for me to slip
the absurd, the non-sequiter, or the obtuse into the mix. From that mix, I
distill the final product through the classical principles of design,
necessity of the story, and the mood of my editor (he likes garish work).
As electrical engineering is an application of science and math, graphic
design is an application of art. Postmodernism is one of my tools.
I don't have Eco's quote at hand, but its effect is this: Semiotics tells us
that any ending is possible, but not every ending is a good one.
Brad
br...@wralaw.com
dao_...@disinfo.net (Dao Jones) wrote:
> To be honest, though, I'd say it was well worth your while to look at
> some postmodern thought. The world has gone down this road, and there
> truly is no going back -
So says the post-neo-retro.... I repeat...
The real problem I have with POMO is that *in fact* what is stated
as factual in POMO I agree with. However I do not agree with the
it's implied interpretations. "Exploring" language means doubting
language not denying. While POMO does not in fact deny language it
does act like it has when challenged by clearer, more objective, and
theirfore more impeachable points of view. Oddly POMO proponents
are incabaple of a line by line criticism of other points of view,
destroying them with archimedes(my obscure reference) points! And
this last line has proved it!
Bryn Ayers
The difference between me and a Post-Modernist is that I have evolved
Past Modern...
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"Tom C" <Tom.C...@CHEEZbtinternet.com> wrote:
> >John Cage wrote a composition consisting of 4 minutes and
> >33 seconds of silence. Any ordinary person using common sense
> >would quickly conclude "that's not music!". But the intellectual
> >community embraced this as a deep new musical insight.
> >When they do this they play into the hands of the anti-intellectuals
> >by making themselves look foolish and trivial.
>
> as its exposure of hypocrisy makes the whole thing art again - can you
> imagine the audiences noises during those minutes - it would be embarrasing,
> appropriate one for art, which makes the silence suddenly art. This then
> undermines the position of the critic (I include myself in that one), who is
> accounting for the reaction of the audience, and thus is left to say that
> the 'nothing' works effectively as a piece of art. The critic the artist and
> the audience are all hypocrites, making an absence into art by their
> reaction, while simultaneously having those reactions because it is not art,
> it is nothing.
>
>
> I mean - basically I would't want to go to a performance, but it had a point
> and the point is made. Noone will do it again, unless a point needs to be
> made about originality.
>
In this particular performace Cage had only one audient, who had only one
hand. The applau was equal to the preformance. And the critic couldn't find
his pen, but proceded without it. Where does Zen fall into the taxonomies of
post modernism?
Erik Mattila
-N.
<ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Argue over semantics, why don't you.
and...
> >> Geometric art is less natural, not because it uses geometry, but because
> it
> >> imposes a rigid and artificial geometric structure. I think you
> understand
> >> what I mean; once again, I don't see why you are arguing this, except for
> >> the purpose of semantics.
-N.
> >Your appeal to nature as a criteria off the mark. Neither geometric or
> >non-geometric art are by any degree or measure 'natural'. Both these
> >forms of art are CULTURAL constructs. Your premise is false and your
> >reasoning does not float.
The discource is about ideas, more specifically the concept of 'nature'
that is at the center of your reasoning, and which is posited as an
axiom...you then procede from that axiom to set up a value structure which
priviledges one artistic practice (non-geoemtric art) over another
(geometric art).
Your reasoning is seriously flawed from the begining. Neither art forms
are even remotely 'natural'. They are both cultural constructs. Indeed,
your very concept of 'nature' is itself a cultural construct.
If your intention wasto devalue non-geometric art, you have not succeeded:
indeed, you have squarely placed its value on equal footing with
non-geometric art.
I comprehend what you stated and it is entirely false. Both art practices
are artificial: they are the very definition of artifice.
Artifice: n.[Fr.< L. artificium, craft < artifex, artist, master of a
trade < ars, ART + facere, to make]
If you wish to defend the the merits of your arguement, please do so. If
not, admit to your arguement as having no merit and get on with it.
Seamus McMurphy
Are you suggesting that "postmodernism" develop the philosophical equivalent
of a nuclear bomb?
peter wrote:
[...]
>You (or somone here) proposed molecular
>biology as an example of something with dense terminology.
>I suggested computer network technology as another. Nuclear
>physics might be another. In *ALL* of these cases the fact that
>there is something real being described is apparent BEFORE
>one makes the investment in effort of learning the jargon [....]
>we can see that the people who use this jargon can actually
-N.
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> John Cage wrote a composition consisting of 4 minutes and
> 33 seconds of silence. Any ordinary person using common sense
> would quickly conclude "that's not music!". But the intellectual
> community embraced this as a deep new musical insight.
> When they do this they play into the hands of the anti-intellectuals
> by making themselves look foolish and trivial.
I for one love Cages compositions. Cage said that there was no such thing
as silence, only an unwillingness to listen. If you cannot tune into the
listening, don't blame cage. 433 as such can be seen to operate as a
framing device and focusing device. Cage allowed himself to be open to
sound, and as not interested in an academic, musicologist's relation to
it.
The best performance of 433 I have heard was performed by Frank Zappa.
Tom C
posts with abuse and rubbish. If you want to go through what I posted again
and do it properly, then I will respond. Otherwise it is the killfile for
you...
This does not constitute an intelligent response:
>It doesn't. The way out of this is by rational means not mystical
>means or muddled double talk.
>?
>Of course not, because it can't. A lot of POMO is just a big kvetch
>posing as philosophy.
>I agree. It is interested in advancing another cult of cryptic
>baloney.
>However, there aren't an infinity of correct ones.
>And POMO arrives at incorrect conclusions.
>Clarify--
>That is not an exclusive POMO question. It has been dealt with through
>the ages.
>So you're a born again POMO.
>What about those who don't see it collapse?
>?
Tom C
>hand. The applau was equal to the preformance. And the critic couldn't find
>his pen, but proceded without it. Where does Zen fall into the taxonomies
of
>post modernism?
What tremendous fun. Sounds like a laugh...
Tom C
>It was a just a conceptual model; a discovery, an insight. Understanding
>how Einstein arrived at it required years of advanced study in physics
>and mathematics, but understanding what it said, what it concluded,
>could be expressed to an intelligent layman in a paragraph or two
>without resort to specialized jargon.
That is an exceptionally good example actually. Einstein goes E=MC2 and you
go, cool. Einstein says space and time are one entity, and you go cool.
Einstein says the speed of light stays the same no matter how fast you
travel in whatever direction. Einstein says that twins travelling at
different speeds will age at different rates relative to one another.
All of this is a summary of what he says, and is completely
counter-intuitive, but yuo believe it, and it is enough for you to be
interested further.
Postmodernity says (for example):
"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. "
And you just go - 'that's arse'.
I can summarise things for you, but you won't go with it because it is
counter-intuitive and because it doesn't fit your version of what "proper"
thinking should look like. Well, that is a decision made by theorists - to
try to look at their own back - to examine "proper" thinking from "outside".
Do the reading, have a think - if you want to be involved in refuting
postmodernity then do the reading. If you can't be arsed to do the reading,
shut the hell up.
Tom C
>who don't really have any insights into anything which is not
>trivially obvious to any casual observer, and that in an effort to
>justify their activities and writings they cloak their triviality
>and ignorance in dense jargon.
If you don't understand it, say so.
>Remember, *I* wasn't the one who proposed molecular biology as an
>analogously arcane field requiring initiation to understand, I just
>accepted such a utilitarian example because it helped me make my
>point. If you prefer a NON-utilitarian justification for PoMo's
>adopting the FORM of an intellectual pursuit feel free to suggest
>one. Personally I prefer to think of PoMo philosophers as a
>sort of comedy troupe doing parodies of academic research
>and publication. A bit like "professional wrestlers" and their
>relationship with actual athletic competition.
Read some then comment.
Tom C
Seamus McMurphy wrote in message <796c44$e...@news.wesleyan.edu>...
Tom C
>> reality, seems to be your opinion. I would instead say that you have
>> identified a crisis or collapse of language - and thus identified a
quality
>> of the discourse itself. Well done.
>
>about it? That's a trick worth seeing.
Indeed you can - you can see languages limits, and the restrictions that we
willingly (necessarily) place upon ourselves. You can wriggle around in the
gap between that, and what you thought language SHOULD have been about and
see if you can separate them further - see the implications, and they are
substantial...