Pondering Postmodernism
James W. Foster
Thursday all evening (only 1,000 words left to go!) In the closing
'chapter' I make a statement about Modernism & PoMo and was wondering if
anyone else agrees or disagrees with this viewpoint...
(to put it into context, this extract is from when I'm describing the
revelation I had during a lecture which was a slide presentation of mostly
b/w photographs set to a classical piece - very deeply moving. In the essay
this appears just before I start talking about Cindy Sherman.)
"Modernism and Postmodernism were probably the inevitable product of a
society that was becoming increasingly self-aware through increased exposure
to the media (especially photography). Once the self-awareness had
increased to the point of being able to see the legacy of existing cultural
works such as paintings, certain genres of photography, music, film and so
on with the benefit of hindsight. This legacy could be reinterpreted freely,
like a repository of meanings and themes."
-james
(Tired. Hungry.)
Sam W
of an "A." This is a repository of crap. If you are not "aware" of this,
perhaps not "self-conscious" enough of this, then maybe you need to change
societies.
Perhaps you are making fun.
Sam
(astonished and famished)
James W. Foster <jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com> wrote in message
news:jlHW4.1548$E11....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Sam W" <sa...@philosophers.net> wrote:
> I can only hope that you turn in something like this and get the
equivalent
> of an "A." This is a repository of crap. If you are not "aware" of
this,
> perhaps not "self-conscious" enough of this, then maybe you need to
change
> societies.
> Perhaps you are making fun.
> Sam
> (astonished and famished)
>
provoke and entertain. However, it certainly won't get an 'A' [I would
be prepared to bet a fiver]. This is because it is too short and too
lucid. The summary should contain more meaningless jargon, some
references (even if oblique - in fact preferably oblique) and should at
least some attempt at sounding profound. It doesn't do any of this, so
is likely to get a 'C'.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an
evil net, and as the
birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared
in an evil time, when it
falleth suddenly upon them. Ecclesiastes 9:12
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Yd Hahm
news:jlHW4.1548$E11....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Well, it's nearly 4am and I've been frantically writing my essay for
> Thursday all evening (only 1,000 words left to go!) In the closing
> 'chapter' I make a statement about Modernism & PoMo and was wondering if
> anyone else agrees or disagrees with this viewpoint...
>
> (to put it into context, this extract is from when I'm describing the
> revelation I had during a lecture which was a slide presentation of mostly
> b/w photographs set to a classical piece - very deeply moving. In the
essay
> this appears just before I start talking about Cindy Sherman.)
>
>
> "Modernism and Postmodernism were probably the inevitable product of a
> society that was becoming increasingly self-aware through increased
exposure
> to the media (especially photography). Once the self-awareness had
> increased to the point of being able to see the legacy of existing
cultural
> works such as paintings, certain genres of photography, music, film and so
> on with the benefit of hindsight. This legacy could be reinterpreted
freely,
> like a repository of meanings and themes."
>
> -james
> (Tired. Hungry.)
>
Right. But dear James, think about the beginning of the awareness.
I think it'll be more interesting to inject some fundamental issues for.
Literacy, or manifestos of the age results the rest of propaganda to my view
point.
Media, literally, is a tool. How about the minds who hold the tools...
James W. Foster
crap (which it may well be, I'm not saying you're wrong) but fail to provide
a well articulated intelligent argument to support it. You're about as
constructive, grown up and clever as Beavis & Butthead. At least Mani
appears to put a bit of effort and thought into his put-downs, you on the
other hand merely come across as a smug c--t.
Now would you like to come up with a proper critique or am I too old for
this playpen?
-james
Sam W <sa...@philosophers.net> wrote in message
news:bXOW4.6870$xG6....@news2.atl...
James W. Foster
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> You are right, of course, that it is crap, but it might be just there to
> provoke and entertain. However, it certainly won't get an 'A' [I would
> be prepared to bet a fiver]. This is because it is too short and too
> lucid. The summary should contain more meaningless jargon, some
> references (even if oblique - in fact preferably oblique) and should at
> least some attempt at sounding profound. It doesn't do any of this, so
> is likely to get a 'C'.
>
We don't get 'A's, it goes on percentages. Anyway, I should point out that
the extract is not my whole concluding section (as I said in the original
posting), it was merely put in as a starting point to deconstruct, elaborate
on and debate in the chapter. Not even a GCSE student would hand it in as a
complete conclusion. (At least not one that's going to get a good grade). I
must admit, in retrospect I think the 'repository' analogy is pretty weak so
I'll be substituting that for something a bit better.
However my basic point still stands, that society has become more aware of
itself rather than the everyday survival activities (I think therefore I Am)
and this has led to new juxtapositions of previous art, media & design
through the use of devices such as parody or use of the appropriated image
or readymade (Lichtenstein, Warhol, Duchamp, Sherman and so on) . No-one
can deny that the photograph and mass media have increased our awareness of
what's going on (take the advances in media coverage of wars for example) on
a global level and you only have to watch half the adverts or music videos
on MTV to see the amount of cultural referencing/reinterpretation that is
going on.
Anyway thanks for your comments, they've come in most useful - unlike that
other response I got from Sam W. Anyway, if it provokes then good, that's
just what I need and if it entertains then that's just a bonus really.
Thanks again,
-james
Erik A. Mattila
> I can only hope that you turn in something like this and get the equivalent
> of an "A." This is a repository of crap. If you are not "aware" of this,
> perhaps not "self-conscious" enough of this, then maybe you need to change
> societies.
> Perhaps you are making fun.
> Sam
> (astonished and famished)
But you failed to provide any reason why you feel it is a 'repository of crap'
(that would be a 'cesspool' or 'bedpan' or something like that, right?) It
kind of reminds me, in reverse, of a woman I saw on TV at a Rupublican
Convention in Dallas, carrying a placard that read "I Support Good Old American
Values." A reporter asked here "What are those values?" She answered "I don't
know, but I'm for 'em!"
Anyway, I used to grade papers like the one written by James, for an
"Introduction to Critical Theory" course. Basically, when grading, you are
looking for evidencce that the student read assignments and was taking the
course material seriously. It isn't really expeccted that an entry level
student would automatically become a eurdite social theorist in 10 -15 weeks of
exposure to very dense literature. The only important thing is that you can
see the students putting concepts to work.
Just two flags popped up when I read James' paragraph. The first was lumping
together "Modernism" and "Postmoderenism" together to speak of a common
attribute, since "Postmodernism" is only defined by how it is different from
"Modernism." But he may have covered this elsewhere in his essay. The second
is that maybe 'self-aware' isn't the best term to use, as 'self-reference'
would be more in tune with the body of theory that encompasses the concept of
Post Modernism. But in niether case would I ding him on a grade for this
paragraph. I would however, make appropriate comments hoping that he would
think about the issues I've raised. If the rest of his essay was written like
this one paragraph, it would be a candidate for a high mark, in my opinion (and
that's all that really matters, anyway, while grading papers.
The big problem with declarations like "This is a respository of crap" is that
you never know if the speaker has anything to back it up. You don't know if
it's a considered statement that has some academic validity, or if it's merely
an expression of groundlesss bias, or a claim of membership of an 'anti-group'
to a particular issue, discipline, idea etc. There are a lot of very
interesting grounds for challenging modern social theory, philosophy and
Critical Theory, but negative declarations fall far short of the mark.
So, as Bush once said, "Where's the beef?" After all, here's a student asking
for imput on his writing and ideas. What do any of us have of value to offer
him?
Erik Mattila
Erik A. Mattila
time. There is a God!
Erik
"James W. Foster" wrote:
> Not dissimilar your response really. You lovingly dismiss the passage as
> crap (which it may well be, I'm not saying you're wrong) but fail to provide
> a well articulated intelligent argument to support it. You're about as
> constructive, grown up and clever as Beavis & Butthead. At least Mani
> appears to put a bit of effort and thought into his put-downs, you on the
> other hand merely come across as a smug c--t.
>
> Now would you like to come up with a proper critique or am I too old for
> this playpen?
>
> -james
>
> Sam W <sa...@philosophers.net> wrote in message
> news:bXOW4.6870$xG6....@news2.atl...
James W. Foster
> Right. But dear James, think about the beginning of the awareness.
> I think it'll be more interesting to inject some fundamental issues for.
> Literacy, or manifestos of the age results the rest of propaganda to my
view
> point.
> Media, literally, is a tool. How about the minds who hold the tools...
>
A good point, but sadly as I'm limited to 3k words (and I'm already over by
a few hundred) I can't elaborate as much as I'd like to on all my paragraphs
as I'll stray too far from my question - on the topic of photography as art
in relation to the 'Author' - (mind you, I bet I have the same problem when
it comes to my dissertation later this year!)
Meanwhile, Erik A. Mattila <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>Anyway, I used to grade papers like the one written by James, for an
>"Introduction to Critical Theory" course. Basically, when grading, you are
>looking for evidencce that the student read assignments and was taking the
>course material seriously. It isn't really expeccted that an entry level
>student would automatically become a eurdite social theorist in 10 -15
weeks of
>exposure to very dense literature. The only important thing is that you
can
>see the students putting concepts to work.
My biggest regret now that I'm at the end of my second year is that I didn't
sign up for any of the more challenging theory modules before. The previous
semesters I signed up for the Media theory modules with a view to learning
about the media but sadly I managed to learn as much in most of a year as I
could have from a month of reading. The lectures were lightweight, tedious
and spoonfed at the last minute to make up for student and tutor absences -
in the first semester this academic year I missed two months worth of theory
lectures whilst disillusioned and depressed, when I finally turned up I
apologised profusely to the tutor only to be informed by the other two
students who'd turned up that the tutor had been away for a month!
In need of a challenge I signed up for this Photography as Art module and
it's been absolutely fantastic. I still don't claim to know much about
photography but the actual lecture series has got my mind working again
after one and a half years of laziness.
>Just two flags popped up when I read James' paragraph. The first was
lumping
>together "Modernism" and "Postmoderenism" together to speak of a common
>attribute, since "Postmodernism" is only defined by how it is different
from
>"Modernism." But he may have covered this elsewhere in his essay. The
second
>is that maybe 'self-aware' isn't the best term to use, as 'self-reference'
>would be more in tune with the body of theory that encompasses the concept
of
>Post Modernism.
I was citing self-awareness as a possible cause for the self-referencing.
One flaw in the statement is that it doesn't take into account advances in
psychology or philosophy as fuel for the increase in self-awareness.
>But in niether case would I ding him on a grade for this
>paragraph. I would however, make appropriate comments hoping that he would
>think about the issues I've raised. If the rest of his essay was written
like
>this one paragraph, it would be a candidate for a high mark, in my opinion
(and
>that's all that really matters, anyway, while grading papers.
Especially when you've got a long way to climb back up after a particularly
bad Semester 1 - predicted third when the semester before I was on a
predicted 2.1. That's what you get for losing the plot at uni. Now I've
got the esay out the way I feel I can explore some harder texts more
thoroughly in preparation for the biggie - the dissertation.
>So, as Bush once said, "Where's the beef?" After all, here's a student
asking
>for imput on his writing and ideas. What do any of us have of value to
offer
>him?
hopefully more than the republican party... Is it me or are all the
presidential candidates this year right-wing nutters?
-james
Peter H.M. Brooks
"James W. Foster" <jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com> wrote:
>
> However my basic point still stands, that society has become more
aware of
> itself rather than the everyday survival activities (I think therefore
I Am)
> and this has led to new juxtapositions of previous art, media & design
> through the use of devices such as parody or use of the appropriated
image
> or readymade (Lichtenstein, Warhol, Duchamp, Sherman and so on) .
>
arguing that it is?) so how can it be 'more aware' of itself?
I know that, if you wish to get marks on postmodernism, you don't really
want to make sense, but, just for the hell of the exercise, why not
explain what it is supposed to mean?
br...@wralaw.com
"James W. Foster" <jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com> wrote:
> anyone else agrees or disagrees with this viewpoint...
> "Modernism and Postmodernism were probably the inevitable product of a
> society that was becoming increasingly self-aware through increased
exposure
> to the media (especially photography). Once the self-awareness had
> increased to the point of being able to see the legacy of existing
cultural
> works such as paintings, certain genres of photography, music, film
and so
> on with the benefit of hindsight. This legacy could be reinterpreted
freely,
> like a repository of meanings and themes."
Sorry James. When I think of postmodernism I think of Walter Benjamin
stoned in a Parisian coffee house. Thats all it is another historical
pipe dream along with workers paradise and most organized religion.
Think about what you are saying with regards to a self-aware society.
I think an interesting angle to take with postmodernism is how it has
evolved as a form of word manipulation, a higher level perhaps of
indoctrination or Idealism than most before it.
> -james
> (Tired. Hungry.)
Bryn
Awake Full
god...@my-deja.com
Oh BTW. don't augment your paper with my POV you'll get an F. Art crit
teachers didn't like reading my essays.
In truth PoMo is no more valid than DADA or MOMO, just because a
"theory" is time dependant is no reason to take it as fact anymore. We
would no more say that surrealism has ended reality than postmodernism
has ended modernism, each if you read linguistically is a dependant on
the substrate it antagonizes. And in reality in the minds of some
people postmodernism and surrealism have removed reality and modernism
where it didn't in fact exist any more than it does now.
In college I often attacked the question, this works great in
philosophy and can get you points on a question you can't answere on a
science essay, but not if the teacher really believes in the terms and
concepts brought into question, which can happen in art theory crit.
I guess the majority of conflicts within postmodernism arrive from the
refusal of theorists to use Occams Razor when it seems right. We can
not accept Christianity on the basis that thou shalt not kill is
usually right? Postmodernism has not become any one theory but the set
of theories engaged as 'postmodern' and not trimmed or refined by any
reasonable process. We can in fact reduce a certain number of truths
from postmodernism just as we can get citric acid from a lemon.
Perhaps postmodernism can remind us that ALL theoritical points of view
are in reality lemons!
In reality I consider pomo not much better or worse than what has come
before it. Just more of something slightly different. So good luck,
and don't mind BSing on an essay if thats what they want then thats all
they are going to get wether or not you try of wether or not they
deserve it!
In article <jlHW4.1548$E11....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
"James W. Foster" <jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com> wrote:
> -james
> (Tired. Hungry.)
-bryn
(Awake. Full.)
Joseph C.A. Bennett
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> > However my basic point still stands, that society has become more
> aware of
> > itself rather than the everyday survival activities (I think therefore
> I Am)
> > and this has led to new juxtapositions of previous art, media & design
> > through the use of devices such as parody or use of the appropriated
> image
> > or readymade (Lichtenstein, Warhol, Duchamp, Sherman and so on) .
> >
> But what does this mean? 'Society' is not a conscious entity (or are you
> arguing that it is?) so how can it be 'more aware' of itself?
>
> I know that, if you wish to get marks on postmodernism, you don't really
> want to make sense, but, just for the hell of the exercise, why not
> explain what it is supposed to mean?
> --
> Peter..."Society" most certainly is a "conscious entity" and always has
> been, critically so in the age of electronic communication. The
> collective conscious of society is perhaps the most powerful force in life
> today, as anyone who has succeeded in the manipulation of public opinion
> will acknowledge. To deny a collective conscious masquerading under the
> label "Society" is to dwell in a sophist, philosophical-theoretical
> vacuum.
mdeli
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>Remarkable, James -- I think we were both writing the same response in real
>time. There is a God!
>
>Erik
>
Definitely!
He's the mature man's Santa Claus
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
in the unreasonable.
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.
POMO really has little to do with art. It is a line of babble which
attempts to excuse incompetence by means of a dialect of baffelgab
known as Artspeak.
The main problem of POMOs is that they can't distinguish the aesthetic
from the factual, metaphor from reality.
terk
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <YY_W4.2643$uN.5...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "James W. Foster" <jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com> wrote:
> >
> > However my basic point still stands, that society has become more
> aware of
> > itself rather than the everyday survival activities (I think
therefore
> I Am)
> > and this has led to new juxtapositions of previous art, media &
design
> > through the use of devices such as parody or use of the appropriated
> image
> > or readymade (Lichtenstein, Warhol, Duchamp, Sherman and so on) .
> >
> But what does this mean? 'Society' is not a conscious entity (or are
you
> arguing that it is?) so how can it be 'more aware' of itself?
>
> I know that, if you wish to get marks on postmodernism, you don't
really
> want to make sense, but, just for the hell of the exercise, why not
> explain what it is supposed to mean?
>
> --
> For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an
> evil net, and as the
> birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared
> in an evil time, when it
> falleth suddenly upon them. Ecclesiastes 9:12
>
Society is not a conscious entity? Do you mean that the abstract oper-
ating agglomeration is not self-aware? Or that the members/fabricators
of this construct are not aware of it as an extra-personal 'entity'? If
you contend the latter, then you are de facto an exemplar of the PoMo/
qua-Ecclesiastic hypothetical paradigm.
In re: J. Foster's expositon, did/do you proceed in your essay to demon-
strate/substantiate the multi-fold depth/range of abstraction replacing
direct experience/'meaning'(and most particularly the appropriation of
the trivial/idiosyncratic in substitution of previously archetypal
elements /imagery) that is the 'reality' of PoMo? My observation is
that 'awareness' has become so multifariouly extended/mediated/polluted/
fractionated that any reasonably 'aware' person has to confront univer-
sal uncertainty/doubt as THE fundamental ground of being (vide quantum
theory) and thus experience a complete 'identity crisis'. Which is the
realm of PoMo (if I acertain it correctly).-----terk
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
"If ignorance is bliss, then why aren't we in
paradise?"
David Works
<god...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8gjhv2$dkq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> Oh BTW. don't augment your paper with my POV you'll get an F. Art crit
> teachers didn't like reading my essays.
>
> In truth PoMo is no more valid than DADA or MOMO, just because a
> "theory" is time dependant is no reason to take it as fact anymore. We
> would no more say that surrealism has ended reality than postmodernism
> has ended modernism, each if you read linguistically is a dependant on
> the substrate it antagonizes. And in reality in the minds of some
> people postmodernism and surrealism have removed reality and modernism
> where it didn't in fact exist any more than it does now.
>
CLIP
>
> In reality I consider pomo not much better or worse than what has come
> before it. Just more of something slightly different. So good luck,
> and don't mind BSing on an essay if thats what they want then thats all
> they are going to get wether or not you try of wether or not they
> deserve it!
>
> In article <jlHW4.1548$E11....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "James W. Foster" <jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com> wrote:
>
> > -james
> > (Tired. Hungry.)
>
Well said. I believe that all "theories of art" or "movements" are double
edged. They can be useful in providing insight, but they can also be a trap
if taken too seriously. I "do art" and enjoy looking at art. But I often
find it tedious to read critiques or reviews of art. A wonderful image can
be shown, but a critique can be an exercise in "intellectual masterbation"
that takes one further away from experiencing the work for what it is. In a
way, I think "critiques" and "theories" are forms of intellectual art that
generally do not map well to visual arts (like painting, sculpture etc.). I
think the most powerful visual art is that which remains unexplainable (to a
degree) -- art that breaks though intellectual conceptualizations. Trying
to wrap this art in "intellectual understanding" only obscures the mystery.
It may be a fun mental exercise, but it is clearly a limited aspect of
experiencing art.
David
Jesus M. Medina
>
> Society is not a conscious entity? Do you mean that the abstract oper-
> ating agglomeration is not self-aware? Or that the members/fabricators
> of this construct are not aware of it as an extra-personal 'entity'? If
> you contend the latter, then you are de facto an exemplar of the PoMo/
> qua-Ecclesiastic hypothetical paradigm.
>
Did somebody change the name of this newsgroup from CINEMATOGRAPHY to
mental masturbation?
I don't mind thinking, actually I have been known to do it once or
twice.
And masturbation as Woody Allen said 'is sex with someone I like'.
But there is a time and a place for everything.
Its time for me to go take a shower, you guys let me know when you're
done.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Joseph C.A. Bennett" <joseph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > I know that, if you wish to get marks on postmodernism, you don't
really
> > want to make sense, but, just for the hell of the exercise, why not
> > explain what it is supposed to mean?
>
> > --
has
> > been, critically so in the age of electronic communication. The
> > collective conscious of society is perhaps the most powerful force
in life
> > today, as anyone who has succeeded in the manipulation of public
opinion
> > will acknowledge. To deny a collective conscious masquerading under
the
> > label "Society" is to dwell in a sophist, philosophical-theoretical
> > vacuum.
>
you suggesting a group mind?
The manipulation of public opinion leads to a change in public opinion,
not to a change in any supra human consciousness.
Are you not simply personifying the old idea of the zeitgeist?
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
"My choice of colours does not rest on any scientific theory; it is
based on observation, on feeling, on the experience of
my sensibility." Henri Matisse in Notes of a Painter, published in La
Grande Revue, 1908
http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
Peter H.M. Brooks
terk <te...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> Society is not a conscious entity? Do you mean that the abstract
oper-
> ating agglomeration is not self-aware? Or that the members/fabricators
> of this construct are not aware of it as an extra-personal 'entity'?
If
> you contend the latter, then you are de facto an exemplar of the PoMo/
> qua-Ecclesiastic hypothetical paradigm.
>
much sense.
>
> In re: J. Foster's expositon, did/do you proceed in your essay to
demon-
> strate/substantiate the multi-fold depth/range of abstraction
replacing
> direct experience/'meaning'(and most particularly the appropriation of
> the trivial/idiosyncratic in substitution of previously archetypal
> elements /imagery) that is the 'reality' of PoMo? My observation is
> that 'awareness' has become so multifariouly
extended/mediated/polluted/
> fractionated that any reasonably 'aware' person has to confront
univer-
> sal uncertainty/doubt as THE fundamental ground of being (vide quantum
> theory) and thus experience a complete 'identity crisis'. Which is
the
> realm of PoMo (if I acertain it correctly).-----terk
>
always gets them going!
terk
In article <392E304C...@americanisp.com>,
"Jesus M. Medina" <jme...@americanisp.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Society is not a conscious entity? Do you mean that the abstract
oper-
> > ating agglomeration is not self-aware? Or that the
members/fabricators
> > of this construct are not aware of it as an extra-personal 'entity'?
If
> > you contend the latter, then you are de facto an exemplar of the
PoMo/
> > qua-Ecclesiastic hypothetical paradigm.
> >
>
> Did somebody change the name of this newsgroup from CINEMATOGRAPHY
to
> mental masturbation?
>
> I don't mind thinking, actually I have been known to do it once or
> twice.
>
> And masturbation as Woody Allen said 'is sex with someone I like'.
>
> But there is a time and a place for everything.
>
> Its time for me to go take a shower, you guys let me know when
you're
> done.
>
>
--
"If ignorance is bliss, then why aren't we in
paradise?"
James W. Foster
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:392edf96...@news.psi.ca...
> Definitely!
> He's the mature man's Santa Claus
>
> Mani DeLi
Good quote! I'll remember that one next time my ex-girlfriend tries to
convert me.
If this is the case though, is it the reason why mature men get fewer
Christmas presents than when we were younger? If so, I'll keep writing to
the Arctic...
-james
James W. Foster
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8giuuv$v8d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> But what does this mean? 'Society' is not a conscious entity (or are you
> arguing that it is?) so how can it be 'more aware' of itself?
>
> I know that, if you wish to get marks on postmodernism, you don't really
> want to make sense, but, just for the hell of the exercise, why not
> explain what it is supposed to mean?
Of course, if I wanted to go for the Distinction then the only answer I
could give you would be 'Everything and yet at the same time nothing.'
However, I'm not entirely sure I can articulate what I really mean,
especially as I don't fully believe in anything yet. Personally I loathe
writing about art theory, it wastes so much time when I could be doing
practical work. However, I do like essays that don't actually make sense
and are riddled with ambiguities. The conclusion isn't made by the author,
the reader makes it themselves. I've alway been a DIY type of guy. Keeps
my grey matter in shape so I can use it for the artwork.
-james
br...@wralaw.com
"If Jesus had returned, in Europe, anywhere from A.D. 300 to perhaps
A.D. 1800 he would have been very likely burned at the stake. Perhaps
he did and was." -Jack D. Forbes
Bryn
christopher moss
my compliments to the chef!
-cm
Erik A. Mattila
invented. Interesting time travel.
Erik
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> In article <jlHW4.1548$E11....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "James W. Foster" <jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com> wrote:
br...@wralaw.com
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> Holy Cow, Bryn, Benjamin was alread dead for 25 years when PostModern
was
> invented. Interesting time travel.
Oh yes time travel is very interesting... very interesting.
>
> Erik
Jesus M. Medina
Thanks for the tip.
There goes my trip to Paris.
;-)
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> In article <392E304C...@americanisp.com>,
> "Jesus M. Medina" <jme...@americanisp.com> wrote:
> > >
>
> "If Jesus had returned, in Europe, anywhere from A.D. 300 to perhaps
> A.D. 1800 he would have been very likely burned at the stake. Perhaps
> he did and was." -Jack D. Forbes
>
> Bryn
>
tra...@pipeline.com
wrote:
>
><god...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8gjhv2$dkq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>>
>> Oh BTW. don't augment your paper with my POV you'll get an F. Art crit
>> teachers didn't like reading my essays.
>>
>> In truth PoMo is no more valid than DADA or MOMO, just because a
>> "theory" is time dependant is no reason to take it as fact anymore. We
>> would no more say that surrealism has ended reality than postmodernism
>> has ended modernism, each if you read linguistically is a dependant on
>> the substrate it antagonizes. And in reality in the minds of some
>> people postmodernism and surrealism have removed reality and modernism
>> where it didn't in fact exist any more than it does now.
>>
>
> CLIP
>
>>
>> In reality I consider pomo not much better or worse than what has come
>> before it. Just more of something slightly different. So good luck,
>
>Well said. I believe that all "theories of art" or "movements" are double
>edged. They can be useful in providing insight, but they can also be a trap
>if taken too seriously. I "do art" and enjoy looking at art. But I often
>find it tedious to read critiques or reviews of art. A wonderful image can
>be shown, but a critique can be an exercise in "intellectual masterbation"
>that takes one further away from experiencing the work for what it is. In a
>way, I think "critiques" and "theories" are forms of intellectual art that
>generally do not map well to visual arts (like painting, sculpture etc.). I
>think the most powerful visual art is that which remains unexplainable (to a
>degree) -- art that breaks though intellectual conceptualizations. Trying
>to wrap this art in "intellectual understanding" only obscures the mystery.
>It may be a fun mental exercise, but it is clearly a limited aspect of
>experiencing art.
>
>David
Hence the swing from one extreme (chocolate-box lid allegory) to the
other (it-must-always-be-something-new) abstract art. Why can we not
have more "both/and" thinking in the art world?
BTW, is this document availble on line somewhere?
Tracy