Modernist and Postmodernist Poetry
Critter
topic over again being that I never fully answered the question.
Modernism, as defined by Madan Sarup, South Bank U., London, is
"an aesthetic self-consciousness and refliexiveness; a rejection of
narrative structure in favour of simultaneity and montage; an
exploration of the paradoxical, rejection of the notion of an integrated
personality in favour of an emphasis upon the Freudian 'split' subject."
He also describes it as an opposition to classicism, "emphasiz[ing]
experimentation and the aim of finding an inner truth behind surface
appearance."
The list of modernists he gave were Joyce, Yeats, Proust, and Kafka
in literature; Eliot and Pound in poetry; and Cezanne, Picasso, Matisse,
the Expressionist, Futurist, Dadaist and Surrealist movements in
painting.
He does say that modernism and postmodernism share the same
definitions, or they touch points now and then at least. I believe
that modernism is taking the notion of modernity (or the progressive
economic and administrative rationalization and differentiation
of the social world, according to German sociological theory) into
the artistic vision.
In other words, the Dadaists looked at WWI as nonsensical, and
thus reflected this in their art, which was very much a statement
that said nothing. War is meaningless, war is life. Art is life,
art is meaningless. So the modern times reflected the modernist's
work. The same can be said for the Surrealist, where one modern
notion is that reality is breaking down- the distiction between
the possibilities of dream and the possibilities of reality is no longer
a thick, distinct line. This was also represented in the modernist's
work.
Now, Sarup never gets around to giving a clear-cut definition for
Postmodernism. His book _An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism
and Postmodernism_ is his definition for Postmodernism. He did
give a list of the Postmodernists though, being Warhol and a list
of others in art, Artaud in drama, Lynch in film, and others in fields
such as philosophy, architecture (Venturi), photography, and fiction.
I wasn't familiar with most of the names given, and in fiction
I've heard that Burroughs was one of the primary postmodern writers,
but Sarup didn't seem to think so. Dr. Benway, the Mr. Postmodern
himself..
So what does postmodern mean in respect to the aforementioned
artists? Postmodernism is the vision of the artist beyond modern,
a quite literal definition. Instead of representing the modern- or
the reality of life- postmodernism seeks to delete the boundaries
between art and life- a transformation of reality into images. He
focuses on the writings of Francois Lyotard, who is a post-
structuralist in the guise of a postmodernist- but that's another
story.
What I find interesting is the poets he has listed or did not list.
For the modernists, he believes Eliot and Pound to be definitive
of modernist poetry. I can't say I follow that reasoning. The
common similiarities between the two poets is their drive towards
scholastic poetry, where the commonly educated man isn't
"worthy" enough or "educated" high enough to read their work.
So where does that lead? Is modernist poetry a reflection of
man's desire for knowledge? Postmodernism focuses on the
changing face of knowledge, or according to Lyotard: the
exchange of knowledge in a capitolist society. Soooo... (I'm
thinking here..) I would say that modernism is the attempt
by the artists to symbolize this hunger for both knowledge and
perfection.
But where is the postmodern poet? This question becomes
increasingly more interesting when read up on Lyotard's beliefs
on language and language wars, where every word spoken is
a "move" (as in chess) on the battle field. Also, he believes that
knowledge is the primary force of the modern society, thus
anything which isn't knowledge based will not survive the on-slaught
of society, and any knowledge which isn't mutable will also
not survive.
In respect to poetry, I see a number of possibilities. Looking for
the postmodern poet, Stevens comes to mind, where the
riddle-like quality of his poetry will be interpreted differently
from generation to generation (ie. I believe The Emporor of
Ice-Cream is a large eulogy for a rich man looking to get
his dick sucked by a common whore). Ginsberg can also be
seen in this light, where his ideas on the like-metaphors
juxtaposed in such a way that the reader actually divines a
meaning based on his or her ethics because the metaphors
themselves lead to no distinct end.
Also, one of our resident poets here and myself have posted
what I consider to be generational translations, where
Marek Lugowski retranslated, according to the ideology of
today's generation, Carl Sandberg's Chicago. Also, mentioning
Ginsberg once again, I translated America by those same
conditions. Does this imply that Sandberg and Ginsberg
are both postmodern poets? If not, I'm curious to know where
the postmodern poet lies.
On this newsgroup, anyone looking for a new generation of
poets is flamed for one reason or another. Maybe this
seventies ideal of the postmodern poet is no longer applicable.
I have heard that there is a resurgence of the formalist
poetry in the world of publications. Is this saying that ethics
and code of conduct is one again becoming more strict,
as it was in Shakespear's day? No. I will blatently disagree
with that. This creature of Man is no longer ruled by ethics;
on the whole there shall be exceptions, but on the average,
man is not ruled by anything but self-determination, and,
according to the postmodern condition, greed.
So tell me, where is the postmodern poet, or if he doesn't
exist, where is the post that represents today?
Is it the slam poet? Hmmm... The actor/preacher. I'd
say... maybe.
...Critter
John Silence
about a man who had just written an eight-hundred page book on American
history without ever bothering to finish the eighth grade. The result of
his delusion of grandeur was a text which placed the civil war in the year
1920 and the first capital of the US in Bailey's Mistake, Maine, (among
a legion of other, equally ridiculous things). On Tue, 18 Jul 1995, Critter
(a.k.a. Cheetah) wrote:
(blather, blather, blather blather)
>
> So what does postmodern mean in respect to the aforementioned
> artists? Postmodernism is the vision of the artist beyond modern,
> a quite literal definition. Instead of representing the modern- or
> the reality of life- postmodernism seeks to delete the boundaries
> between art and life- a transformation of reality into images. He
> focuses on the writings of Francois Lyotard, who is a post-
> structuralist in the guise of a postmodernist- but that's another
> story.
>
I hope this isn't Madan Sarup's faux. I would expect it from Cheetah, but
from a sentient being? Jean-Francois Lyotard is a brilliant
^^^^^
pseudo-millenialist with a solid and interesting (though not sycophantic)
take on Freud and Jacques Lacan. He has developed a political paradigm
from Lacanian psychoanalysis which (since Lacan truly did map the human
unconscious, revising and correcting Freud) reveals some rather thrilling
truths about human society and culture. He also speaks damn good English
(much better than my French) and attracts young women like iron filings to a
magnet, the old satyr. Zut alors, les francais!
> What I find interesting is the poets he has listed or did not list.
> For the modernists, he believes Eliot and Pound to be definitive
> of modernist poetry. I can't say I follow that reasoning. The
> common similiarities between the two poets is their drive towards
> scholastic poetry, where the commonly educated man isn't
> "worthy" enough or "educated" high enough to read their work.
> So where does that lead? Is modernist poetry a reflection of
> man's desire for knowledge? Postmodernism focuses on the
> changing face of knowledge, or according to Lyotard: the
> exchange of knowledge in a capitolist society. Soooo... (I'm
> thinking here..) I would say that modernism is the attempt
> by the artists to symbolize this hunger for both knowledge and
> perfection.
>
And I would say that this mindlessness must cease.
Postmodernism is not a school but a zeitgeist, an overarching set of
attitudes in contemporary society. Modernism has come to mean a specific
group of artists who consciously shared certain attitudes and practiced
certain similar techniques (although finding these "similarities" can
sometimes require a bit of a stretch)."Post-structuralist," like
"modernist," "surrealist," "cubist," "futurist," "dadaist,"
"imagist," "transcendentalist", etc. etc. ad nauseum, designates a
particular school or movement with quite distinct attributes and often a
clearly-expressed goal or manifesto.
Please note, therefore, that there is neither contradiction nor redundancy
in Lyotard's purported identity of "postmodernist post-structuralist." And
with this in mind, all the musings which follow-- wondering where to find
the "postmodern" poet --stand revealed as the malodorous belchings of a
semiliterate ephebe attempting to sell the hoi-polloi his personal brand
of snake-oil. What utter rot. At my old prep school, we used to give
out a yearly "Golden Shovel" award. While this "piece" would qualify
for the competition, it lacks the wit even to place.
> But where is the
postmodern poet? This question
becomes > increasingly more interesting
[[Urp. I will spare us all the remainder.]]
Regards,
John Silence
______________________******____________*****____________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...calling from the sacred/forbidden place of jouissance
"Oh! oh! My feet of fire! My burning feet of fire! Oh! oh! This height
and fiery speed!" -- Algernon Blackwood
"Yours is so big and powerful, but in spite of that, you are impotent.
You cannot hurt me with it." -- Otto Fenichel
Critter
==========John Silence, 7/19/95==========
[text deleted]
>with this in mind, all the musings which follow-- wondering where to find
>the "postmodern" poet --stand revealed as the malodorous belchings of a
>semiliterate ephebe attempting to sell the hoi-polloi his personal brand
>of snake-oil. What utter rot. At my old prep school, we used to give
>out a yearly "Golden Shovel" award. While this "piece" would qualify
>for the competition, it lacks the wit even to place.
[text deleted]
Thanks for the sales pitch on your snake oil, John. Appreciate it.
While you're up there selling, do me a favor and put your prick down.
If your so much the genius and I am not worthy to chew the ground
you walk on, why don't you DISCUSS what you don't agree with
instead of beating that prick of yours until you feel the rush of
manhood sweep us away. It isn't going to happen. Man is impressed
by another man's ability, and not the size of his words. (Talking
out my ass again, sorry about that, stud.)
...Critter
John Silence
Hampshire, I met a local farmer with a strange contraption occupying a
good 1/4 of his pickup's bed. When I asked its use he informed me that it
was an alternate fuel source (this was back in the energy-crunch
seventies). An old oil drum with a pressure hose affixed to it ran
directly into his engine. The tank contained methane gas,a highly
efficient fuel which the farmer derived free-gratis from his hogs'
shitpile. In reading certain messages recently I have been reminded of
that old pickup. My only problem now is how to attach the hose to Critter's
post.
Anyone bothering to follow this flaming thread (and god help you if you
do) might notice that "Critter" does not and cannot counter any argument I
might have with him. While I certainly am not above deriding the mindless
little creep, it's really in the spirit of fun (for me, that is) and
because I wish to protect all those aspiring poetasters out there from
Critter's diet of bilgewater and bile. He is so blatantly wrong about so
much of his spoutings that I find the urge to tweak him uncontrollable. In
replying to Michelle Tepper (and, unacknowledged, to me) he claims that
"modern" and "contemporary" are synonyms. Here are their respective
definitions, according to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary of the
English Language: modern:1. Of or pertaining to present and recent time;
not ancient or remote. 2. Of or pertaining to the historical period
following the Middle Ages. 3. Of, pertaining to or characteristic of
contemporary styles of art, literature, music, etc;... AS you can see, had
"Critter" spoken of 'modern' poets, no one could have quibbled with him.
Certainly Whitman and Sandburg wrote after the Middle Ages, and perhaps
they have had an influence on current writing, that is, the ongoing
discourse of the living. He did not say they were modern. He said they
were "contemporary:"1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time;
belonging to the same time; 2. of the same age or date; 3. of the present
time. I quote: "The three aforementioned writers (Whitman, Sandburg,
Ginsberg) are all considered contemporary...." He did not call them modern
(which they assuredly are). And they are not contemporary, in any of its
meanings: they did not exist, occur or live at the same time; they are not
of the same age or date. And they are most certainly not of the present
(else why would Cheetah need to call for a new school?)
And now, Critter, I will ask you once again. Will you please SHUT UP when
you know so little?
Jesse Garon
Chris....@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM (RITTEC) wrote:
> The American Heritage Dictionary, (c)1983 Houghton Miffin Co.
> contemporary- adj. 1. Living or happening during the same period
> of time. 2. Current, modern. n. 1. One of the same time or age as
> another. 2. A person of the present time.
>
> Not to argue, but to try and reach an understanding. Notice that
> you are correct in once sense, but you are also wrong in another.
> Modern is used to define contemporary. In another dictionary
> that I don't have at work with me, contemporary is straight-out
> defined as modern. In other words, contemporary = modern.
Yes, but modern != contemporary. Because you are a moron, and may
not know what != means, I will explain that it means "is not equal
to". To put it another way, you are attempting to claim that
because all baboons are mammals, all mammals are baboons. You may
very well be, but count me out.
Is this the kind of logical reasoning one gets from the Dayton scene?
Here's a bit of Scientologist doctrine, acceptable as "fair use":
"Find some plants, trees, etc., and communicate to them
individually until you know they received your communication."
*************
I am the God damnedest mass of tact known to the human race.
G R I F T E R @ P R I M E N E T . C O M
Critter
=========='Jesse Garon', 7/25/95==========
[text deleted]
> Because you are a moron, and may
>not know what != means, I will explain that it means
[text deleted]
>Is this the kind of logical reasoning one gets from the Dayton scene?
[text deleted]
Hear me, Jesse. I don't play this flame war shit anymore.
Direct your attacks elsewhere, please.
- Christopher D. Ritter, AT&T Global Information Solutions
Chris....@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM
Tim Patterson
: okay this shit is just getting stupid. i thought the folks on alt.punk
: were caustic assholes but you fuckers make them look like pippy
: longstockings. and at least most of the people there have the excuse
Strange - I don't recall Pippy Longstockings being a caustic
asshole. Maybe I need to go back and re-read the books. Obviously
I missed something :)
: of being thirteen year old rugrats with nothing better to do than blow
: up their own egos by trying to find clever ways to put each other down.
: but i'll thank you all for one thing: proving once and for all the
: poetry and the internet makes for a pretty lousy combination that
: attracts the most A-1 brain dead bottom of the barrell self important
: knobby jarhead mushpot bottlecaps cyberspace has to offer. i tip my
: hat to you all.
OOOOH - That was a bit caustic and didn't really add much to the thread did
it?
Pot-Kettle-Black ?
: ---jones
Wednesday/jones
>Yes, but modern != contemporary. Because you are a moron, and may
>not know what != means, I will explain that it means "is not equal
>to". To put it another way, you are attempting to claim that
>because all baboons are mammals, all mammals are baboons. You may
>very well be, but count me out.
>
>Is this the kind of logical reasoning one gets from the Dayton scene?
>
okay this shit is just getting stupid. i thought the folks on alt.punk
were caustic assholes but you fuckers make them look like pippy
longstockings. and at least most of the people there have the excuse
of being thirteen year old rugrats with nothing better to do than blow
up their own egos by trying to find clever ways to put each other down.
but i'll thank you all for one thing: proving once and for all the
poetry and the internet makes for a pretty lousy combination that
attracts the most A-1 brain dead bottom of the barrell self important
knobby jarhead mushpot bottlecaps cyberspace has to offer. i tip my
hat to you all.
---jones
]_d-[
michelle has given critter some semi-decent
> arguments buried under her nastiness, but
most of john's argument
> seems to have been nastiness, itself.
encourage people's
> worst side to come out.
yes- finally-
people need to stop flaming and attacking and
just chill the hell out-
whoever thinks they are better prove it with your
poetry-
regaurdless of whom is the better intellectual-
this is about poetry-not who knows most about
what-
stop provoking-countering-plotting-and planning-
enless it is through the use of poems-
derek-the referee asistant-
John Silence
{{snip}}
> arguments buried under her nastiness, but most of john's argument
> but you're not very convincing in your self-assuredness by calling him a
> chimp all the time.
>
>
>
> - deb, self-appointed referee
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, somebody had to do it.
You're absolutely right, this silliness went entirely too far (and what
self-respecting flame war doesn't?). I've said it before, RAP brings out
the worst in me -- and the best, as it stimulates me to write more. So
you may have noticed that I've taken myself hors-de-combat and left the
field to Garon, Patterson and Ritter, who remain as amusing as ever. I
told Critter that I only did this for the fun, but I confess it's the
kind of fun boys extract from pulling the wings off defenseless flies, so
I'm not particularly proud of it. Critter put me right, by god, when he
suggested that all this fiery noise was a distraction from the poetry.
Now I've started on a new poem, which I will post separately in its first
installment, and waste no more time or energy on a subject about which I
really could care less: modernism vs. postmodernism, or new generations
of poetry vs. old (and by the way, I consider ST: The Next Generation a
vast improvement over the hoary original).
To your health. Chin chin and tally-ho!
Tim Patterson
< The usual heavy-handed, over-worded, under-witty condesenscions deleted>
: >Anyone reading can give their input as well.
: No, not Patterson! He is a clueless git. Remove him from the guest list
: at my insistence.
: -- Marek
marek, marek, full of spite
your irritation - my delight
poetic training have i none
just 4 weeks since i begun
to scribble down my jolly verse
i've seen better, i've seen worse
you spit my name, i hear your call
i have my invite to the ball
us riff-raff you cannot keep out
no matter how you stamp and pout
so remember when you feel like bitchin'
you can scratch - but i'll keep itchin'
++ Tim :)
Jesse Garon
patt...@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu (Tim Patterson) wrote:
> : No, not Patterson! He is a clueless git. Remove him from the guest list
> : at my insistence.
> : -- Marek
> marek, marek, full of spite
> your irritation - my delight
> poetic training have i none
> just 4 weeks since i begun
> to scribble down my jolly verse
> i've seen better, i've seen worse
> you spit my name, i hear your call
> i have my invite to the ball
> us riff-raff you cannot keep out
> no matter how you stamp and pout
> so remember when you feel like bitchin'
> you can scratch - but i'll keep itchin'
This, my friends, is a poem. AND it speaks to a universal truth,
even if there is no such thing as universal truth. I dunno if I
like the rhythm all that much, but the sentiment is noble.
************
I am the God damnedest mass of tact known to the human race.
G R I F T E R @ P R I M E N E T . C O M
"Jesse Garon" vs. Scientology: THEY haven't got a chance!
don't miss any gory details: read alt.religion.scientology
Tim Patterson
: In article <3vlhg3$5...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
: patt...@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu (Tim Patterson) wrote:
: > marek, marek, full of spite
: > your irritation - my delight
8< snip! snip! 8<
: This, my friends, is a poem. AND it speaks to a universal truth,
: even if there is no such thing as universal truth.
Oh my - next thing you know, Marek will be congratulating me on
my poetic abilities :)
: I dunno if I
: like the rhythm all that much,
Philistine. It worked ok for "tyger, tyger, burning bright" :)
: but the sentiment is noble.
Why, thank you :)
++ Tim :)
Marek Lugowski
>The American Heritage Dictionary, (c)1983 Houghton Miffin Co.
...as Baba Yaga said to to a certain little grrl, you did not half bad
and not half good. At least you did not swear on the integrity of
some "Webster", a generic moniker. In fact, you could call your next
chapbook of hoary and hoarsly shouted word "The Webster Dictionary of
Modern and Contemporary Dayton Sung", and you would not have to worry
about "Webster" lawyers or trademarks... "Webster" is a completely
free and therefore meaningless qualification of merit, as it was never
copyrighted, unlike "Merriam-Webster", the company that inherited the
notebooks and the research and the capital. But these things are
evening out, and a Random House Unabridged Dictionary is a fine buy...
>contemporary- adj. 1. Living or happening during the same period
>of time. 2. Current, modern. n. 1. One of the same time or age as
>another. 2. A person of the present time.
Is this how you propose to discern specific terms of classified art
movements? From a directory of dictionary definitions near you? If
so, I would like to hear "neo-expressionist" (Germany 1925) as well as
"secessionist" (eg., Gustav Klimt) as well as "absurdist" (Polish
theatre between WWI and WW II), next.
>Not to argue, but to try and reach an understanding.
Here's a dollar, take it and buy yourself a lunch, not coffee:
Michelle and John were joshing you. Jesse is a vulgar pig, likely
with a voice yet to break if not a testicle to descend, so count him
out. The whole Punch and Judy (where you are the Judy) show revolves
about your holy matrimony to dictionary meanings of "contemporary" and
"modern" while ignoring Contemporary and Modern, which is that your
detractors are talking about.
I suggest a trip to the University of Dayton, and a chat with a faculty
member of the History of Science and Art department, if there is such.
Of if they are not contemporary to the said institution for reasons of
summer vacation, Miami of Ohio is not too far of a pleasant drive --
and sports a superior and newly remodelled art history library, where
no one checks IDs of the contemporaries incoming (state school; one
has a modern right to use it).
>Let me be kind here for a moment: I'd like your opinon on this,
>and not your flame. Listen to me, I'm not saying I'm right, I'm
>just giving the sources that state that your definition isn't
>necessarily correct.
Modern = a specific period in art, particularly fine arts, literature,
and furnture making, as well as architecture. You could say the New
Yorker, as in the magazine, is still fancying itself as being Modern.
Contemporary -- not a specific period in art; a catch-all bin relative
to a chronological time. The contemporary petroglyphs to the Fremont
culture (big-horn sheep depictions and the triangularly tapered bodies
of horned hunters) -- and the rock art of the Anasazi to he Southwest
of the Freemont, in the Canyonlands, and the Four Corners area, as well
as the last observed supernova (1057 something AD) from Earth: These items
are all contemporary to one another and to the late paleolithic in North
America, not excepting Dayton, where paleolithic is still undergoing,
given its blossom of late gothic... show us your obsydian nail file, Chris.
*grin*
>Anyone reading can give their input as well.
No, not Patterson! He is a clueless git. Remove him from the guest list
at my insistence.
> ...Critter
-- Marek
Jesse Garon
patt...@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu (Tim Patterson) wrote:
> 'Jesse Garon' (gri...@primenet.com) wrote:
> : In article <3vlhg3$5...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> : patt...@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu (Tim Patterson) wrote:
>
> : > marek, marek, full of spite
> : > your irritation - my delight
>
> 8< snip! snip! 8<
>
> : This, my friends, is a poem. AND it speaks to a universal truth,
> : even if there is no such thing as universal truth.
>
> Oh my - next thing you know, Marek will be congratulating me on
> my poetic abilities :)
>
> : I dunno if I
> : like the rhythm all that much,
>
> Philistine. It worked ok for "tyger, tyger, burning bright" :)
Yeah, well, I always liked Blake's watercolors more than his
poems, which were the weak link in his multimedia artefacts.