what's good about postmodernism?
George M. Crombie
I am trying to think a few new thoughts. Can anyone help me? What is
it that is good about postmodernism as opposed to modernity or
premodernism? - George Crombie crom...@werple.net.au
Aragorn Moser
I would find it hard to find something that is "good" about
postmodernism at all. Instead it is a description of a reality that may
or may not be "real" that seems to work pretty well.
Also I think that most "postmodern" critics are called that because of
their critique of modernity and all of its repercussions...but it is
also just as "true" to say that most postmodernists are in some sort of
process of critique with postmodernity.
I find it more useful to not frame modern/post in the good/bad or even
right/wrong options. But it's often a (sadly) appropriate term.
Aragorn
G*rd*n
crom...@werple.net.au:
| I am trying to think a few new thoughts. Can anyone help me? What is
| it that is good about postmodernism as opposed to modernity or
| premodernism?
In the fine arts, postmodernism is more fun than Modernism,
which became a very serious drag by the end of the 1950s.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
-----------------------------------------------
NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will
probably not be able to reach me by email.
George M. Crombie
Aragorn Moser wrote:
>
> George M. Crombie wrote:
> >
> > I am trying to think a few new thoughts. Can anyone help me? What is
> > it that is good about postmodernism as opposed to modernity or
>
> I would find it hard to find something that is "good" about
> postmodernism at all. Instead it is a description of a reality that may
> or may not be "real" that seems to work pretty well.
>
> Also I think that most "postmodern" critics are called that because of
> their critique of modernity and all of its repercussions...but it is
> also just as "true" to say that most postmodernists are in some sort of
> process of critique with postmodernity.
>
> I find it more useful to not frame modern/post in the good/bad or even
> right/wrong options. But it's often a (sadly) appropriate term.
>
> Aragorn
Perhaps good/bad is an unhelpful way to put it. How about what is it
that is appealing about postmodernism? As opposed to say, the
rationalism of modernism or the ecological disaster that modernity has
led us too. I think that the self critical point of view within
postmodernism, the ability to enter into critical dialogue with itself
would have to be an appealing aspect of postmodernism, the embracing of
doubt etc. But is there something more?
mark oldfield
George M. Crombie wrote:
>
> I am trying to think a few new thoughts. Can anyone help me? What is
> it that is good about postmodernism as opposed to modernity or
> premodernism? - George Crombie crom...@werple.net.auIt isn't a matter of Postmodernism being good or bad (although there seem
to be enough people willing to make such judgements). What's important
is theorising contemporary social/cultural/political/economic events in
way that enables us to grasp what;s happening, what's changing and so
forth..
pa...@nevada.edu
> I am trying to think a few new thoughts. Can anyone help me? What is
> it that is good about postmodernism as opposed to modernity or
> premodernism? - George Crombie crom...@werple.net.au
The responses seem to make sense; however, value judgements are not part
of the postmodern--and that's how I prefer to look at the postmodern.
That is to say, I am an educator living in a postmodern world. How I
interpret that to better my studies and teaching is my goal.
Bill: We find what we seek
G*rd*n
crom...@werple.net.au wrote:
| > I am trying to think a few new thoughts. Can anyone help me? What is
| > it that is good about postmodernism as opposed to modernity or
| > premodernism? - George Crombie crom...@werple.net.au
| The responses seem to make sense; however, value judgements are not part
| of the postmodern--and that's how I prefer to look at the postmodern.
| That is to say, I am an educator living in a postmodern world. How I
| interpret that to better my studies and teaching is my goal.
A goal is a value judgment.
G*rd*n
crom...@werple.net.au wrote:
| >| > I am trying to think a few new thoughts. Can anyone help me? What is
| >| > it that is good about postmodernism as opposed to modernity or
| >| > premodernism? - George Crombie crom...@werple.net.au
pa...@nevada.edu:
| >| The responses seem to make sense; however, value judgements are not part
| >| of the postmodern--and that's how I prefer to look at the postmodern.
| >| That is to say, I am an educator living in a postmodern world. How I
| >| interpret that to better my studies and teaching is my goal.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) writes:
| >A goal is a value judgment.
lrud...@panix.com (Lee Rudolph):
| Perhaps pank can rework the statement using the word "tropism".
Tristes tropismes.
Lee Rudolph
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) writes:
>crom...@werple.net.au wrote:
>| > I am trying to think a few new thoughts. Can anyone help me? What is
>| > it that is good about postmodernism as opposed to modernity or
>| > premodernism? - George Crombie crom...@werple.net.au
>
>pa...@nevada.edu:
>| The responses seem to make sense; however, value judgements are not part
>| of the postmodern--and that's how I prefer to look at the postmodern.
>| That is to say, I am an educator living in a postmodern world. How I
>| interpret that to better my studies and teaching is my goal.
>
>A goal is a value judgment.
Perhaps pank can rework the statement using the word "tropism".
Lee Rudolph
Lee Rudolph
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) writes:
>
>pa...@nevada.edu:
>| >| The responses seem to make sense; however, value judgements are not part
>| >| of the postmodern--and that's how I prefer to look at the postmodern.
>| >| That is to say, I am an educator living in a postmodern world. How I
>| >| interpret that to better my studies and teaching is my goal.
>
>| Perhaps pank can rework the statement using the word "tropism".
>
Triste, tan, and is old, eh?
Lee Rudolph
Christopher Ogden
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BC5B9F.83420180
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
--
--Christopher Ogden
mailto://ogd...@mail.xmission.com
http://www.xmission.com/~ogdenc/
pa...@nevada.edu wrote in article ...
. . . value judgements are not part
of the postmodern--and that's how I prefer to look at the postmodern.
That is to say, I am an educator living in a postmodern world. How I
interpret that to better my studies and teaching is my goal.
Value judgments are, and always have been, a vital part of =
postmodernism. There is no way around them. Any time we write we make =
a value judgement: we judge that what we write is more valuable than =
some other alternative kinds of writing.
------=_NextPart_000_01BC5B9F.83420180
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"Trident 4.71.0544.0"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>--<BR>
<HTML><BODY><FONT size=3D2>--<FONT size=3D+1>Christopher =
Ogden</FONT><BR>
<A=20
href=3D"mailto://ogd...@mail.xmission.com">mailto://ogd...@mail.xmission.=
com</A><BR>
<A=20
href=3D"http://www.xmission.com/~ogdenc/">http://www.xmission.com/~ogdenc=
/</A></FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> pa...@nevada.edu wrote in=20
article<PANK-06059...@R4-PPP2.NEVADA.EDU> ...<BR>
<HTML><BODY><FONT size=3D2><BR>
<FONT size=3D-2>. . . value judgements are not part<BR>
of the postmodern--and that's how I prefer to look at the =
postmodern.<BR>
That is to say, I am an educator living in a postmodern world. How =
I<BR>
interpret that to better my studies and teaching is my goal.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>Value judgments are, and always have been, a vital part of =
postmodernism.=20
There is no way around them. Any time we write we make a value =
judgement: we=20
judge that what we write is more valuable than some other alternative =
kinds of=20
writing.</FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D2></FONT></FONT> </P>
</BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_01BC5B9F.83420180--
moggin
tasq...@DELETEpop.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom Asquith):
> Postmodernism is basically that which breaks from modernism.
> If you like, one could even consider the idea that PoMo appeared
> back in the 1200s (!), with the appearance of the Gothic style in
> architecture.
Could you? I thought that Gothic was described as "modern."
As far as I know, the term "post-modern" doesn't turn up until
the early twentieth century. Or do you mean that it's possible
to look at Gothic architecture as a form of post-modernism, aside
from what anybody labeled it at the time? Maybe so. But what
are you suggesting is the "modern architecture" it "breaks from"?
>PoMo is that which is not the accepted, run-of-the-mill style or mode
>of doing things. In short, one must have PoMo so that Mo can grow--
>which is good.
You realize of course that you've described modernism just
as well as you have post-modernism. I wouldn't call that an
objection, though, unless you insist on your earlier definition
of pomo as "that which breaks from modernism." I think you'll
find very few cases where that fits. It applies to architecture
quite well, but that's the exception -- elsewhere things are
much more ambiguous. (Consider Lyotard's idea that pomo is the
acceleration of modernism.)
> So if you do come up with new thoughts, you have just entered the
> wonderful world of the postmodern.
Counter-example. Pound -- High Modernist. "Make it new."
-- moggin
David O'Bedlam
On 3 May 1997, G*rd*n wrote:
> In the fine arts, postmodernism is more fun than Modernism,
> which became a very serious drag by the end of the 1950s.
Then it's too bad that pomo likewise became a serious drag by
the end of the 1970s. Now there's nothing left but advertising.
"The"
David O'Bedlam
On Sun, 4 May 1997, George M. Crombie wrote:
> the ability to enter into critical dialogue with itself would have to be
> an appealing aspect of postmodernism, the embracing of doubt etc.
GMC, turn off that MTV.
> But is there something more?
Um, maybe VH-1?
"The"
David O'Bedlam
On 9 May 1997, -Mammel,L.H. wrote:
> I believe postmodernism is simply decadent modernism. It's modernism
> realizing that there's no where to go, and then feeding on itself.
Agreed, basically. With a slight "pink" tinge to it, whereas Modernism
proper lent itself quite easily to Fascism (Lawrence, D'Annuzio, Pound,
etc.) One could also say "Modernism with a guilty conscience it tries
to divert away with cheeky 'wit' and obfuscating rhetoric."
It's also a form of (perhaps unintented) generational parody, like all
those little "Deadheads" born circa 1980.
> What's good about it?
Maybe Quentin Tarantino?
> "You can get anything you want in Alice's Restaurant."
"Exceptin' Alice!"
The
--
"There's no problem of evil, shit just happens." --[The]G*rd*n
.....................................................................
This post copyright (C) 1997 thed...@clark.net; all rights reserved.
Tom Asquith
In article <moggin-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>,
mog...@mindspring.com says...
>tasq...@DELETEpop.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom Asquith):
>
>> Postmodernism is basically that which breaks from modernism.
>> If you like, one could even consider the idea that PoMo appeared
>> back in the 1200s (!), with the appearance of the Gothic style in
>> architecture.
> Could you? I thought that Gothic was described as "modern."
>As far as I know, the term "post-modern" doesn't turn up until
>the early twentieth century. Or do you mean that it's possible
>to look at Gothic architecture as a form of post-modernism, aside
>from what anybody labeled it at the time? Maybe so. But what
>are you suggesting is the "modern architecture" it "breaks from"?
Well the ancient or Classical style was referred to by Italians
during the Renaissance as being 'antica e buona moderna' which
roughly means the good old modern style. Gothic architecture,
an innovative style that came from Germany, was looked at
being barbarous or horrid (remember that 'Gothi' was a term
that was used for those hordes that existed in those peoples
of questionable stock--Ostrogoths, Visigoths, etc.).
Thus, there has been a trend in society to putting down that
which breaks from the norm or the modern. Postmodernism is
merely the latest word used to describe that which is not.
>>PoMo is that which is not the accepted, run-of-the-mill style or mode
>>of doing things. In short, one must have PoMo so that Mo can grow--
>>which is good.
> You realize of course that you've described modernism just
>as well as you have post-modernism. I wouldn't call that an
>objection, though, unless you insist on your earlier definition
>of pomo as "that which breaks from modernism." I think you'll
>find very few cases where that fits. It applies to architecture
>quite well, but that's the exception -- elsewhere things are
>much more ambiguous. (Consider Lyotard's idea that pomo is the
>acceleration of modernism.)
I think I dealt with this above. The problem that I think we
are hitting on here is that the line between the postmodern and
the modern can get very blurry indeed. One moment something
is PoMo--the next: Mo. To borrow from Lyotard, PoMo is "undoubtedly
part of modernism...part of its nascent state."
>> So if you do come up with new thoughts, you have just entered the
>> wonderful world of the postmodern.
>
> Counter-example. Pound -- High Modernist. "Make it new."
Ah, but then we are merely playing word-games...are we not? And
your 'new' is not as new as my "new". :-)
--
----
Tom Asquith
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
University of Alberta
---------------------------------------------------
To reply: Delete "DELETE" from my e-mail address
above.
---------------------------------------------------
moggin
tasq...@DELETEpop.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom Asquith):
> >> Postmodernism is basically that which breaks from modernism.
> >> If you like, one could even consider the idea that PoMo appeared
> >> back in the 1200s (!), with the appearance of the Gothic style in
> >> architecture.
> > Could you? I thought that Gothic was described as "modern."
> >As far as I know, the term "post-modern" doesn't turn up until
> >the early twentieth century. Or do you mean that it's possible
> >to look at Gothic architecture as a form of post-modernism, aside
> >from what anybody labeled it at the time? Maybe so. But what
> >are you suggesting is the "modern architecture" it "breaks from"?
Tom:
> Well the ancient or Classical style was referred to by Italians
> during the Renaissance as being 'antica e buona moderna' which
> roughly means the good old modern style. Gothic architecture,
> an innovative style that came from Germany, was looked at
> being barbarous or horrid (remember that 'Gothi' was a term
> that was used for those hordes that existed in those peoples
> of questionable stock--Ostrogoths, Visigoths, etc.).
This is very interesting. The Italians called the ancient
or classical style "modern"? Do you happen to know why? I
mean, it seems a little odd, doesn't it? If _that's_ what they
called modern, then what did they call _old_? And as long as
we're on the subject, what about the idea that the _Gothic_ was
labeled "modern" at the time? I can't remember just where I
heard that, but I'm sure I've stumbled across it before. Maybe
you know more.
> Thus, there has been a trend in society to putting down that
> which breaks from the norm or the modern. Postmodernism is
> merely the latest word used to describe that which is not.
One is a trend? I'm no expert, but I thought that trends
required at least two. You're on to something bigger than a
trend, though, unless putting down non-conformity is more of a
recent development than I realize. But it's not clear to me
that "the modern" means "the norm" -- certainly that's not how
it functions in "modernism." The folks jeering the Armory
Show and rioting at _The Rite of Spring_ weren't upset because
the modernists were upholding normality.
Tom:
> >>PoMo is that which is not the accepted, run-of-the-mill style or mode
> >>of doing things. In short, one must have PoMo so that Mo can grow--
> >>which is good.
moggin:
> > You realize of course that you've described modernism just
> >as well as you have post-modernism. I wouldn't call that an
> >objection, though, unless you insist on your earlier definition
> >of pomo as "that which breaks from modernism." I think you'll
> >find very few cases where that fits. It applies to architecture
> >quite well, but that's the exception -- elsewhere things are
> >much more ambiguous. (Consider Lyotard's idea that pomo is the
> >acceleration of modernism.)
Tom:
> I think I dealt with this above. The problem that I think we
> are hitting on here is that the line between the postmodern and
> the modern can get very blurry indeed. One moment something
> is PoMo--the next: Mo. To borrow from Lyotard, PoMo is "undoubtedly
> part of modernism...part of its nascent state."
Yes, the line is vague, at best, except in a few cases, but
there's also enormous confusion surrounding the _terms_ modern
and post-modern, which can often make the picture blurrier still.
Tom:
> >> So if you do come up with new thoughts, you have just entered the
> >> wonderful world of the postmodern.
moggin:
> > Counter-example. Pound -- High Modernist. "Make it new."
Tom:
> Ah, but then we are merely playing word-games...are we not? And
> your 'new' is not as new as my "new". :-)
No, I don't think we are (although I hesitate to say that
we're not). If you define post-modernism by reference to the
new, then, as the example of Pound brings out, it _can't_ be a
break from modernism; on the contrary, modernism would be the
referent of "post-modernism." Which is (I suggest) more often
the case than not.
-- moggin
Tom Asquith
>tasq...@DELETEpop.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom Asquith):
>
>> >> Postmodernism is basically that which breaks from modernism.
>> >> If you like, one could even consider the idea that PoMo appeared
>> >> back in the 1200s (!), with the appearance of the Gothic style in
>> >> architecture.
>mog...@mindspring.com:
>
>> > Could you? I thought that Gothic was described as "modern."
>> >As far as I know, the term "post-modern" doesn't turn up until
>> >the early twentieth century. Or do you mean that it's possible
>> >to look at Gothic architecture as a form of post-modernism, aside
>> >from what anybody labeled it at the time? Maybe so. But what
>> >are you suggesting is the "modern architecture" it "breaks from"?
>Tom:
>
>> Well the ancient or Classical style was referred to by Italians
>> during the Renaissance as being 'antica e buona moderna' which
>> roughly means the good old modern style. Gothic architecture,
>> an innovative style that came from Germany, was looked at
>> being barbarous or horrid (remember that 'Gothi' was a term
>> that was used for those hordes that existed in those peoples
>> of questionable stock--Ostrogoths, Visigoths, etc.).
Moggin:
> This is very interesting. The Italians called the ancient
>or classical style "modern"? Do you happen to know why? I
>mean, it seems a little odd, doesn't it? If _that's_ what they
>called modern, then what did they call _old_? And as long as
>we're on the subject, what about the idea that the _Gothic_ was
>labeled "modern" at the time? I can't remember just where I
>heard that, but I'm sure I've stumbled across it before. Maybe
>you know more.
Tom:
I don't think I can be of too much help--it came from an old
tour book last time I went to Europe. But on reflection, it
does seem to make a little sense. At the time, "moderno" had
a meaning not far removed from the Latin "modernum", which roughly
means 'just now' or 'up to now' (the last meaning being key).
If one considers the respect that they had for the past
(think of Machiavelli or Petrarch), particularly the Roman past,
one can understand the resistance to the introduction of new
ideas that were flowing in from the North.
Tom:
>> Thus, there has been a trend in society to putting down that
>> which breaks from the norm or the modern. Postmodernism is
>> merely the latest word used to describe that which is not.
Moggin:
> One is a trend? I'm no expert, but I thought that trends
>required at least two. You're on to something bigger than a
>trend, though, unless putting down non-conformity is more of a
>recent development than I realize. But it's not clear to me
>that "the modern" means "the norm" -- certainly that's not how
>it functions in "modernism." The folks jeering the Armory
>Show and rioting at _The Rite of Spring_ weren't upset because
>the modernists were upholding normality.
Tom:
Perhaps trend isn't the proper word--"thread" may be a little
more precise. What I was thinking was something more a long
the lines of some unconscious tendency of the general public
or audience to be opposed to the new or the innovative. Perhaps
the next question though is: WHY?
snip!
>moggin:
>> > Counter-example. Pound -- High Modernist. "Make it new."
>Tom:
>> Ah, but then we are merely playing word-games...are we not? And
>> your 'new' is not as new as my "new". :-)
Moggin:
> No, I don't think we are (although I hesitate to say that
>we're not). If you define post-modernism by reference to the
>new, then, as the example of Pound brings out, it _can't_ be a
>break from modernism; on the contrary, modernism would be the
>referent of "post-modernism." Which is (I suggest) more often
>the case than not.
To simplify matters at this point, and I observe that you have
stated your argument quite well, I will hesitatingly agree...though
I think we have fallen into the old "modernism" trap (as we entered
the 20th century, it seems that the aesthetic groups in the Western
world started to run into difficulties coming up with new names for
movements).
moggin
tasq...@DELETEpop.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom Asquith):
> I don't think I can be of too much help--it came from an old
> tour book last time I went to Europe. But on reflection, it
> does seem to make a little sense. At the time, "moderno" had
> a meaning not far removed from the Latin "modernum", which roughly
> means 'just now' or 'up to now' (the last meaning being key).
> If one considers the respect that they had for the past
> (think of Machiavelli or Petrarch), particularly the Roman past,
> one can understand the resistance to the introduction of new
> ideas that were flowing in from the North.
That does make more sense now -- thanks for explaining.
Tom:
> >> Thus, there has been a trend in society to putting down that
> >> which breaks from the norm or the modern. Postmodernism is
> >> merely the latest word used to describe that which is not.
Moggin:
> > One is a trend? I'm no expert, but I thought that trends
> >required at least two. You're on to something bigger than a
> >trend, though, unless putting down non-conformity is more of a
> >recent development than I realize. But it's not clear to me
> >that "the modern" means "the norm" -- certainly that's not how
> >it functions in "modernism." The folks jeering the Armory
> >Show and rioting at _The Rite of Spring_ weren't upset because
> >the modernists were upholding normality.
Tom:
> Perhaps trend isn't the proper word--"thread" may be a little
> more precise. What I was thinking was something more a long
> the lines of some unconscious tendency of the general public
> or audience to be opposed to the new or the innovative. Perhaps
> the next question though is: WHY?
That's a big one; right now I'm interested in the smaller
matter of sorting out modern and post-modern. And I'm sure
you see my point -- the new and the innovative are both values
of modernism, which was a departure from the norm -- not a
synonym for it. Now, it's possible to say the same about
post-modernism, as you've done. But it follows that modernism
and post-modernism are similar in that respect, or perhaps
even two words for the same phenomenon.
[...]
moggin:
> >> > Counter-example. Pound -- High Modernist. "Make it new."
Tom:
> >> Ah, but then we are merely playing word-games...are we not? And
> >> your 'new' is not as new as my "new". :-)
Moggin:
> > No, I don't think we are (although I hesitate to say that
> >we're not). If you define post-modernism by reference to the
> >new, then, as the example of Pound brings out, it _can't_ be a
> >break from modernism; on the contrary, modernism would be the
> >referent of "post-modernism." Which is (I suggest) more often
> >the case than not.
Tom:
> To simplify matters at this point, and I observe that you have
> stated your argument quite well, I will hesitatingly agree...though
> I think we have fallen into the old "modernism" trap (as we entered
> the 20th century, it seems that the aesthetic groups in the Western
> world started to run into difficulties coming up with new names for
> movements).
I'm not sure what trap you mean. Good point about names,
though. That's the time artists noticed how much of a boost
it could be to be associated with a movement. So some of them
(e.g., Pound) took the logical step of _creating_ a movement
for themselves: round up a few friends, draft a manifesto, and
there you are. Oh, but you still need the crucial thing --
namely a name. With the sudden increase in demand, there's no
wonder they discovered a shortage. By the mid-seventies,
Richard Hell had to leave the space blank.
-- moggin
Tom Asquith
>tasq...@DELETEpop.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom Asquith):
Tom:
>> Perhaps trend isn't the proper word--"thread" may be a little
>> more precise. What I was thinking was something more a long
>> the lines of some unconscious tendency of the general public
>> or audience to be opposed to the new or the innovative. Perhaps
>> the next question though is: WHY?
> That's a big one; right now I'm interested in the smaller
>matter of sorting out modern and post-modern. And I'm sure
>you see my point -- the new and the innovative are both values
>of modernism, which was a departure from the norm -- not a
>synonym for it. Now, it's possible to say the same about
>post-modernism, as you've done. But it follows that modernism
>and post-modernism are similar in that respect, or perhaps
>even two words for the same phenomenon.
Agreed. As you also have pointed out, such a separation is
a delicate matter. One rule of thumb that I have generally
used (and I am still divided as to how well it really works)
is to think of PoMo in a more Heideggerian sense, i.e., as
a kind of 'coming into presence' or 'bringing-forth'.
Let me try and use literature to make my point. Martin
Amis once said that there are three types of story-tellers:
(1) those who told the tales as they were; (2) the new writers
who re-told these tales; and (3) those who write the new
stories. The modern writers are those who create the story
based on the past literature they have read (innovative
but not inventive)--a version of group (2).
The best example would be writers like Mark Twain,
who wrote "Huckleberry Finn" (a very innovative book
but one can't help but note how it possesses shades of
Homer's Odyssey). In other words, the modern writer
is the one who writes a new but based on the old.
The PoMo writer on the other hand would belong to
group (3) as one who tries to uncover
new ground--not based on the writers of the past, but
leaving the safe patterns and cliches for terra
incognita (which makes them rare indeed).
[...]
Tom:
>> To simplify matters at this point, and I observe that you have
>> stated your argument quite well, I will hesitatingly agree...though
>> I think we have fallen into the old "modernism" trap (as we entered
>> the 20th century, it seems that the aesthetic groups in the Western
>> world started to run into difficulties coming up with new names for
>> movements).
Moggin:
> I'm not sure what trap you mean. Good point about names,
>though. That's the time artists noticed how much of a boost
>it could be to be associated with a movement. So some of them
>(e.g., Pound) took the logical step of _creating_ a movement
>for themselves: round up a few friends, draft a manifesto, and
>there you are. Oh, but you still need the crucial thing --
>namely a name. With the sudden increase in demand, there's no
>wonder they discovered a shortage. By the mid-seventies,
>Richard Hell had to leave the space blank.
Well pointed out. As for the issue of the trap, I guess I was
a little vague. Throughout most of the twentieth century, the
term 'modern' has been basically used in a manner that could
be described as equivalent to 'new' (which to a certain extent
hid a great many of the different movements that existed
throughout this era). Colloquially, it was the great catch-all,
and hid many of the truly new ideas amongst the "new" ideas
that have existed in this unfortunate time interval. Initially,
'modern' was intended to be what many of the intellectuals
have called 'postmodern' today--but instead it just became a
'gray' or 'plastic' word. I don't know if this has clarified
matters sufficiently for you...
--
----
Cheers,
moggin
Tom:
>>> Perhaps trend isn't the proper word--"thread" may be a little
>>> more precise. What I was thinking was something more a long
>>> the lines of some unconscious tendency of the general public
>>> or audience to be opposed to the new or the innovative. Perhaps
>>> the next question though is: WHY?
moggin:
>> That's a big one; right now I'm interested in the smaller
>>matter of sorting out modern and post-modern. And I'm sure
>>you see my point -- the new and the innovative are both values
>>of modernism, which was a departure from the norm -- not a
>>synonym for it. Now, it's possible to say the same about
>>post-modernism, as you've done. But it follows that modernism
>>and post-modernism are similar in that respect, or perhaps
>>even two words for the same phenomenon.
Tom:
>Agreed. As you also have pointed out, such a separation is
>a delicate matter. One rule of thumb that I have generally
>used (and I am still divided as to how well it really works)
>is to think of PoMo in a more Heideggerian sense, i.e., as
>a kind of 'coming into presence' or 'bringing-forth'.
>Let me try and use literature to make my point. Martin
>Amis once said that there are three types of story-tellers:
>(1) those who told the tales as they were; (2) the new writers
>who re-told these tales; and (3) those who write the new
>stories. The modern writers are those who create the story
>based on the past literature they have read (innovative
>but not inventive)--a version of group (2).
>The best example would be writers like Mark Twain,
>who wrote "Huckleberry Finn" (a very innovative book
>but one can't help but note how it possesses shades of
>Homer's Odyssey). In other words, the modern writer
>is the one who writes a new but based on the old.
>The PoMo writer on the other hand would belong to
>group (3) as one who tries to uncover
>new ground--not based on the writers of the past, but
>leaving the safe patterns and cliches for terra
>incognita (which makes them rare indeed).
Reminds me a bit of Pound's schema. Lemme see...it ought
to be around here. Ah, found it. According to Pound, art is
created by six "classes of persons." In descending order,
they're "inventors," "masters," "diluters," "good writers with-
out salient qualities," "writers of belles-lettres," and "the
starters of crazes." "Inventors, masters, and diluters" are
self-explanatory; at any rate, Pound doesn't give them much of
an explanation.
The "good writers without salient qualities," he says, are
"men who are fortunate enough to be born when the literature of
a given country is in good working order...for example, men who
wrote sonnets in Dante's time, men who wrote short lyrics in
Shakespeare's...or who wrote French novels and stories after
Flaubert had shown them how." "Writers of belles-lettres" are
"men who didn't invent anything, but specialized in some
particular part of writing." He doesn't describe the "starters
of crazes" (I guess he wasn't crazy about them).
Amis' third category (the writers who create new stories)
matches up with Pound's class of "inventors" -- the ones who
stand at the top of his hierarchy. So once again it seems that
what you're calling "post-modernism" is actually in modernism.
The concept of "leaving the safe patterns and cliches for terra
incognita," for instance, is in Baudelaire. "Travelers" (one
of my favorites) ends:
Pour us your poison, let us be comforted!
Once we have burned our brains ouit, we can plunge
to Hell or Heaven -- any abyss will do --
deep in the Unknown to find the _new_!
[...]
Tom:
>>> To simplify matters at this point, and I observe that you have
>>> stated your argument quite well, I will hesitatingly agree...though
>>> I think we have fallen into the old "modernism" trap (as we entered
>>> the 20th century, it seems that the aesthetic groups in the Western
>>> world started to run into difficulties coming up with new names for
>>> movements).
Moggin:
>> I'm not sure what trap you mean. Good point about names,
>>though. That's the time artists noticed how much of a boost
>>it could be to be associated with a movement. So some of them
>>(e.g., Pound) took the logical step of _creating_ a movement
>>for themselves: round up a few friends, draft a manifesto, and
>>there you are. Oh, but you still need the crucial thing --
>>namely a name. With the sudden increase in demand, there's no
>>wonder they discovered a shortage. By the mid-seventies,
>>Richard Hell had to leave the space blank.
Tom:
>Well pointed out. As for the issue of the trap, I guess I was
>a little vague. Throughout most of the twentieth century, the
>term 'modern' has been basically used in a manner that could
>be described as equivalent to 'new' (which to a certain extent
>hid a great many of the different movements that existed
>throughout this era). Colloquially, it was the great catch-all,
>and hid many of the truly new ideas amongst the "new" ideas
>that have existed in this unfortunate time interval. Initially,
>'modern' was intended to be what many of the intellectuals
>have called 'postmodern' today--but instead it just became a
>'gray' or 'plastic' word. I don't know if this has clarified
>matters sufficiently for you...
I think we're just coming at this from opposite directions.
You're saying that "modernism" was _supposed_ to mean what
"post-modernism" does, while I keep noting that "post-modernism"
refers, a great deal of the time, to modernism. Very often,
"modernism" is then re-assigned to some earlier period; usually
the Enlightenment. One unfortunate result is that the idea of
post-modernism then vanishes (there's an exchange about that in
in my FAQ -- maybe I'll re-post it one of these days).
-- moggin
Tom Asquith
>Tom:
some snips!
>>Let me try and use literature to make my point. Martin
>>Amis once said that there are three types of story-tellers:
>>(1) those who told the tales as they were; (2) the new writers
>>who re-told these tales; and (3) those who write the new
>>stories. The modern writers are those who create the story
>>based on the past literature they have read (innovative
>>but not inventive)--a version of group (2).
>>The best example would be writers like Mark Twain,
>>who wrote "Huckleberry Finn" (a very innovative book
>>but one can't help but note how it possesses shades of
>>Homer's Odyssey). In other words, the modern writer
>>is the one who writes a new but based on the old.
>>The PoMo writer on the other hand would belong to
>>group (3) as one who tries to uncover
>>new ground--not based on the writers of the past, but
>>leaving the safe patterns and cliches for terra
>>incognita (which makes them rare indeed).
Moggin:
True enough (per Baudelaire--how I forgot :-) ), and you
might even persuade me to learn to like Pound, yet :-).
It is interesting though, the lines that you have drawn
between Amis and Pound...it seems that even in literary
criticism, it is difficult to really come up with something
new.
snip!
>Tom:
>
>>Well pointed out. As for the issue of the trap, I guess I was
>>a little vague. Throughout most of the twentieth century, the
>>term 'modern' has been basically used in a manner that could
>>be described as equivalent to 'new' (which to a certain extent
>>hid a great many of the different movements that existed
>>throughout this era). Colloquially, it was the great catch-all,
>>and hid many of the truly new ideas amongst the "new" ideas
>>that have existed in this unfortunate time interval. Initially,
>>'modern' was intended to be what many of the intellectuals
>>have called 'postmodern' today--but instead it just became a
>>'gray' or 'plastic' word. I don't know if this has clarified
>>matters sufficiently for you...
Moggin:
> I think we're just coming at this from opposite directions.
>You're saying that "modernism" was _supposed_ to mean what
>"post-modernism" does, while I keep noting that "post-modernism"
>refers, a great deal of the time, to modernism. Very often,
>"modernism" is then re-assigned to some earlier period; usually
>the Enlightenment. One unfortunate result is that the idea of
>post-modernism then vanishes (there's an exchange about that in
>in my FAQ -- maybe I'll re-post it one of these days).
Tom:
I'll see if I can hunt it down by Deja (sounds pretty good).
---
BTW, I was wondering if you are familiar with Daniel Bell's
fairly recent review of the PoMo movement in his "Cultural
Contradictions of Capitalism". In his 1996 Afterword that
was added during its re-publication, he works away at the
PoMo definition, noting as you and I have that many people
attempt to shrug off defining the movement (apologize for
their inability to define the term). But it seems that he
does a little better. He finds that it:
(1) is a "flight from philosophy".
Not a bad idea, I'll warrant--it does seem in light of
Foucault and Derrida that the base of the analysis
shifted to history and literature.
(2) is the "perfect pleonasm. It is the all-purpose
adjective, adverb, noun, pronoun (but not Subject),
object, conjunction, disjunction, and descriptive
and prescriptive term."
Seems close. There is a great deal of inconsistency
in how people use it.
(3) "becomes pompier"
AS Bell observes, the end result of PoMo is that it
becomes kitsch-camp or however else you wish to
define it. It starts as the introduction and serious
competion of styles and ends in the mundane.
(4) "is not 'right' or 'left'. What we have here is the
working out of the logic of modernism (its anticognitive
and anti-intellectual modes) and consumerism (its
acquisitiveness) in a world where the culturati find
their worldviews incoherent--because of the absence
of a secure foundation in traditional morality or in
a liberalism that found it difficult to set limits on
permissible behaviour--and have welcomed the cultural
anarchism and the transvaluation of values that
postmodernism set loose."
Enough said here--postmodernism as reaction, not as a founding
movement. No values, chaos..and the intellectuals have to
make order of it.
(5) "is formless because it turns its back on history."
This for Bell was the key. Modernism was awkward owing
to its multiple content going both for and against history.
Postmodernism takes it one step further and turns its
back completely on history, and places everything at an
equal footing (or so says Bell). The avant-garde is over.
(6) "is fading."
Bell seems to think that postmodernism has nearly gone the way
of the Dodo. But if I'm right, it ain't so--it'll just resurrect
itself, arise from the ashes of the old, and re-appear under
another name.
--
----