What is Postmodernism??
Dilwar Hussain
Hi all,
Sorry for this rather naive question, but I have been trying to read
about postmodernism and still cannot get to grips with it, or is that
the nature of postmodernism?
Can anyone out there give me a very short, summarised answer, or some
Web references etc.
Thank you
--
Mr. Hussain
Lee
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:55:01 +0000 Dilwar Hussain
<dil...@islamic-foundation.org.uk> posted article
<dEPb1BAV...@islamic-foundation.org.uk> to alt.postmodern:
Hi all,
Thank you
--
Mr. Hussain, there's a FAQ file for this group which you can find via
http://www.dejanews.com
OK
Lee
ni...@contract.kent.edu
I'm laying bets that noone answers your question- so I will.
its a label for anything that doesn't have a label. postmodern scholars
spend most of thier time trying to figure out what postmodernism is.
In article <dEPb1BAV...@islamic-foundation.org.uk>,
Dilwar Hussain <dil...@islamic-foundation.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry for this rather naive question, but I have been trying to read
> about postmodernism and still cannot get to grips with it, or is that
> the nature of postmodernism?
>
> Can anyone out there give me a very short, summarised answer, or some
> Web references etc.
>
> Thank you
> --
> Mr. Hussain
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Bartleby76
I like to define postmodernism in contrast to modernism. Modernism began
during the Renaissance, flourished during the Enlightenment and began doing
weird things at the beginning of the 20th century (which some people saw as
morphing into postmodernism). Modernism likes categories and definining things
by their opposite (in the same way that Im defining postmodernism by
contrasting it with modernism. I'm being ironic -- which is postmodern, not
modern). So modernism created binary oppositions like high culture/low
culture, art/artisanship, man/woman, logic/absurdity, straight/gay, racial
majority/racial minority, natural/unnatural....well one can go on forever with
this list.
Postmodernists were concerned about these binary oppositions. They realized
that sometimes those categories were arbitrary and most often one side was
privileged over the other. Think Brown V. Board of Education which concluded
that there is no such thing as "Separate But Equal." Postmodernists began to
"deconstruct" categories. Remember Andy Warhol's soupcans? He was taunting
our distinctions between art and consumer packaging. Why are some drawings put
in galleries while others are mass-produced on supermarket items? Can we
really say why?
Few would claim that our society today is totally postmodern. But it does
contain many postmodern elements. People study popular culture in college,
Dennis Rodman wears dresses, no can tell what race Tiger Woods is, etc. Some
people find postmodernism frightening, as if it is a breakdown of civilization.
Others find it liberating since categories can be confining.
Some would argue that postmodernism -- with its nihilistic tendencies-- is
apolitical, apathetic and therefore boring and useless. I would disagree.
Being in several minority groups, postmodernism to me represents an
exhilirating restructuring of society.
Lee
On 16 Jan 1998 07:47:04 GMT bartl...@aol.com (Bartleby76) posted article
<19980116074...@ladder01.news.aol.com> to alt.postmodern:
Postmodernists were concerned about these binary oppositions. They realized
that sometimes those categories were arbitrary and most often one side was
privileged over the other. Think Brown V. Board of Education which concluded
that there is no such thing as "Separate But Equal." Postmodernists began to
"deconstruct" categories. Remember Andy Warhol's soupcans? He was taunting
our distinctions between art and consumer packaging.
Trite: Warhol was a poor but trained graphic designer who had a lucky break, and
made money by painting money. Don't overblow it.
sayan bhattacharyya
Bartleby76 <bartl...@aol.com> wrote:
>Postmodernists began to
>"deconstruct" categories.
The problem that I see with doing away with categories is that the
world is so vast and complex, and our cognitive capabilities are
so limited in comparison, that we *need* to impose categories on
the world simply in order to process information efficiently and
in real time. There is an evolutionary advantage to doing so. The
caveman that learned to make the categorical distinction between
dangerous/harmless would be able to keep from dying by consuming
poisonous berries, while his "postmodernist" counterpart who
did not do so, would not have survived.
Thus, I submit that making categories is something that lies
at the very heart of human nature, because we have been
evolutionarily selected to do so in order to avoid the problem
of informational overload.
-Sayan.
Andy Lowry
On 16 Jan 1998, sayan bhattacharyya wrote:
> The problem that I see with doing away with categories is that the
> world is so vast and complex, and our cognitive capabilities are
> so limited in comparison, that we *need* to impose categories on
> the world simply in order to process information efficiently and
> in real time.
This is in fact probably why neither Derrida nor de Man nor Foucault has
ever advocated "doing away with categories." I doubt very much whether
anyone ever has, barring gurus and newsgroup pundits.
Recognizing that categories stand in need of vigilant criticism is of
course another thing. The fact that our categories are evolutionary
products says nothing about their ability to handle next week. For that
matter (here comes an armchair theory), if the industrial revolution has
wrought the tremendous changes it seems to have, then our categories would
be that much more likely to stand in major need of revision.
-- Andy Lowry
Burkenstock
Bartleby76 wrote:
> I like to define postmodernism in contrast to modernism. Modernism began
> during the Renaissance, flourished during the Enlightenment and began doing
> weird things at the beginning of the 20th century (which some people saw as
> morphing into postmodernism).
I like to think of the Modernism which occurred during the beginning of the
Twentieth Century as a time when society (especially art) began examining itself.
This is most easily seen (to me at least) in the Dada, Surrealist, Cubist, and
Futurist movements. It is here where Art begins to really examine itself for what
it is. This is the point where the Postmodern begins to rear its ugly head.
Modernism had been the norm for SO long that we had forgotten that there was
something before it... AND (heaven forbid) something AFTER it! Kandinsky, for
instance, began to examine colour, shape, line, and sound not for how they could
blend together, but rather the juxtaposition of itself and the deconstruction of
accepted categories of art, line, shape, and colour. Once we are able to step back
from objectivity and realize we are trapped in subjectivity and that we are merely
examining everything from different angles, THEN the postmodern may truly begin to
be accessible.
> Modernism likes categories and definining things
> by their opposite (in the same way that Im defining postmodernism by
> contrasting it with modernism. I'm being ironic -- which is postmodern, not
> modern). So modernism created binary oppositions like high culture/low
> culture, art/artisanship, man/woman, logic/absurdity, straight/gay, racial
> majority/racial minority, natural/unnatural....well one can go on forever with
> this list.
Binary oppositions were around a LOOOOOONG time before Modernity. One word: Plato.
>
>
> Postmodernists were concerned about these binary oppositions. They realized
> that sometimes those categories were arbitrary and most often one side was
> privileged over the other.
I can understand that. Though, I don't know if that is really what Derrida is
taking from Heideggar....
>
>
> Few would claim that our society today is totally postmodern. But it does
> contain many postmodern elements. People study popular culture in college,
> Dennis Rodman wears dresses, no can tell what race Tiger Woods is, etc. Some
> people find postmodernism frightening, as if it is a breakdown of civilization.
> Others find it liberating since categories can be confining.
I'm sure a Christian response would be that these are simply entropic
ramifications of the Fall.
Of course, the answer to the question at hand is inherently in the question,
itself. What is postmodernism? Yes, that is your answer. And, if everyone has
noted quite observantly.... I have shown the problem of binary yes/no questioning
and a suitable Postmodern answer.
Orpheus
--
"I WAS RECENTLY ON A TOUR OF LATIN AMERICA, AND THE ONLY REGRET I HAVE WAS
THAT I DIDN'T STUDY LATIN HARDER IN SCHOOL SO I COULD CONVERSE WITH THOSE
PEOPLE."
- Former U.S. Vice-President Dan Quayle
Gerry Quinn
In article <19980116074...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, bartl...@aol.com (Bartleby76) wrote:
[observations on modernism]
> I'm being ironic -- which is postmodern, not modern.
Irony in this context is an excuse to make broad claims without
the obligation to defend them.
[much snipped]
> Others find it liberating since categories can be confining.
>
>Some would argue that postmodernism -- with its nihilistic tendencies-- is
>apolitical, apathetic and therefore boring and useless. I would disagree.
>Being in several minority groups, postmodernism to me represents an
>exhilirating restructuring of society.
That sounds not so much like a rejection of categories, as a desire to
belong to them only when it suits...
- Gerry
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
DZASTR BOY
From "The Oxford Companion To 20th Century Literature in English", ed. Jenny
Stringer:
"Post-modernism is a term that was used by the American critic R.P. Blackmur
and others as early as the 1950s, but became fashionable, indeed ubiquitous, in
the late 1980s. It was employed to describe not only architecture, literature
and music, but haircuts, habits, jokes, states of mind. Its general
connotations are irony, self-mockery, allusiveness [Note: not "elusivenes", but
rather allusiveness, or tendency to make reference, in a culture that is
marked by a huge variety of potential sources of reference, now that things
like television and computers have greatly expanded information technology],
parody, [and] immersion in popular culture culture... . It is not entirely
clear clear that anyone or any thing actually is Post-modernist - perhaps the
paintings and films of Andy Warhol are."
From "Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey", by Roger Scruton:
"The word 'modern' is used in [two] ways: (1) To denote the modern, as opposed
to ancient or medieval, era of our civilization. The modern era is held to be
contemporaneous with the rise of natural science, and the decline of the
centralizing tendency in Christendom. ... (2) To mean 'modernist' as in 'modern
art'. A modernist is committed to the modern age, believing traditions must be
overthrown or refined in order to do justice to the new forms of experience.
... English-speaking philosophy is modern, but not modernist. French
philosophy in our time (the work of Foucalt and Derrida especially is
modernist, without being particularly modern - i.e., without basing itself in
assessments of arguments, or the idea to build on established truths. Since
the main fear of a modernist is that he may be unwittingly behind the times, he
tends to affirm himself as resolutely ahead of them. Hence modernists have
invented the label 'post-modern' to define their latest position. ... It was
fairly obvious in the early seventies that 'modernism' as an artistic and
cultural creed was stone dead. It was also obvious that the world of culture
was being transformed beyorecognition by two conflicting influences: a
widespread pessimism about the world, and a flood of momentary artifacts
(television, pop-culture, travel) which remove attention from every period of
human life besides the present. The word 'post-modern' was used to describe
the new cultural conditions, whilethe word 'post-modernism' was used to refer
either to those who affirmed them, or those who sought for a philosophical or
aesthetic doctrine that would replace the sterile future-worship of the early
modernists."
I've probably got another 20 good definitions or discussions of the tenets of
"post-modernism" in my personal library. This variety of interpretation and
debate as to meaning is itself characteristic of post-modernism, in my
opinion.
Additionally, I often think of the "deconstructionist" interpretive theories of
Derrida as quintessentially post-modern, since they question the notion of
traditional "centres" of meaning.
andrej
hey
postmodernism is everything from homer onwards (including him)
hope it helps...
andrej
Dilwar Hussain wrote in message ...
Lee Goddard
On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 21:23:14 +0100 "andrej" <marjan...@siol.net> posted
article <6a316i$4k3$1...@amon.siol.net> to alt.postmodern:
hey
postmodernism is everything from homer onwards (including him)
hope it helps...
andrej
No: the works attributed to Homer are pre-modern.
Lee
Holger Wilcks
sayan bhattacharyya wrote:
> The problem that I see with doing away with categories is that the
> world is so vast and complex, and our cognitive capabilities are
> so limited in comparison, that we *need* to impose categories on
> the world simply in order to process information efficiently and
> in real time. There is an evolutionary advantage to doing so. The
> caveman that learned to make the categorical distinction between
> dangerous/harmless would be able to keep from dying by consuming
> poisonous berries, while his "postmodernist" counterpart who
> did not do so, would not have survived.
>
> Thus, I submit that making categories is something that lies
> at the very heart of human nature, because we have been
> evolutionarily selected to do so in order to avoid the problem
> of informational overload.
>
I agree. But who is talking about killing the categories? In stead the
postmodernists are concerned with the conditions that create the
categories. You said yourself, that making categories lies at the very
heart of human nature - it is a human (social) construction.
Postmodernism (and I count Foucault among the postmodernists) questions
the trust we have in these categories as a *true* representation of
reality.
Hygge,
Holger
Lee Goddard
Can anyone out there give me a very short, summarised answer, or some
Web references etc.
OK: post-modern = the hyperthetical (optimistic) conceit that there is an era
after the modern. Thus: Medievil, Renaisannce, Modern, post-modern....
OR: postmodern = attempts to bundle every one who might agree with the above
into a box so that they can be easily disposed of.
alt.postmodern = where the box is alternately sealed, discarded and renewed.
ni...@contract.kent.edu
i find it interesting that modernism now suddenly begins with the
reinaissance. surrealism began in elizabethian england. Futurism began
sometime around 1776. postmodernism must be the reinvention of history.
modernism needs newness- constantly. So much, that it needed a new name
after awhile, and what a better name than postmodernism which thinks it
rejects the modern. guess what- it does! modernism is old. make it new!
slap a post before it. If I build a neo-classical building, is it
postmodern becasue I'm building in neo-classical style, or is it
neo-classical?
i refuse to accept the postmodern label just becasue some critic-genuis
(aren't they all?) places it there. maybey i am postmodern. maybey that's
the irony suggested. i think its ridiculous.
In article <6a56ks$38d$3...@news.u-net.com>,
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote:
> OR: postmodern = attempts to bundle every one who might agree with the above
> into a box so that they can be easily disposed of.
>
> alt.postmodern = where the box is alternately sealed, discarded and renewed.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Lee Goddard Collective
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 07:35:23 -0600 ni...@contract.kent.edu posted article
<885475796...@dejanews.com> to alt.postmodern:
i find it interesting that modernism now suddenly begins with the
reinaissance. surrealism began in elizabethian england. Futurism began
sometime around 1776. postmodernism must be the reinvention of history.
What we have here is a confusion in terms. I wasn't mentioning Modernism (at
least, I didn't intend to), but the Modern era.
I would be interested to read of your indentification of Futurism as begining
sometime around 1776.
modernism needs newness- constantly.
Agreed, but Modernism needs Modernist artists.
So much, that it needed a new name
after awhile, and what a better name than postmodernism which thinks it
rejects the modern. guess what- it does! modernism is old. make it new!
slap a post before it. If I build a neo-classical building, is it
postmodern becasue I'm building in neo-classical style, or is it
neo-classical?
A poor use of a poor phrase, IMHO.
i refuse to accept the postmodern label just becasue some critic-genuis
(aren't they all?) places it there. maybey i am postmodern. maybey that's
the irony suggested. i think its ridiculous.
I quite agree with you on that. Rather than use it to identify an assimilated
artistic 'movement,' I think it is better applied as signifier of an historical
ephoch.
ObSong: The Age of Aquarius...
Lee1
Richard Crew
Lee Goddard <l...@jove.u-net.com> wrote:
: On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 21:23:14 +0100 "andrej" <marjan...@siol.net> posted
: article <6a316i$4k3$1...@amon.siol.net> to alt.postmodern:
:
: hey
:
: postmodernism is everything from homer onwards (including him)
: hope it helps...
:
: andrej
:
: No: the works attributed to Homer are pre-modern.
:
: Lee
Except in the "Dialectic of Enlightenment," it would seem, since the
authors spend an entire discussing Homer's Odyssey, as an example of
"enlightenment" (i.e. "modern") values. Sigh.
I guess "modernism" is whatever you want it to be.
--Rich
--------------
"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], `Pray,
Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right
answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage
Lee Goddard Collective
On 23 Jan 1998 15:13:14 GMT ri...@archytas.duckpond (Richard Crew) posted article
<6aac2a$34i$1...@nostromo.clas.ufl.edu> to alt.postmodern:
Lee Goddard <l...@jove.u-net.com> wrote:
: On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 21:23:14 +0100 "andrej" <marjan...@siol.net> posted
: article <6a316i$4k3$1...@amon.siol.net> to alt.postmodern:
:
: hey
:
: postmodernism is everything from homer onwards (including him)
: hope it helps...
:
: andrej
:
: No: the works attributed to Homer are pre-modern.
:
: Lee
Except in the "Dialectic of Enlightenment," it would seem, since the
authors spend an entire discussing Homer's Odyssey, as an example of
"enlightenment" (i.e. "modern") values. Sigh.
Even if they spend the entire book discussing it's simillarities to their
contemporary ideas, the 'Homer' works do not originate in the modern era.
I guess "modernism" is whatever you want it to be.
Not at all. But I've been into that in this thread already so'll give you a
break.
Lee
--Rich
Bob Sturmer
While I might agree that isms which attempt to identify themselves anew risk
criticism from those who are intimidated by new labels, however, the label
"Postmodernism" does not seek to redefine modernist principles. It
identifies the failure of Modern principles and comments on an age of
fragmentation and multiple realities or truths. Postmodern architecture is
the best model. For example, combine the modernist principle of utility and
garnish it with Egytian characteristics. This "postmodern" structure (have
you ever seen the Atlanta skyline?) embraces the notion that aesthetics mean
something.
ni...@contract.kent.edu wrote in message
<885475796...@dejanews.com>...
>i find it interesting that modernism now suddenly begins with the
>reinaissance. surrealism began in elizabethian england. Futurism began
>sometime around 1776. postmodernism must be the reinvention of history.
>
>after awhile, and what a better name than postmodernism which thinks it
>rejects the modern. guess what- it does! modernism is old. make it new!
>slap a post before it. If I build a neo-classical building, is it
>postmodern becasue I'm building in neo-classical style, or is it
>neo-classical?
>
>(aren't they all?) places it there. maybey i am postmodern. maybey that's
>the irony suggested. i think its ridiculous.
>
G*rd*n
"Bob Sturmer" <bstu...@fast.net>:
| While I might agree that isms which attempt to identify themselves anew risk
| criticism from those who are intimidated by new labels, however, the label
| "Postmodernism" does not seek to redefine modernist principles. It
| identifies the failure of Modern principles and comments on an age of
| fragmentation and multiple realities or truths. Postmodern architecture is
| the best model. For example, combine the modernist principle of utility and
| garnish it with Egytian characteristics. This "postmodern" structure (have
| you ever seen the Atlanta skyline?) embraces the notion that aesthetics mean
| something.
The Modernist principle was also an aesthetic. What you
are drawing attention to is a shift between what used to
be called the classical and the baroque; there have been
other such shifts. Modernism can hardly be called a
failure; as a fashion or movement, it ranks with the
Renaissance. What is exhausted, probably, is the effort to
maintain _seriousness_ after so many years. I was reading
something by Gertrude Stein the other day in which she was
ranking artists on a scale of "greatness" with herself and
Picasso at the top. There is only so long one can carry on
in this way without becoming ludicrous.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
Andy Lowry
On 25 Jan 1998, G*rd*n wrote:
> What is exhausted, probably, is the effort to
> maintain _seriousness_ after so many years. I was reading
> something by Gertrude Stein the other day in which she was
> ranking artists on a scale of "greatness" with herself and
> Picasso at the top. There is only so long one can carry on
> in this way without becoming ludicrous.
Not that I know Stein so well, but I think that in her way, she was
already demolishing _seriousness_ when she made such remarks. Verily,
modernism containeth the seeds of its own critique.
(There is an essay to be written, or more likely read, on the apparent
need we often have to imagine our predecessors as unbearably stuffy. If
we can't be great, at least we can be _candid_. Let us tell the truth
about our own mediocrity rather than sing the greatness of our stuffy
elders. Not that Gordon has fallen prey to this, but I think we all
recognize the tendency.)
-- Andy Lowry
==========================================================================
"I can't be involved in this. I can't be a party to all this ugliness
that will do nothing except destroy people. . . ."
--Linda R. Tripp, in taped conversation with Monica Lewinsky
(_New York Times_ 25 January 1998, p. 16)
==========================================================================
G*rd*n
G*rd*n wrote:
| > What is exhausted, probably, is the effort to
| > maintain _seriousness_ after so many years. I was reading
| > something by Gertrude Stein the other day in which she was
| > ranking artists on a scale of "greatness" with herself and
| > Picasso at the top. There is only so long one can carry on
| > in this way without becoming ludicrous.
Andy Lowry <a...@Ra.MsState.Edu>:
| Not that I know Stein so well, but I think that in her way, she was
| already demolishing _seriousness_ when she made such remarks. Verily,
| modernism containeth the seeds of its own critique.
Well, I've read that she wouldn't _speak_ to Joyce. He was
the _competition_.
| (There is an essay to be written, or more likely read, on the apparent
| need we often have to imagine our predecessors as unbearably stuffy. If
| we can't be great, at least we can be _candid_. Let us tell the truth
| about our own mediocrity rather than sing the greatness of our stuffy
| elders. Not that Gordon has fallen prey to this, but I think we all
| recognize the tendency.)
If you look at early Modernism, it's rather playful, in
fact -- one might even say baroque. As in so many other
areas of life, things got drearier and drearier throughout
the teens, the twenties, and the thirties. When the
Guggenheim had a retrospective, covering 20th-century art,
a few years ago, they arranged it chronologically so that,
as you walked along the spiral going up, you ascended in
time; and you could see and feel the freeze coming on. By
1950 ab-ex was State Department art. The Guggenheim should
have followed of the _Inferno_ instead.
Lee Goddard Collective
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 07:35:23 -0600 ni...@contract.kent.edu posted article
<885475796...@dejanews.com> to alt.postmodern:
i find it interesting that modernism now suddenly begins with the
reinaissance. surrealism began in elizabethian england.
Did Bosch predate Spencer?
Futurism began sometime around 1776. postmodernism must be the reinvention of
history.
As you can see, my history is poor; what do you mean, nick?
Lee1
ni...@contract.kent.edu
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote in reply to me:
> > i find it interesting that modernism now suddenly begins with the
> > reinaissance. surrealism began in elizabethian england.
>
> Did Bosch predate Spencer?
Apology:
I now realise that there are two moderns here: modern the age and modern
the literary phenomenon.
If we're talking about modern the age- how many years are in an age? Who
decides when this age ends and that age begins?
Surrealism can also be defined in two ways: surrealism the literary
movement and literal surrealism (beyond realism). In the first case-
neither Bosch nor Spenser are surrealism- if the second- perhaps both
are.
> Futurism began sometime around 1776. postmodernism must be the reinvention of
> history.
>
> As you can see, my history is poor; what do you mean, nick?
I am sure futurism also has two (or more) ways of defining itself. But
the intention here was to illustrate the ridiculous claim that modernism
(the literary phenomenon) began in the reinnassance (sp) when I remember
reading about Madame Bovary beginning moderism (th literary phenomenon).
However, I am sure that by using the correct philosophical surgical
instruments, one could prove futurism beginning in 1776 and write it in a
way that no one could dispute it.
Rant:
I went to school to learn how to write better by studying the "masters".
I ended up thinking too often about "movements" and philosophy. I also
realised how "movements" and ages are easily herded into categories. I
understand perhaps a little better now, that if postmodernism is about
reducing the importance of categories, then postmodernism is a word that
should only be used when no other word can be. Not "That building is
postmodern" but "that building has egyptian elements and the architect
was trying to do this and that with them" not "this book is a postmodern
masterpiece" but what the book does and how it does it. Postmodern is
then used when someone asks "what is it that casues us to not categorize
things?" to which the answer is "postmodernism".
If this is the case. Then postmodernism is so important that it sould
never be spoken of.
-nick
Lee Goddard Collective
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:01:17 -0600 ni...@contract.kent.edu posted article
<885855068....@dejanews.com> to alt.postmodern:
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote in reply to me:
> > i find it interesting that modernism now suddenly begins with the
> > reinaissance. surrealism began in elizabethian england.
>
> Did Bosch predate Spencer?
Apology:
I now realise that there are two moderns here: modern the age and modern
the literary phenomenon.
If we're talking about modern the age- how many years are in an age? Who
decides when this age ends and that age begins?
How about you making a decsion?
Surrealism can also be defined in two ways: surrealism the literary
movement and literal surrealism (beyond realism). In the first case-
neither Bosch nor Spenser are surrealism- if the second- perhaps both
are.
Well, you've convinved me. That's *irony* you little shit. Now convince me why
that I don't find THE FAERIE QUEENE surreal -- in a lettered sense, of course:
it's is definetly not literally beyond reality, cos I've got a bloody great copy
at my feet as I type.
I want to see direct reference to the text; all quotes detailed.
> Futurism began sometime around 1776.
postmodernism must be the reinvention of history.
>
> As you can see, my history is poor; what do you mean, nick?
I am sure futurism also has two (or more) ways of defining itself.
Then please explain as you were asked:
But
the intention here was to illustrate the ridiculous claim that modernism
(the literary phenomenon) began in the reinnassance (sp) when I remember
reading about Madame Bovary beginning moderism (th literary phenomenon).
I'm not going to disillusion you about Mm Bovary: someone else will do that.
But, who was making your 'ridiculour' claim, boyo? Again, direct quote or...
However, I am sure that by using the correct philosophical surgical
instruments, one could prove futurism beginning in 1776 and write it in a
way that no one could dispute it.
Most of us would dispute that grass is green if you provoke us to.
Rant:
Ah, that's more like it...
I went to school to learn how to write better by studying the "masters".
I ended up thinking too often about "movements" and philosophy. I also
realised how "movements" and ages are easily herded into categories. I
Can give you a clear impression that somethings been going on in the world,
between all those masters of yours. Impressionism and Fauvism, Cubism and
Futurism and Voriticism...
understand perhaps a little better now, that if postmodernism is about
reducing the importance of categories, then postmodernism is a word that
should only be used when no other word can be.
Or when attempting to identify the future.
Not "That building is
postmodern" but "that building has egyptian elements and the architect
was trying to do this and that with them" not "this book is a postmodern
masterpiece" but what the book does and how it does it. Postmodern is
then used when someone asks "what is it that casues us to not categorize
things?" to which the answer is "postmodernism".
If this is the case. Then postmodernism is so important that it sould
never be spoken of.
Never is, where I am, except in satire: s'only written of seriously.
Lee2
Andy Lowry
On 25 Jan 1998, G*rd*n wrote:
> G*rd*n wrote:
> | > What is exhausted, probably, is the effort to
> | > maintain _seriousness_ after so many years. I was reading
> | > something by Gertrude Stein the other day in which she was
> | > ranking artists on a scale of "greatness" with herself and
> | > Picasso at the top. There is only so long one can carry on
> | > in this way without becoming ludicrous.
>
> Andy Lowry <a...@Ra.MsState.Edu>:
> | Not that I know Stein so well, but I think that in her way, she was
> | already demolishing _seriousness_ when she made such remarks. Verily,
> | modernism containeth the seeds of its own critique.
>
> Well, I've read that she wouldn't _speak_ to Joyce. He was
> the _competition_.
From the accounts I've read of people who _did_ try to speak to Joyce, she
made the right call, as did Faulkner, who supposedly went to Paris & saw
Joyce in a cafe but couldn't work up the nerve.
> | (There is an essay to be written, or more likely read, on the apparent
> | need we often have to imagine our predecessors as unbearably stuffy. If
> | we can't be great, at least we can be _candid_. Let us tell the truth
> | about our own mediocrity rather than sing the greatness of our stuffy
> | elders. Not that Gordon has fallen prey to this, but I think we all
> | recognize the tendency.)
>
> If you look at early Modernism, it's rather playful, in
> fact -- one might even say baroque. As in so many other
> areas of life, things got drearier and drearier throughout
> the teens, the twenties, and the thirties. When the
> Guggenheim had a retrospective, covering 20th-century art,
> a few years ago, they arranged it chronologically so that,
> as you walked along the spiral going up, you ascended in
> time; and you could see and feel the freeze coming on. By
> 1950 ab-ex was State Department art. The Guggenheim should
> have followed of the _Inferno_ instead.
Now there's a thought.
I admit a preference for the more playful moderns, Woolf, Stevens, and
(contrary to pop opinion) Eliot. I have a hard time seeing the teens &
twenties as a period of dreary decline. The thirties, moreso, tho some of
the less politically-obsessed people are being revived, or so it seems
when i visit the bookstores.
ni...@contract.kent.edu
Well, I sure got myself in one hell of a spot. Hopefully I'll learn to
not write such hotheaded posts in the future. I've learned a few things
about postmodernism from this, but only as much as my arrogance has
allowed.
I wrote:
Who decides when these ages and movements begin?
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote in reply to me:
>How about you making a decsion?
I suppose that in asking "Who decides" I may have been suggesting that I
should. Is this what you mean? If I was, I've learned something important
about my own disillusionment. If it wasn't, I don't think I have the
qualifications to decide such a thing.
I wrote: Surrealism can also be defined in two ways: surrealism the
literary movement and literal surrealism (beyond realism). In the first
case- neither Bosch nor Spenser are surrealism- if the second- perhaps
both are.
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote in reply to me:
>Now convince me why that I don't find THE FAERIE QUEENE surreal -- in a
lettered sense, of course: it's is definetly not literally beyond
reality, cos I've got a bloody great copy at my feet as I type. I want to
see direct reference to the text; all quotes detailed.
I also didn't understand the reference of Spenser as surrealism. For a
long time, with my limited understanding of the subject, I've thought
that surreal meant 'beyond or above realism'- not reality but 'realistic'
art, and that perhaps THE FAERIE QUEENE deals with the issues dealt with
in surrealism. I can't say whether it is or is not definately. From the
tone of your response it seems I am being an asshole without realizing
it.
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote in reply to me:
>I'm not going to disillusion you about Mm Bovary: someone else will do that.
But, who was making your 'ridiculour' claim, boyo? Again, direct quote
or...
I don't know when literary modernism began. my disillusion that it began
with Mm Bovary comes from a literature professor I had probably 7 years
ago. I read in a post that the modern age began in the reinnasance, and
mistook the age for the literary term. It was a misunderstanding on my
part. I don't honestly believe that futurism began in 1776.
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote in reply to me:
>Can give you a clear impression that somethings been going on in the world,
between all those masters of yours. Impressionism and Fauvism, Cubism and
Futurism and Voriticism...
My intent to study "masters" was naieve. I wish I could answer the
question. I would say yes, but I don't have the references to prove it
right now. I would point to manifestos and critical works (which I have
unfairly attacked earlier in the thread) that either present something
happening between artists by the artists, or categorize works in a group
to identify trends that an artists might not realise. And then I would
eat my words.
i wrote: understand perhaps a little better now, that if postmodernism is
about reducing the importance of categories, then postmodernism is a word
that should only be used when no other word can be.
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote in reply to me:
>Or when attempting to identify the future.
Is postmodernism then "what has not happened yet"? This would be
interesting. I would have never thought of it in that way.
i wrote: If this is the case. Then postmodernism is so important that it
sould never be spoken of.
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote in reply to me:
>Never is, where I am, except in satire: s'only written of seriously.
I seem to be hearing the word more often every day. It's on the
television, in magazines and on the web- which confuses me. (if I'm not
already sufficiently confused).
Lee Goddard Collective
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:36:11 -0600 ni...@contract.kent.edu posted article
<885946946....@dejanews.com> to alt.postmodern:
Well, I sure got myself in one hell of a spot. Hopefully I'll learn to
not write such hotheaded posts in the future. I've learned a few things
about postmodernism from this, but only as much as my arrogance has
allowed.
I wrote:
Who decides when these ages and movements begin?
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote in reply to me:
>How about you making a decsion?
I suppose that in asking "Who decides" I may have been suggesting that I
should. Is this what you mean? If I was, I've learned something important
about my own disillusionment. If it wasn't, I don't think I have the
qualifications to decide such a thing.
Then you must learn how to, but do not take any others word for it.
I wrote: Surrealism can also be defined in two ways: surrealism the
literary movement and literal surrealism (beyond realism). In the first
case- neither Bosch nor Spenser are surrealism- if the second- perhaps
both are.
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote in reply to me:
>Now convince me why that I don't find THE FAERIE QUEENE surreal -- in a
lettered sense, of course: it's is definetly not literally beyond
reality, cos I've got a bloody great copy at my feet as I type. I want to
see direct reference to the text; all quotes detailed.
I also didn't understand the reference of Spenser as surrealism. For a
long time, with my limited understanding of the subject, I've thought
that surreal meant 'beyond or above realism'- not reality but 'realistic'
art, and that perhaps THE FAERIE QUEENE deals with the issues dealt with
in surrealism. I can't say whether it is or is not definately. From the
tone of your response it seems I am being an asshole without realizing
it.
Sorry, got the impression it was purposeful. I've had a pissy week.
As far as I know, Apollinaire was the the first to use the word surrealism, in
1917's notes to Parade, in Table Ronde. In 1924 (?) Breton took it up as the
name of his new group. Breton intended it to be a revelaiton of the 'real' way
we think.
This oppossed to what you might call hyper-realism, or super-realism, or
photo-realism.
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote in reply to me:
>I'm not going to disillusion you about Mm Bovary: someone else will do that.
But, who was making your 'ridiculour' claim, boyo? Again, direct quote
or...
I don't know when literary modernism began. my disillusion that it began
with Mm Bovary comes from a literature professor I had probably 7 years
ago. I read in a post that the modern age began in the reinnasance, and
mistook the age for the literary term. It was a misunderstanding on my
part. I don't honestly believe that futurism began in 1776.
Now that's a shame: it could have brightend up my day. Guess I should really
thankyou for being honest. Thanks.
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote in reply to me:
>Can give you a clear impression that somethings been going on in the world,
between all those masters of yours. Impressionism and Fauvism, Cubism and
Futurism and Voriticism...
My intent to study "masters" was naieve. I wish I could answer the
question. I would say yes, but I don't have the references to prove it
right now. I would point to manifestos and critical works (which I have
unfairly attacked earlier in the thread) that either present something
happening between artists by the artists, or categorize works in a group
to identify trends that an artists might not realise. And then I would
eat my words.
But you can admit it, which is rather admirable.
i wrote: understand perhaps a little better now, that if postmodernism is
about reducing the importance of categories, then postmodernism is a word
that should only be used when no other word can be.
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote in reply to me:
>Or when attempting to identify the future.
Is postmodernism then "what has not happened yet"? This would be
interesting. I would have never thought of it in that way.
No-one anywhere has a definite definition of the term: it's still in a
neologistic phase, yet unassimilated. Primarily because any theories attached to
it (demise of the grand narrative, for eg) involve detailed criticisms of
existing theories which a sad majority of folks still mistake for an absolute
truth.
i wrote: If this is the case. Then postmodernism is so important that it
sould never be spoken of.
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk wrote in reply to me:
>Never is, where I am, except in satire: s'only written of seriously.
I seem to be hearing the word more often every day. It's on the
television, in magazines and on the web- which confuses me. (if I'm not
already sufficiently confused).
Oh yes, everyone else is using it, but I refuse to do so. I've seen what happend
to socialism, and I don't want the guilt of attracking the same sort of folk to
postmodernism.
BTW, do remember that I'm on a limb imply postmodernism is an epochal thing,
rather than a more mundane move from modernism: but also remember that doesn't
make me wrong.
Cheers,
Lee2
LizSt
...Just a coupl'a tired thoughts (& some random miscellanies) from Chicago
at 3:30 in the a.m. ( <= advance warning, excuse, and apology for any
resultant incoherence) :
tt-1.) IMHO, Modernism as we know it began in the early19th-century,
w/the advent of the "industrial age". And, actually, I believe Modernism
in the arts began somewhat later; mid-to-late 19th. This is when
things/society/ individual time-sense, etc., began to "speed up", and
individuals and society began to have a recognizably modern sense of
culture, civilization and their place in it. As with any age, it couldn't
really be characterized, and named, until it had been around awhile, long
enough for its modes-of-thought to observed and characterized. (So, I gotta
figure that some nut didn't wake up one day at the start of the last century
and suddenly pop out with somethin' like: "Wow, man!! We's livin' in The
Modern Era, as of *today*!" ...and personally, figurin' it didn't happen
this way is sort of a relief...though dunno why at the moment, but it just
is....) Just a guess: I think the word "modern" gradually started coming
into vogue as more and more inventions and "conveniences" started showin'
up, and the high-hats eventually noticed the usage, and -- off we went....
...and it only got more confusing from that point on.... (But I'm too tired
to go there now and that's a-whole-nother story anyway.)
tt-2.) And -- also IMHO -- Is it Surrealism if it lacks Surrealistic
intent and awareness? Can it be categorized under the heading of a concept
if that concept has not yet been thought of? Or is it just wonderful
primitive expressions of dreamlike states. And with this, I'm not in any
sense disparaging "primitivism" [there's some damn good stuff from that
arena, throughout the ages], but just (I do hope) helping to define my
question....
(&r.misc.) Bosch's works seem to show he was in touch with his
subconscious, and wasn't afraid to express it. This certainly makes him
ahead of his time in some ways, but he "knew" nothing of Surrealism.
Surrealism consisted (consists?) of a massive group of
"principals", many of which hadn't even been thought of as yet, let alone
"grouped", during Bosch's era....
Also IMHO, both Modernism and Surrealism (though two diff
things) are "weltanschauungs" (& forgive me if that is not the correct
ending for the plural. Being too bleary-eyed to look it up, I'm goin' w/the
anglicized, the "s", and leavin' it at that, so sue me...or somethin'...but
if you must, be fair and wait 'til I'm awake enough to get me a lawyer;
thanks.). ... They are worldviews that did not and could not have
existed at the time Bosch, et.al. was painting.
Andre Breton was heavily influenced by the "New" concepts of
the subconscious, by Freud and Jung, and psychoanalysis. And, around the
time he was organizing his thoughts for the "Manifestos", he skimmed through
history and decided who were examples, who were the "progenitors", of
Surrealism. He included Bosch, Rimbeau, ...and,.... aw hell.... I
forget... just totally lost the damn thought.....
So I'm goin' t'sleepy now.....
Liz
--
The imagination may be on the point of reclaiming its rights. -- Andre
Breton