FAQ on modernism vs postmodernism (long)
mdeli
"postmodernity is seen as involving an end of the dominance of an
overarching belief in scientific rationality and a unitary theory of
PROGRESS, the replacement of empiricist theories of representation and
TRUTH, and increased emphasis on the importance of the unconscious, on
free-floating signs and images, and a plurality of viewpoints. "
I would put it more directly. PM like other mystical creeds is,
anti-scientific, anti rational and consequently anti-empiricist. To
support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious, scientism,
Heidigger etc. I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
any of this means.
PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in a new jargon. It
offers no substitute for science and logic other than cryptic slogans.
PM’s rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
same old nonsense.
Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
favors. It definitely appeals to those who put "emphasis on the
importance of the unconscious," and little else. It offers some new
angles on mystical self delusion.
PM got a lot of its lingo from Artspeak. Read the FAQ for some neat
samples.
Another quote:
"postmodernism, on the contrary, is committed to
modes of thinking and representation which emphasize fragmentations,
discontinuities and incommensurable aspects of a given object, from
intellectual systems to architecture. "
In a word, Bullshitology.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
spooky
[Probably the clearest definition of PM in the FAQ is: "postmodernity is
seen as involving an end of the dominance of an overarching belief in
scientific rationality and a unitary theory of PROGRESS, the replacement
of empiricist theories of representation and TRUTH, and increased
emphasis on the importance of the unconscious, on free-floating signs
and images, and a plurality of viewpoints. "]
RE: This is closer to definition of a modernist movement of artists
interested in the psychology of Alder and, later, in the '60, of
Frankl.
The PM development is more closely linked to rationality and the logical
deconstruction of plurality. Postmodernism strives to find reality in
an area that tends to obscure.
spooky
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
makes my head spin.
Being a simple person my definition
(which is the only simple language
definition you will ever see) is:
Post Modernism - just another way of
saying nothing is sacred. If you want to
paint or write about a priest humping a
nun while saying mass - that's post
modern - but be careful the anti-post
moderns - the traditionalists - the
soccer moms - will have you by the short
and curlies - string you up and cut it
off they will.
keith (the Bytown gentleman)
spooky
Re: FAQ on modernism vs postmodernism (long)
(keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)) wrote:
Very heady stuff - such big words -
makes my head spin.
Being a simple person my definition
(which is the only simple language
definition you will ever see) is:
Post Modernism - just another way of
saying nothing is sacred. If you want to paint or write about a priest
humping a
nun while saying mass - that's post
modern - but be careful the anti-post
moderns - the traditionalists - the
soccer moms - will have you by the short and curlies - string you up and
cut it
off they will.
keith (the Bytown gentleman)
re: It is now to late to protect the mass of nuns humped by priests
throughout history, but not to late to expose dualistic hypocrisy. If
soccer moms foster traditional ignorances and yield to blind faith then
they are victims. Thoughtful people reject the stamp of "victim" and
seek to expose with words, with laws, with art.
Neil Maxwell
politicians, there are all sorts out there. Thoughtful people reject
one-size-fits-all labels for the bigotry that they are. Be sure you
know something about someone before you accuse them. The soccer moms
I know are thoughtful, forward thinking people who judge things
critically and on their own merit, and have no problems with art that
challenges or disrupts.
neil maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 23:29:47 -0400 (EDT), spoo...@webtv.net (spooky)
wrote:
>
>Re: FAQ on modernism vs postmodernism (long)
>
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
mdeli
>[Probably the clearest definition of PM in the FAQ is: "postmodernity is
>seen as involving an end of the dominance of an overarching belief in
>scientific rationality and a unitary theory of PROGRESS, the replacement
>of empiricist theories of representation and TRUTH, and increased
>emphasis on the importance of the unconscious, on free-floating signs
>and images, and a plurality of viewpoints. "]
This is indeed a rather clear definition.
I would put it more directly. PM like other mystical creeds is,
anti-scientific, anti rational and consequently anti-empiricist. To
support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious, scientism,
Heidigger etc. I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
any of this means.
PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in a new jargon. It
offers no substitute for science and logic other than cryptic slogans.
PM’s rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
same old nonsense.
Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
favors. It definitely appeals to those who put "emphasis on the
importance of the unconscious," and little else. It offers some new
angles on mystical self delusion.
PM got a lot of its lingo from Artspeak. Read the FAQ for some neat
samples.
Another quote:
"postmodernism, on the contrary, is committed to
modes of thinking and representation which emphasize fragmentations,
discontinuities and incommensurable aspects of a given object, from
intellectual systems to architecture. "
In a word, Bullshitology.
>The PM development is more closely linked to rationality and the logical
>deconstruction of plurality.
There is hardly anything ratinal about PM.
> Postmodernism strives to find reality in
>an area that tends to obscure.
Like where?
Neil Maxwell
art is fine, no doubt, but it seems there's plenty of room for the
irrational and/or emotional as well. There are some things that just
can't be expressed well rationally. Not everyone's cup of tea, but if
it works for people, why not? Kind'a like religion that way...
As for the jargon, there's a long-standing tradition of codespeak in
philosophical movements. It's a secret language for the initiated,
and while it seems unintelligable to the outsider, insiders can be
adept at understanding it and can make sense of the papers, talks,
whatever. Again, if the folks doing it are happy, why worry? As you
say, most of these movements fall out of favor eventually, but if they
help someone cope with the world at large, all the better.
neil maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Peter H.M. Brooks
Neil Maxwell <neil.maxw...@nosp-mintel.com> wrote in message
news:3b740236....@scnews.sc.intel.com...
> Some good points here, but why does art need to be rational? Rational
> art is fine, no doubt, but it seems there's plenty of room for the
> irrational and/or emotional as well. There are some things that just
> can't be expressed well rationally. Not everyone's cup of tea, but if
> it works for people, why not? Kind'a like religion that way...
>
>
> As for the jargon, there's a long-standing tradition of codespeak in
> philosophical movements. It's a secret language for the initiated,
> and while it seems unintelligable to the outsider, insiders can be
> adept at understanding it and can make sense of the papers, talks,
> whatever. Again, if the folks doing it are happy, why worry? As you
> say, most of these movements fall out of favor eventually, but if they
> help someone cope with the world at large, all the better.
>
doesn't encode anything - which is its point. Insiders don't understand
it - if you read them you will find that they glory in not understanding
it.
--
Want of variety leads to satiety.
mdeli
(Neil Maxwell) wrote:
>Some good points here, but why does art need to be rational? Rational
>art is fine, no doubt, but it seems there's plenty of room for the
>irrational and/or emotional as well.
I never said that the aim of art should be rational. Art doesn't seek
truth and is the perfect place to express the irrational.
PM claims to be philosophy a subject which attempts to find truths.
It seems to be unable to distinguish truth from metaphore ad is thus
lost in the irrational, a subject that has its major place in the arts
>There are some things that just
>can't be expressed well rationally. Not everyone's cup of tea, but if
>it works for people, why not? Kind'a like religion that way...
Agreed, however religion punishes those who don't agree with its
dogma.
>
>As for the jargon, there's a long-standing tradition of codespeak in
>philosophical movements. It's a secret language for the initiated,
>and while it seems unintelligable to the outsider, insiders can be
>adept at understanding it and can make sense of the papers, talks,
>whatever.
Indeed a technical language is reserved to those who understand it. A
code is something which can be decoded. However, in the case of PM
except when it states the obvious there is no agreement about meaning.
PM is in large part a kind of obscure literary nonsense which
attracts those whose vanity makes them feel that they understand
something others don't.
> Again, if the folks doing it are happy, why worry? As you
>say, most of these movements fall out of favor eventually, but if they
>help someone cope with the world at large, all the better.
>
Mystical nonsense may make some happy in part but more often it leads
to persecution and hatred. I believe that it is best to believe in
that for which there is evidence.
john cheall
It was summarised neatly as the conclusion to the process of popularising
the arts through new technology. For example printing, photography and
recorded music meant the general public could finally enjoy culture hitherto
the preserve of elites. Not wishing to share their culture with the masses
the snobs moved on to 'superior' forms. Read Modernism.
Then on a mission of 'self-improvement' the masses follow suit and so the
mandarins of elite culture move the goalposts again. And again. And so on.
Snobbery in short.
have a nice day
JC
Dale Ford
mdeli wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2001 15:59:39 GMT, neil.maxw...@nosp-mintel.com
> (Neil Maxwell) wrote:
>
> >Some good points here, but why does art need to be rational? Rational
> >art is fine, no doubt, but it seems there's plenty of room for the
> >irrational and/or emotional as well.
>
> I never said that the aim of art should be rational. Art doesn't seek
> truth and is the perfect place to express the irrational.
>
> PM claims to be philosophy a subject which attempts to find truths.
> It seems to be unable to distinguish truth from metaphore ad is thus
> lost in the irrational, a subject that has its major place in the arts
The whole idea is that there isn't one truth, not black and white but
shades of grey. Different viewpoints, different realities.
>
>
> >There are some things that just
> >can't be expressed well rationally. Not everyone's cup of tea, but if
> >it works for people, why not? Kind'a like religion that way...
>
> Agreed, however religion punishes those who don't agree with its
> dogma.
By its true nature of denying one truth in favour of a multi dimensional
reality, the dogma, if you must call it so is very inclusive and can
include a vast variety of style, as well as influences. As such Post
Modernism is the most inclusive "ism" ever.
>
> >
> >As for the jargon, there's a long-standing tradition of codespeak in
> >philosophical movements. It's a secret language for the initiated,
> >and while it seems unintelligable to the outsider, insiders can be
> >adept at understanding it and can make sense of the papers, talks,
> >whatever.
>
> Indeed a technical language is reserved to those who understand it. A
> code is something which can be decoded. However, in the case of PM
> except when it states the obvious there is no agreement about meaning.
> PM is in large part a kind of obscure literary nonsense which
> attracts those whose vanity makes them feel that they understand
> something others don't.
>
>
> > Again, if the folks doing it are happy, why worry? As you
> >say, most of these movements fall out of favor eventually, but if they
> >help someone cope with the world at large, all the better.
> >
> Mystical nonsense may make some happy in part but more often it leads
> to persecution and hatred. I believe that it is best to believe in
> that for which there is evidence.
In defence of Mani this happens all the time. But I truly believe that post
modernism is so dynamically fractured that it can encompass a great variety
of works. There is no need to persecute.
Dale