In Search of Integrity.
A.A. Raimes
talk.philosophy.humanism on your behalf - a minor spelling mistake in
the header prevented it reaching them.
Regards
Alison.
In article <e8HC2.137$2%2.1...@nswpull.telstra.net>, H-G-S <h-g-
s...@nex.net.au> writes
>
>Sincere Greetings Again :)
>
>I shall refrain from making a point for point reply to the responses I
>received so far. Dan's criticism was nonconstructive as it offered little if
>anything in return. Alison's critical view on my contemplations and of the
>issue in discussion, though constructive and thought-provoking as always,
>did not seem to fully grasp the point that I was trying to bring across,
>namely -- If we are to survive at all, it will be as members of one kind or
>other of GLOBAL COMMUNITY, i.e. we will inherit either a kind of global
>fascism, with the affluent technologised and militarized nations furiously
>antagonistic amongst themselves, or we will inhabit a universally humanistic
>earth on which concern for all humankind has been translated into an era of
>peace and fair sharing of resources. THERE ARE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES. I
>don't believe any drastic changes will come about in our life-time, nor
>perhaps in the next generation, but a change has to come about-- will come
>about -- one way or the other.
>
>I admit it to be a rather poignant and for the latter part, idealistic
>projection of humankind's future, whereby my last sentence in capital
>letters in above paragraph, I admit, is a somewhat bold statement.
>
>[Alison, if you care to quickly browse through my post once again, you'll
>find that I referred to UNITY (togetherness), i.e. harmony not UNIFORMITY
>(oneness). I referred to 'oneness' only in the sense of feeling rapport with
>self, with others, with the world. Still, if you feel more comfortable with
>your suggested *balance*, fine with me :). ]
>
>Friendly regards
>H-G-S
>h-...@nex.net.au
>
>===============
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
A.A. Raimes
>Alison's critical view on my contemplations and of the
>>issue in discussion, though constructive and thought-provoking as always,
>>did not seem to fully grasp the point that I was trying to bring across,
>>namely -- If we are to survive at all, it will be as members of one kind or
>>other of GLOBAL COMMUNITY, i.e. we will inherit either a kind of global
>>fascism, with the affluent technologised and militarized nations furiously
>>antagonistic amongst themselves, or we will inhabit a universally humanistic
>>earth on which concern for all humankind has been translated into an era of
>>peace and fair sharing of resources. THERE ARE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES. I
>>don't believe any drastic changes will come about in our life-time, nor
>>perhaps in the next generation, but a change has to come about-- will come
>>about -- one way or the other.
More upside down greetings from London ;-)
It isn't that I didn't grasp the issue H-G-S, it is just that I looked
for debating issues to expand on that might perhaps lead to more people
joining in. I have argued the same as you on Art lists, Philosophy lists
and at university in my thesis. The suggestions I made are a result of
those debates and my research.
Maybe I should just give up ? (..... a little dig to try and emphasis
that feeling of helplessness again .... the solitary voice syndrome).
>>[Alison, if you care to quickly browse through my post once again, you'll
>>find that I referred to UNITY (togetherness), i.e. harmony not UNIFORMITY
>>(oneness). I referred to 'oneness' only in the sense of feeling rapport with
>>self, with others, with the world. Still, if you feel more comfortable with
>>your suggested *balance*, fine with me :). ]
My friend, I did more than browse before I responded. I printed it off
and studied it, referred to my notes, got out some books and gave a
reasoned answer - in fact I made notes for an entire evening as things
sprung into my tiny bird brain. I felt that if you had gone to so much
trouble to write this post that the least I could do, to show my
respect, was to take some effort in my retort.
Being at one with oneself is a preoccupation of many artists and in the
course of studies I have read much about it. It fascinates me. But what
intrigues me most is the relationship between the self and our
environment. For me the chaos is not only necessary but welcomed,
particularly the metaphysical chaos. You have looked at my website
haven't you ? so you must realise my preoccupied interest in it.
Let me then zoom immediately to the use of the word *integrity*. The
discovering of one's identity. The word implies one of three things -
honesty; soundness; and wholeness. My thoughts are that we hide behind
several different masks to such an extent that we are unable to ever
really know what and who we are. We hide instead of confront, we live in
our shadows instead of the sun, we adopt roles and fantasies to retreat
to. In response to that we are not in a position to ponder the whys of
our existence without first unravelling our true identity. For the
younger generations this is becoming increasingly difficult because of
the pressures of society on them to *belong* as promoted through
materialism.
How then are they to adhere to moral principles or remain unimpaired by
the tension between self and social integrity ? What are those common
values we share that will help us to gain the sense of unity ? I have
some ideas so surely others do ?
Kind regards.
jimmy adams
<ali...@raimes.demon.co.ukdot> writes
>
(snip discussion of earlier post from H-G-S, which unfortunately I
missed)
>Being at one with oneself is a preoccupation of many artists and in the
>course of studies I have read much about it. It fascinates me. But what
>intrigues me most is the relationship between the self and our
>environment. For me the chaos is not only necessary but welcomed,
>particularly the metaphysical chaos. You have looked at my website
>haven't you ? so you must realise my preoccupied interest in it.
>
>Let me then zoom immediately to the use of the word *integrity*. The
>discovering of one's identity. The word implies one of three things -
>honesty; soundness; and wholeness.
Most of our communications problems, I suspect, arise from our different
backgrounds and experiences of life. I always have difficulty when
people talk about the difficulties of "identity". Anyone who is mentally
normal can distinguish between themselves and the rest of the world.
That is the basis of identity.
"Role" is less definite and less certain. All parents are children; most
of us are bosses and servants; we are (hopefully) lovers and loved.
Maybe people with "identity crises" are not sure which role to play
when?
As for integrity, I would have thought it stood for *all* of your three
alternatives, rather than for *one*? Someone with integrity is surely
someone whom we know will do what they say they will do?
This, to me, is the most valuable asset you can possess in business; it
makes life so much simpler if people do not need guarantees and
assurances. It used to be common: a handshake confirmed the deal. But it
also makes for the best of personal relationships - at least for simple
people like me.
(I once employed a stunning girl who generally had two or three
important people in tow. I asked her once whether she did not find it
exhausting to keep them from knowing about each other. "That's what
makes life int-er-est-ing, Jimmy" was her reply. She still did her job
with total integrity, somehow.)
> My thoughts are that we hide behind
>several different masks to such an extent that we are unable to ever
>really know what and who we are.
But does this "we" describe just artists, perhaps? Do you know of dull
old business people who have this problem? Do you need the leisure to
worry about it to know that it exists?
> We hide instead of confront, we live in
>our shadows instead of the sun, we adopt roles
Ah! See above. (Although I don't agree "adopt", unless they are not
real.)
> and fantasies to retreat
>to. In response to that we are not in a position to ponder the whys of
>our existence without first unravelling our true identity. For the
>younger generations this is becoming increasingly difficult because of
>the pressures of society on them to *belong* as promoted through
>materialism.
Alison, we have never lived in such "individual" times! "There is no
such thing as society." Remember? The pressure of materialism (at least,
as evidenced by advertising) is to be different - do your own thing -
wear torn jeans, get a tattoo, have a diamond somewhere *really*
inconvenient. (So everyone ends up looking identicaL, but that's not
their fault, is it?)
No pressure to conform to family, to class, to religious values. Maybe
that's why some people feel lost?
>
>How then are they to adhere to moral principles or remain unimpaired by
>the tension between self and social integrity ? What are those common
>values we share that will help us to gain the sense of unity ? I have
>some ideas so surely others do ?
Again I fail to understand the conflict "between self and social
integrity". I could see a conflict between self and *lack* of social
integrity? I hesitate to post the Code for Humanists again, but I'll
email it, if you insist.
>
I seek information Alison. You can help.
Cheers,
--
jimmy adams
A.A. Raimes
<ji...@jradams.demon.co.uk> writes
>Most of our communications problems, I suspect, arise from our different
>backgrounds and experiences of life. I always have difficulty when
>people talk about the difficulties of "identity". Anyone who is mentally
>normal can distinguish between themselves and the rest of the world.
>That is the basis of identity.
Greetings Jimmy.
You are correct in this assumption and on that basis I will endeavour to
answer as many of your questions based on the understanding that we
exist in different environments and that our perception of the world
comes from very different viewpoints. The reason I am prepared to devote
my time to this is because, for me, until we have some sort of
understanding of our own culture (being Western) then we cannot start to
come to terms with the inevitable Global Culture that is upon us.
Our understanding of *Identity* are quite opposite. Let me expand on
that. If you are unaware of the Postmodern Condition then all this will
leave you scratching your head. Like it or not, the postmodern concept
is one that is being taught throughout the world, so I do believe
everyone has a moral obligation to have some sort of basic understanding
of it. In postmodern terms then *identity* is used as a term to
represent a crisis in today's world. The keywords in the Postmodern
*dictionary* are "difference, diversity and fragmentation". The crisis
is recognised as being one of the feeling of not belonging, a sense of
unreality and isolation and being fundamentally *out of touch* with the
world. The world according to Postmodernism, is incapable of *unity*
until it addresses these issues.
It recognises the problems as emerging from the dominance of such terms
as white/masculine/heterosexual and from the subordination of such terms
as black/feminine/homosexual. It also acknowledges that the problems are
cultural in terms of being born into one where the grouping into
family/religion/nations demands *belonging*.
The crisis I refer to comes from the anxiety created when one starts to
question this situation. Questioning often raises understanding of
things that are taken for granted and this can in turn, lead to
dissatisfaction. The evidence in today's society is indisputable. The
issues of individuality are then promoted as the rejection of the
traditional notion of being part of a unit towards individuality.
Advertising thrives on selling things that will enhance our uniqueness
and individuality but the result is a sameness that exaggerates the
condition - style becomes a sign of anxiety rather than a solution.
There exists, like it or not, a tension between the feeling of belonging
neither to one thing or another which results in an inner turmoil. To
resolve this there is the search for who and what one is. In other words
a re-evaluation of one's identity.
The violence and abuse we suffer in society, the gap between old and
young, the feeling of helplessness to divert the world, our intolerance
of those we share the planet with, are part and parcel of this.
On a world basis the Postmodern agenda seeks to demolish the hegemonic
structure that has dominated twentieth century history and excluded the
marginal countries. Paramount in this is the inclusion of the Latin
American countries into the wider picture. Modernism failed at this -
Postmodernism is committed to a re-writing of history. As a result of
this in, for instance, the Latin American countries, there is tension
between the belief that they belong to a new race with a universal
vocation, that they are victims of world chaos, or that they have been
separated and placed in between parallel worlds. "Latin Americas often
suffer from a crossroad complex that leads then to self assertion by
means of ontological narratives". _Language & Materialism: Developments
in Semiology and the Theory of the Subject_, R.Coward and J.Ellis
(Routledge 1977).
I hesitate to post the Code for Humanists again, but I'll
>email it, if you insist.
Why would I insist on that Jimmy ? If you are suggesting that I need a
set of rules in order to participate on this list then I respond by
saying that I am neither a philosopher or a humanist to the extent that
I need *codes* to follow. I have my own set according to my own morals
and ethics which aren't built on any conventional structure. So no, I
would not insist on you sending them. However, if the group feels that I
should not be here I will respect that and move to another table, so to
speak.
Regards.
Alison A Raimes
PS Many of the ideas I have illustrated in this dialogue should be acknowledged
as drawn from two particular publications : Jonathan Rutherford's _A Place
called Home: Identity and the Cultural Politics of Difference_ and Kobena
Mercer's _ Welcome to the Jungle: Identity and Diversity in Postmodern Politics_
jimmy adams
<ali...@raimes.demon.co.ukdot> writes
>In article <Bm95uMAo...@jradams.demon.co.uk>, jimmy adams
><ji...@jradams.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>Most of our communications problems, I suspect, arise from our different
>>backgrounds and experiences of life. I always have difficulty when
>>people talk about the difficulties of "identity". Anyone who is mentally
>>normal can distinguish between themselves and the rest of the world.
>>That is the basis of identity.
>
>Greetings Jimmy.
>You are correct in this assumption and on that basis I will endeavour to
>answer as many of your questions based on the understanding that we
>exist in different environments and that our perception of the world
>comes from very different viewpoints. The reason I am prepared to devote
>my time to this is because, for me, until we have some sort of
>understanding of our own culture (being Western) then we cannot start to
>come to terms with the inevitable Global Culture that is upon us.
>
>Our understanding of *Identity* are quite opposite. Let me expand on
>that. If you are unaware of the Postmodern Condition then all this will
>leave you scratching your head. Like it or not, the postmodern concept
>is one that is being taught throughout the world, so I do believe
>everyone has a moral obligation to have some sort of basic understanding
>of it.
I may be misunderstanding "taught throughout the world". Does it mean
that children are being taught that they have an identity crisis? Or
that everyone else has?
In postmodern terms then *identity* is used as a term to
>represent a crisis in today's world. The keywords in the Postmodern
>*dictionary* are "difference, diversity and fragmentation". The crisis
>is recognised as being one of the feeling of not belonging, a sense of
>unreality and isolation and being fundamentally *out of touch* with the
>world. The world according to Postmodernism, is incapable of *unity*
>until it addresses these issues.
>
Well, there you go, Alison. As far as I was concerned, post-modernism
was a reaction to the pure form of architecture developed by Gropius, le
Corbusier etc based on modern materials!
There may be some connection, though, because this reaction has led to a
total confusion (identity crisis?) in the profession, with many of
today's buildings looking like Walt Disney's nightmares, whilst others
look like the collapse of a pile of boxes.
>It recognises the problems as emerging from the dominance of such terms
>as white/masculine/heterosexual and from the subordination of such terms
>as black/feminine/homosexual. It also acknowledges that the problems are
>cultural in terms of being born into one where the grouping into
>family/religion/nations demands *belonging*.
>
>The crisis I refer to comes from the anxiety created when one starts to
>question this situation. Questioning often raises understanding of
>things that are taken for granted and this can in turn, lead to
>dissatisfaction. The evidence in today's society is indisputable. The
>issues of individuality are then promoted as the rejection of the
>traditional notion of being part of a unit towards individuality.
>Advertising thrives on selling things that will enhance our uniqueness
>and individuality but the result is a sameness that exaggerates the
>condition - style becomes a sign of anxiety rather than a solution.
>There exists, like it or not, a tension between the feeling of belonging
>neither to one thing or another which results in an inner turmoil. To
>resolve this there is the search for who and what one is. In other words
>a re-evaluation of one's identity.
OK, I can see that this is possible. Has any estimate been made of how
many have this condition?
>
>The violence and abuse we suffer in society, the gap between old and
>young, the feeling of helplessness to divert the world, our intolerance
>of those we share the planet with, are part and parcel of this.
>
>On a world basis the Postmodern agenda seeks to demolish the hegemonic
>structure that has dominated twentieth century history and excluded the
>marginal countries.
Ah, but this is a totally different, indeed political thing. Who are the
advocates of this "agenda"? Not, presumably, the sufferers from the
condition?
> Paramount in this is the inclusion of the Latin
>American countries into the wider picture. Modernism failed at this -
>Postmodernism is committed to a re-writing of history.
Mmm. This is a practise usually associated with dictatorships. Do you
approve of it?
> As a result of
>this in, for instance, the Latin American countries, there is tension
>between the belief that they belong to a new race with a universal
>vocation, that they are victims of world chaos, or that they have been
>separated and placed in between parallel worlds. "Latin Americas often
>suffer from a crossroad complex that leads then to self assertion by
>means of ontological narratives".
This sounds pretty painful. Could you point to any examples?
> _Language & Materialism: Developments
>in Semiology and the Theory of the Subject_, R.Coward and J.Ellis
>(Routledge 1977).
>
>I hesitate to post the Code for Humanists again, but I'll
>>email it, if you insist.
>
>Why would I insist on that Jimmy ? If you are suggesting that I need a
>set of rules in order to participate on this list then I respond by
>saying that I am neither a philosopher or a humanist to the extent that
>I need *codes* to follow. I have my own set according to my own morals
>and ethics which aren't built on any conventional structure.
I was just responding to your
What are those common
>values we share that will help us to gain the sense of unity ? I have
>some ideas so surely others do ?
> However, if the group feels that I
>should not be here I will respect that and move to another table, so to
>speak.
The Code has nothing to say about newsgroups!
Many thanks for your thoughts, Alison. I am already a little more
educated.
--
jimmy adams
H-G-S
Greetings Fellow Stumblers :-)
At first glance the following appears disconnected from the discussion in
this thread, but if you care to read on, you'll find that it compliments
your musings. (I hope)
Recently, I thumbed through a random collection of about five years'
accumulation of news magazines and newspaper clippings. I was giving myself
a flip-view of recent history before consigning the lot to the waste paper
basket; fighting in Afghanistan, starvation in Africa, massacres in
Yugoslavia, war in the Middle East, killings in Northern Ireland, the death
of princess Di, the Clinton witch-hunt, and... and.
As the lot went into the waste basket I uttered to myself one word --
VANITY. Reflecting on his world, millennia ago, Ecclesiastes made a similar
comment: "Oh what a weary task God has given mankind to labour at! I have
seen everything that is done here under the sun, and what a vanity it is,
what a chasing of the wind! ... Vanity of vanities. All is vanity. For all
his toil, his toil under the sun, what does man gain by it?"
A thoroughly depressing assessment. But it is one many are making today.
Everthing goes round in circles and gets nowhere. Man's striving is just a
beating of the wind. There is no ultimate meaning to it all. There is
nothing I can do that will change it. It will not help the starving people
in Africa if I eat less. It will not reduce air pollution if I deny myself
the use of a motor car. If some maniacal politician presses the nuke button,
nothing I can do will stop it. What is the value of anything I can do
compared with the incredible changes that are needed in the world?
This mood I can share, since it bears some validity, BUT I CANNOT LIVE WITH
IT. Such kind of pessimism and hopelessness about humanity serves only to
maintain the status quo. It has the deadening effect we all experience in
our moments of depression. NO CHANGE CAN COME FROM IT. To brood over the
past and to fear the future is to miss the present. The latter is pregnant
with possibility. But we have to give it direction and meaning. It takes
only one place, one instant, one single act, to become part of humankind at
large. Life depends upon events around us. True *but*, life depends as much
upon our responses to events as to the events themselves.
The word crisis has two meanings for the Chinese -- catastrophe or
opportunity. The catastrophe that is looming is obvious for those who have
eyes to see (no, it is not pessimism that compels me to say so, but plain
realism). The opportunity now is to avoid catastrophe by creating a new sort
of society; a global society in the fashion I mentioned in my initial post
(which triggered this discussion). We need an agenda for a new international
order. We have talked about world unity as an ideal for long enough. Now the
entire situation has changed. World unity is no longer an ideal but an
absolute condition for the survival of civilization. Global unity or else!
The latter is a necessary endeavour. It is THE FACTS of the modern world,
not the ideals, that have gone far, far ahead of us; facts of
interdependence, conquered distance, enforced propinquity, sharing of
resources, global deterioration of the environment, the inescapable
relationships as inhabitants of one planet, one world. These are the facts
that have outdistanced us.
Out of frustration comes hope. The end can be the beginning, that I know
based on personal experience, and which, of late, has buoyed me up. "We are
all in the gutter," said Oscar Wilde, "but some of us are looking at the
stars."
[this reply has more or less been written off-the cuff, thus I beg for your
indulgence for any finger-problems.]
Kind regards
H-G-S
h-...@nex.net.au
===============
A.A. Raimes
<ji...@jradams.demon.co.uk> writes
>I may be misunderstanding "taught throughout the world". Does it mean
>that children are being taught that they have an identity crisis? Or
>that everyone else has?
Jimmy:
Postmodernism confronts the failure of Modernism as illustrated in my
reply to you. The consequences of that are that everyone in some way or
another is affected. I could give you hundreds of examples of how and
where Postmodernism has infiltrated society. The most obvious one is to
take a look at the current courses available at Universities and notice
how the emphasis on the Arts and Cultural and Environmental issues have
become part of the structure of University teaching.
>Well, there you go, Alison. As far as I was concerned, post-modernism
>was a reaction to the pure form of architecture developed by Gropius, le
>Corbusier etc based on modern materials!
Indeed ! as I have said it originated as a reaction to the seeming
failure of Modernism. Today it is evident in more than just
Architecture. It is an exasperating term because there are so many
different derivatives in so many areas of life today. The original term
was stolen from Jean-Francois Lyotard's _La Condition postmoderne_
(1979) by the American poststructuralist ... oh no, you are going to get
me to explain poststructuralism too ? ... briefly then:
poststructuralism rejects the empirical idea that language can represent
reality (you may have followed an earlier thread on Derrida ?).
Postmodernism, in its original term as taken from Lyotard's essay, also
rejects the constraints on our existence by the limitations of our
language ... a failure i would say because of the forking long words
they use - no wonder people can't get a grip ;-)
>
>There may be some connection, though, because this reaction has led to a
>total confusion (identity crisis?) in the profession, with many of
>today's buildings looking like Walt Disney's nightmares, whilst others
>look like the collapse of a pile of boxes.
>
Nasty isn't it. You have a British Email address so I am assuming you
are living in the UK ? If so, haven't you heard of the Turner Prize ?
How many times have you said you don't understand art today ? As an
artist I have to try and exist in a contemporary environment where
beauty is shunned upon and in which I do nothing but create beautiful
objects. In the studios I work from there are two hundred artists. Most
of my fellow tenants are installation and conceptual artists. Whilst I
enjoy the intellectual challenge of their work and admire them for their
continuing commitment with apparently little financial gain, I simply
get no physical enjoyment from the process in comparison to applying
paint to canvas. That is why I write - its the *balance*.
Having said all that, as a painter I have to stand outside the
contemporary art world. I am preparing for my Masters degree at the
moment and have the dilemma of conforming to the pressures of the
contemporary world or happily continue in what I know makes me happy and
the conflict it will cause while I am studying. The test will be in my
strength to maintain my convictions under pressure and to convince my
adjudicators of my undertaking.
>OK, I can see that this is possible. Has any estimate been made of how
>many have this condition?
I doubt it - I would suspect that every single one of us has some degree
of it as a course of existing in the modern world, which, I think, is
very much the message it gives out.
>Ah, but this is a totally different, indeed political thing. Who are the
>advocates of this "agenda"? Not, presumably, the sufferers from the
>condition?
No, it isn't usually is it - bit like someone in therapy I would say.
Generally historians, psychologists, philosophers, artists, and anyone
involved in cultural studies.
>Mmm. This is a practise usually associated with dictatorships. Do you
>approve of it?
The re-writing of history equates as dictatorship ? Are you happy with
the present American dominated History ? Aren't you interested in what
is has been happening in the rest of the world for at least the last
century ? For instance here is a little test: Which country was the
first to abolish slavery after the Parliament 1807 Act ? Check your
history books and let me know, but don't go to the Web because that, my
friend, is Postmodernism personified.
The world has a stereotypical image of Latin America based on the
hegemonic structure of American History which also extends to the rest
of the world. I can't see how wanting to demolish a power structure that
suppresses the weaker countries from inclusion into mainstream can
translate as approving of dictatorship.
>
>> As a result of
>>this in, for instance, the Latin American countries, there is tension
>>between the belief that they belong to a new race with a universal
>>vocation, that they are victims of world chaos, or that they have been
>>separated and placed in between parallel worlds. "Latin Americas often
>>suffer from a crossroad complex that leads then to self assertion by
>>means of ontological narratives".
>
>This sounds pretty painful. Could you point to any examples?
>
The best way would be to look at the art of Latin America. There is a
publication called _Third Text_ available in England that deals with the
Third World's perspectives on contemporary art and culture. The tension
exists between the need for self assertion by the individual nations and
the need to belong to the structure of unit called *The World*. To be
part of the greater picture they must decide how they can fit into the
overall picture and still maintain their identity - this is the
*crossroad* which the author of that quote cites as the reason for so
much dependency on ontology in Latin America. It IS painful.
To try and explain Postmodernism is impossible at this level,
particularly as we are living it. It is never easy to understand the
historical condition in which we are immersed. How many people realised
they were part of the Renaissance era do you think ? Most people are
oblivious and frankly not in the slightest bit interested in what is
going on outside their own four walls. At university I was the student
representative for five years. This meant getting to know the
youngsters, some of them twenty years younger than me, and feeling
secure in speaking from their perspective. I didn't do a very good job
of it because it was difficult to relate to their existence. Despite
this I fought like mad for them - me and my big mouth. One day a bunch
of them were sitting smoking the traditional cannabis that drifted in
and out of our studios and stopped me as I passed by. They were all off
to interviews for Masters degrees at top London art schools and I had
advised them that they needed to portray some knowledge of the
contemporary art world. It sent them all into a panic. The reason they
stopped me was to get a condensed version of Postmodernism to throw into
the arena at interview after having supposedly studied it for the prior
three years. I turned to then and said "Guys - you *are* Postmodernism!"
Didn't help much, none of them got in.
Best to you.
A.A. Raimes
s...@nex.net.au> writes
>[this reply has more or less been written off-the cuff, thus I beg for your
>indulgence for any finger-problems.]
>
>Kind regards
>H-G-S
>h-...@nex.net.au
And that my friend, is how all great works of art are created.
Applause here !
Best, Alison
PS How come you have all my favourite quotes at your finger tips .. you
been in my sketchbook ??
jimmy adams
Yes!
>To brood over the
>past and to fear the future is to miss the present. The latter is pregnant
>with possibility. But we have to give it direction and meaning. It takes
>only one place, one instant, one single act, to become part of humankind at
>large. Life depends upon events around us. True *but*, life depends as much
>upon our responses to events as to the events themselves.
Yes! YES!
>
>The word crisis has two meanings for the Chinese -- catastrophe or
>opportunity. The catastrophe that is looming is obvious for those who have
>eyes to see (no, it is not pessimism that compels me to say so, but plain
>realism). The opportunity now is to avoid catastrophe by creating a new sort
>of society; a global society in the fashion I mentioned in my initial post
>(which triggered this discussion). We need an agenda for a new international
>order. We have talked about world unity as an ideal for long enough. Now the
>entire situation has changed. World unity is no longer an ideal but an
>absolute condition for the survival of civilization. Global unity or else!
>The latter is a necessary endeavour. It is THE FACTS of the modern world,
>not the ideals, that have gone far, far ahead of us; facts of
>interdependence, conquered distance, enforced propinquity, sharing of
>resources, global deterioration of the environment, the inescapable
>relationships as inhabitants of one planet, one world. These are the facts
>that have outdistanced us.
>
>Out of frustration comes hope. The end can be the beginning, that I know
>based on personal experience, and which, of late, has buoyed me up. "We are
>all in the gutter," said Oscar Wilde, "but some of us are looking at the
>stars."
Yes! YES! YES!!
>
>[this reply has more or less been written off-the cuff, thus I beg for your
>indulgence for any finger-problems.]
H-G-S, I think you've done it. I really think you've done it!
--
jimmy adams
jimmy adams
<ali...@raimes.demon.co.ukdot> writes
>Jimmy:
>Postmodernism confronts the failure of Modernism as illustrated in my
>reply to you. The consequences of that are that everyone in some way or
>another is affected. I could give you hundreds of examples of how and
>where Postmodernism has infiltrated society. The most obvious one is to
>take a look at the current courses available at Universities and notice
>how the emphasis on the Arts and Cultural and Environmental issues have
>become part of the structure of University teaching.
>
>>Well, there you go, Alison. As far as I was concerned, post-modernism
>>was a reaction to the pure form of architecture developed by Gropius, le
>>Corbusier etc based on modern materials!
>
>Indeed ! as I have said it originated as a reaction to the seeming
>failure of Modernism. Today it is evident in more than just
>Architecture. It is an exasperating term because there are so many
>different derivatives in so many areas of life today.
Well, Alison, you have provoked me to seek further. Encarta tells me:
"Post-Modernism (literature), term used to denote a multitude of styles
and attitudes which exist partly as a response to high Modernism, and
partly as a result of post-industrial mass production and late
capitalism. Post-Modernism is notoriously difficult to define; indeed, a
central tenet is that certain experiences and concepts resist any sort
of representation in writing or art. However, one of its most
recognizable attributes is a certain self-consciousness with regard to
the methods of production and to the social contexts of any work,
together with a playful incorporation of, or gesture towards, previous
styles and modes of thought.
In philosophical terms, Post-Modernism is part of a general attack on
Enlightenment truth-claims and values, and displays a preoccupation with
language as an inadequate vehicle for expressing any sort of "reality";
this mode of thought is sometimes called "the linguistic turn", and
includes the language-games of Ludwig Wittgenstein and the "ordinary
language" philosophy of John Langshaw Austin."
Now, I have to say that I have a natural antipathy to the suggestion
that a human thought cannot be expressed in human language or art: it
strikes me as a self-contradictory assertion.
>poststructuralism rejects the empirical idea that language can represent
>reality (you may have followed an earlier thread on Derrida ?).
>Postmodernism, in its original term as taken from Lyotard's essay, also
>rejects the constraints on our existence by the limitations of our
>language ... a failure i would say because of the forking long words
>they use - no wonder people can't get a grip ;-)
>
Yet you seem to support this?
>>
>>There may be some connection, though, because this reaction has led to a
>>total confusion (identity crisis?) in the profession, with many of
>>today's buildings looking like Walt Disney's nightmares, whilst others
>>look like the collapse of a pile of boxes.
>>
>Nasty isn't it. You have a British Email address so I am assuming you
>are living in the UK ? If so, haven't you heard of the Turner Prize ?
>How many times have you said you don't understand art today ?
Let's just say that I find Brian Sewell more sympatico than Nick Serota?
I see point in Gormley, was enthusiastic about Hepworth and Frink, think
Hirst a brilliant fraudster.
> As an
>artist I have to try and exist in a contemporary environment where
>beauty is shunned upon and in which I do nothing but create beautiful
>objects.
Good for you, Alison!
>In the studios I work from there are two hundred artists. Most
>of my fellow tenants are installation and conceptual artists. Whilst I
>enjoy the intellectual challenge of their work and admire them for their
>continuing commitment with apparently little financial gain, I simply
>get no physical enjoyment from the process in comparison to applying
>paint to canvas. That is why I write - its the *balance*.
>
>Having said all that, as a painter I have to stand outside the
>contemporary art world. I am preparing for my Masters degree at the
>moment and have the dilemma of conforming to the pressures of the
>contemporary world or happily continue in what I know makes me happy and
>the conflict it will cause while I am studying. The test will be in my
>strength to maintain my convictions under pressure and to convince my
>adjudicators of my undertaking.
I wish you well, and hope they have the sense to understand.
>
>
>>Mmm. This is a practise usually associated with dictatorships. Do you
>>approve of it?
>
>The re-writing of history equates as dictatorship ?
Normally, yes. It was Winston Smith's occupation in "1984", remember?
Trotsky written out of Russian histories?
> Are you happy with
>the present American dominated History ?
As far as I know (which in truth is not far - mostly media reports) each
nation has its own version of history.
>Aren't you interested in what
>is has been happening in the rest of the world for at least the last
>century ? For instance here is a little test: Which country was the
>first to abolish slavery after the Parliament 1807 Act ? Check your
>history books and let me know, but don't go to the Web because that, my
>friend, is Postmodernism personified.
That's an interesting question. I have not been to the Web, but both
Encarta and Britannica say the US. Larousse, however, suggests that this
was not the whole of the US ....
>
>The world has a stereotypical image of Latin America based on the
>hegemonic structure of American History which also extends to the rest
>of the world.
Honestly, Alison, I don't think much of the world knows how the US
(which I take to be your reference to American) sees history. Most
European views would surely come via Spain and Portugal? The Chinese
would certainly have their own views, and most other countries would
tend to follow their ex-colonial masters.
> It is never easy to understand the
>historical condition in which we are immersed. How many people realised
>they were part of the Renaissance era do you think ?
Given that the term was not coined until a couple of centuries later,
none, I would think! But I take your point.
>Most people are
>oblivious and frankly not in the slightest bit interested in what is
>going on outside their own four walls. At university I was the student
>representative for five years. This meant getting to know the
>youngsters, some of them twenty years younger than me, and feeling
>secure in speaking from their perspective. I didn't do a very good job
>of it because it was difficult to relate to their existence. Despite
>this I fought like mad for them - me and my big mouth. One day a bunch
>of them were sitting smoking the traditional cannabis that drifted in
>and out of our studios and stopped me as I passed by. They were all off
>to interviews for Masters degrees at top London art schools and I had
>advised them that they needed to portray some knowledge of the
>contemporary art world. It sent them all into a panic. The reason they
>stopped me was to get a condensed version of Postmodernism to throw into
>the arena at interview after having supposedly studied it for the prior
>three years. I turned to then and said "Guys - you *are* Postmodernism!"
>Didn't help much, none of them got in.
Nice story, and makes me feel a little less Ark-aic!
>
>Best to you.
And to you, Alison.
--
jimmy adams
A.A. Raimes
<ji...@jradams.demon.co.uk> writes
>Well, Alison, you have provoked me to seek further. Encarta tells me:
As I said before Jimmy ......
>language ... a failure i would say because of the forking long words
>>they use - no wonder people can't get a grip ;-)
>>
>Yet you seem to support this?
Don't misunderstand recognising that one is part of an *ism* as
necessarily approving of it ... the rest of my post illustrates that. My
thoughts are, and always have been, that in order to belong to a society
one must be totally aware of what that society is about, otherwise one
for ever is at odds with it.
>Let's just say that I find Brian Sewell more sympatico than Nick Serota?
>I see point in Gormley, was enthusiastic about Hepworth and Frink, think
>Hirst a brilliant fraudster.
Brian Sewer has a mouth full of marbles and knickers full of cobwebs.
How on earth can anyone like that relate to today's artists ? The rest I
agree with.
>
>>The re-writing of history equates as dictatorship ?
>
>Normally, yes. It was Winston Smith's occupation in "1984", remember?
>Trotsky written out of Russian histories?
I think you are missing the point of what I am trying to say ... again !
>That's an interesting question. I have not been to the Web, but both
>Encarta and Britannica say the US. Larousse, however, suggests that this
>was not the whole of the US ....
>>
No history books on your shelf eh ? The point of the exercise was to
illustrate that there are numerous versions of that particular part of
history.... and many more. I haven't been able to find one that includes
Chile (1811) as a leading exponent of the abolition of slavery, except
my history of Latin America, but they were certainly the first in the
southern continent. Slavery wasn't entirely abolished until 1865 in the
US and then it is questionable.
>>The world has a stereotypical image of Latin America based on the
>>hegemonic structure of American History which also extends to the rest
>>of the world.
>
>Honestly, Alison, I don't think much of the world knows how the US
>(which I take to be your reference to American) sees history. Most
>European views would surely come via Spain and Portugal? The Chinese
>would certainly have their own views, and most other countries would
>tend to follow their ex-colonial masters.
>
This depends on whether or not you believe in the hegemonic structure of
the US in the world. You have already illustrated that Encarta and
Britannia say US were the first to abolish slavery when if fact Denmark
did in 1792 and then Britain in 1807 and US in 1808. Or is that the
truth ?
Regards.
H-G-S
>H-G-S, I think you've done it. I really think you've done it!
>--
>jimmy adams
===================
*... He was sick at heart, for the cases he bore were heavy indeed.* [Aneid
I, 208]
Thank You, Jimmy :-D
H-G-S
===================