Kevin's Watch

I recently bought a book called 'An Introduction to Post-Modernism'. By page 4 I was lost and remained so for the rest of the book. It seems that 'Po-Mo' is to be forever beyond me. One assumes a book with the specific intention of introducing one to a subject would be starting as simply as possible, with a slow lead in to the more complex stuff. If this is Post-Modernism at it's simplest then I'm done for. However......

There were a few things I think I got from the read and I'd like to run them by you guys for criticism. Obviousely from the word itself we have the idea of something following 'modernism' and so an establishment of what constitutes this is a good place to start. Modernism I take it to mean, refers to the 'second phase' of development of the western world following the industrial revolution, that occured in the late C.19, early C.20 - the time at which a world that we would begin to recognise as being something similar to our own began to develop. Technological and scientific adances across the board led to the development of transport systems, communication systems, the 'modern' office, advances in chemistry and physics etc - and thus the 'modern world' was born. These 'infrastructural' advances were followed (as apparently is always the case) by the 'superstructural' changes seen in art, literature, criticism architectural desighn etc, in fact right across the cultural board penetrating even in to the very way we think. (this assumes the view that how we think is a 'trickle down' effect of all those shaping factors eg the ideologies, religion, art, literature and the 'things' about as as we grow).

So we arrive in our (modern) world that we can recognise arround the end of the first decade of the C.20 and 'modernism has arrived. The realism of earlier times in art has in effect been superceeded by the developments of photography and cinema, but art is given new life by the cubists, Dada, surrealism etc who move into the realm of attempting to 'present the unpresentable' only achievable through abstract representation.

(nb I am deliberately staying away from the 'linguistic' side of the debate because it was here I got most lost and maybe you guys can introduce me to this side in a more comprehensible way than the author of my book.)

Now we come to the post-modern bit - and I will stick mainly to the art side of things here. So how do we get from Duchamp to Damien, from Picasso to Pollock. The effect of the artist on the work itself as illustrated by Cezanne was a challenge taken up by Duchamp and the surrealists(?) in their use of 'ready-mades' in their work - a process taken to it's extreme in the 'Urinal' and 'Bottlerack' pieces. These turn the prosaic into art simply by virtue of thier position in space (in a gallery instead of a public toilet or kitchen) and at the same time take the replicable (that which can be mass produced on the conveyer belt)and confer it with unreproducability by virtue of it's being 'The One' that Duchamp or whoever selected to actually be the one. Chaos is introduced into the process with the abstract expressionists (themselves a reaction against the 'heroic-realist' art of the european totalitarian systems) and ultimately Wharhol steps up to the plate with his disinterested presentation of the mundane, endlessly repeated with minimal input from the artist him/herself. Po-Mo has arrived. Everybody is famous for 15 minutes - the celebrity - the ultimate shallow throw-away hero sparkles and dazzles like a firework in the night sky and then dissapears unmissed and unremembered. Art becomes whatever the 'art-world' will display in it's galleries and the big spenders will cough up their bucks for. No more. No less. The aesthetic, the artist himself is removed from the process and Hirst's dead shark lies happily alongside Perry's pink motorcycle in Emin's unmade bed.

Now here's the rub. Just go back to that 'trickle down' idea. That idea that the development of the 'infrastructure' of society - it's advancement in science, technology, transport, communication etc - always runs ahead of the superstructural development (ie the media, cultue, art, literature etc) of the society. This in turn trickles down from the intellectual eyrie's of it's formation into the popular psyche and becomes expressed in the lives - the thinking of the masses in the popular culture of the day. (An illustration of the principle is in the manner that the extreme presentations of the Paris catwalk's are taken and softened down and them presented in the high street stores and are seen on the kids in the street - it is this process but to the nth degree to the point where the very minds of the people become dressed in the ideas of the avant-guard intelligensia.) And so we have it. What is Post-Modernism. It is everything around us. It is the shallow celebrity driven western culture, the throw-away society, the 'I want it all now but won't work for it' world of lottery tickets and low aspirations. It's the Maccy D's and the Wikipedias, the concentrated classics and instant information, it's the mobile glued to our ears while we buy the chewing-gum we will spit onto the street later on today. It's the soaps and the reality shows, the internet and cheap thrills of easily available porn, the TV in the bedroom, the take-away in the bin. It's our world. And the tragedy is that it didn't have to be this way.

Sorry - bit of a heavy end ther Guys; I don't really hate 'the modern world' that much but I do despair at it's shallowness at times. The one thing I haven't mentioned is the future. We have seen in the emergence of the information/communication superhighway a development as significant as any of those of the early C.20 and have yet to experience what 'superstructural changes' this in itself will inspire. The post-post-modern world may not be as far away as we think and who can guess of what that will comprise!

Sorry about the double post Guys but I've been having trouble posting and didn't want to risk loosing that lot by attempting to edit. Just wanted to say if the above is complete unmitigated bull-shit from start to finish and I got it all wrong then please, please tell me. Hell - I finished the book with these ideas that I could just as easily have spun out of nowhere as got from the text!

Yeah, from the standpoint of literature, I would say that modernism is first and foremost a movement of technique as well as a reactionary movement where as post-modernism is more a philosophically driven movement.

In other words, modernists were obsessed with technique, and often times sought to develope new techniques or use old techniques in new ways. This was to react to 'realism' as well as to various historical life changing events.

Post-modernism has to do with the idea that reality is formed from interpretation. This philosophy leads to the cluttered mess that is actually defining post-modernism since it itself is defined by one's interpretation.

As usual, peter, you come up with the really good topics.

I'll make a couple of observations to begin with. Firstly, I think that one of the key things to understanding post-modernism is to have a clear idea of what modern society is and when it started (circa 1789*). It is also important to be clear that 'modernism', as an description of an artistic movement, is a quite different thing (beginning much later, maybe 1890).

Secondly, without trying to diminish the importance of art, I personally think that approaching an understanding of post-modernism from the perspective of art is fraught with difficulty. I am not the kind of intuitive person who can look at an artwork and immediately understand the philosophical, political and societal implications. It works exactly the other way for me. When I understand all the non-aesthetic forces behind a work I can begin to see their presence.

I would also be of the opinion that while art generally perceives tendencies and critiques before philosophy or sociology, it does not create those tendencies, rather it describes what has already been brought into being by economic, social and political forces.

The chart that Vraith linked is really good. And I am in agreement with him that some of the less savoury aspects of 'post-modernity' are more 'modern' than they they may appear to be.

Much of post-modernity's critique is aimed at the 'emptying out' effect of capitalism and this is where my own position is mostly based. It is not the uncertainties that contemporary life throws up that frighten me, it is the certainties of such things as capitalism, science and technology. It is not the things that are questioned, but rather the things that are unquestioned that are, for me, the source of disquiet and fear.

u.


* [Different disciplines put the start of the modern era at different times. My preferred date is the one usually used by sociologists and that's the year of the French Revolution, 1789.

It is crucial to understand the rise of modern society and its roots in the ideas of science, progress, rationality and capitalism, because modernity is characterised by an idea called the 'Grand Narrative of Progress'. And it is the sustained critique of this Grand Narrative that has led to what we often call post-modernism.]

There seems to be a difference between modernity and modernism, then. I say this because I absolutely refuse to place the works of James Joyce in the same group as Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Refuse to! Though I agree that such drivel is even beneath post-modernism.

If we look at it from a fantasy literature perspective, I think we would have Lord of the Rings representing Romanticism, the Gormenghast trilogy representing modernism, and Martin and various grim dark crap representing post-modernism. At the first, there is a clear defining of morality, in the middle morality takes backseat to technique and style, while the last frames morality in circumstantial frames. I don't know where Donaldson would fit. He seems to be a mixture of all three.

Orlion wrote:There seems to be a difference between modernity and modernism, then. I say this because I absolutely refuse to place the works of James Joyce in the same group as Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Refuse to! Though I agree that such drivel is even beneath post-modernism.

I suppose it is a question of art. While post-modernism breaks down the difference between low and high art, ASAIK it doesn't try to remove the distinction between art and life, or art and entertainment. Reality TV is a form of entertainment rather than an artform. Cartoons and comics are artforms and can be comfortably put beside Picasso amd Monet by post-modernists.

u.

ussusimiel wrote:

Orlion wrote:There seems to be a difference between modernity and modernism, then. I say this because I absolutely refuse to place the works of James Joyce in the same group as Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Refuse to! Though I agree that such drivel is even beneath post-modernism.

I suppose it is a question of art. While post-modernism breaks down the difference between low and high art, ASAIK it doesn't try to remove the distinction between art and life, or art and entertainment. Reality TV is a form of entertainment rather than an artform. Cartoons and comics are artforms and can be comfortably put beside Picasso amd Monet by post-modernists.

u.

Well, to O...I just say why not? Just because 2 things are in the same "genre" doesn't mean that they have the same functional role, purpose, and more importantly, that they are equal in quality or any other particular judgment.
But u...depending on the branch you follow you're right/wrong/both. In many variations life is art, art is life.
It's a matter of privilege and perspective and interactions.
If I were ambitious, I'd go down that chart I linked and show box by box what I said earlier...that neither can survive without the other, and the ways people blame, more often than not, exactly the wrong one for "problems."

Vraith wrote:In many variations life is art, art is life.

I agree. The same thought occurred to me as I was writing that post.

It can often be a case of living artfully, as you say, when privilege, perspective and interactions allow it. As Z is wont to point out, the things that we often critique and complain about in contemporary society are the very things that provide us with the means and opportunity to complain about them (heh, I think that's a post-modern statement )

There is no doubting the energy and the creative potential of capitalism, and, IMO, there is no doubting its potential to render what is created empty e.g. consumer society, reality TV, celebrity etc. As I see it, my task as a person living in the contemporary world is to hold an awareness of that and creatively (artfully) find my own answer in the face of it. (To be a bit meta; this conversation (and the Watch) are artful responses to the contemporary existential situation )

u.

ussusimiel wrote:

Vraith wrote:In many variations life is art, art is life.

I agree. The same thought occurred to me as I was writing that post.

It can often be a case of living artfully, as you say, when privilege, perspective and interactions allow it. As Z is wont to point out, the things that we often critique and complain about in contemporary society are the very things that provide us with the means and opportunity to complain about them (heh, I think that's a post-modern statement )

There is no doubting the energy and the creative potential of capitalism, and, IMO, there is no doubting its potential to render what is created empty e.g. consumer society, reality TV, celebrity etc. As I see it, my task as a person living in the contemporary world is to hold an awareness of that and creatively (artfully) find my own answer in the face of it. (To be a bit meta; this conversation (and the Watch) are artful responses to the contemporary existential situation )

u.

I gave you a goodpost for that for a number of reasons, but mostly cuz of the tone/energy/perspective.
And, much as I disagree with Z on various particulars/outcomes/conclusions he IS a kind of post-modern...one simply CAN't agree with Nietzsche and NOT be post-modern. [and N. is also a perfect example of the mod/post-mod necessity for each other...for instance, he had no problem claiming both the role of the individual as a power AND relation as a "fundamental" aspect of reality].
But to avoid agreeing with you TOO much...I meant privilege in a slightly different sense than I think you took it.
Just for fun, I'll let you think about how I meant it...cuz I think you might actually do it, and I want to see if you do and what you come up with

(otoh...your ending parenthetical is cool...except for the implication that there is a serious difference between the existential and the post-modern)

Nice chart. I think I've seen it, or something similar, before.

I've always associated post-modernism with deconstruction really.

Out of interest, let's see what the Watch has to say on the subject:

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17194

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7049



--A

Thanks for the replies guys (and as usual there are so many points raised that now I get to the end of them I can't remember most of what I wanted to say )

Vraith - your chart will have to but on hold till tomorrow because I'm already (getting) late for work, but am I getting it right that in effect we are still living in the modernist age but po-mo has 'infiltrated' it's way into western culture in the manner of say a fungal mycelium invading a slice of bread (negative analogy I know but the book I read was essentially itself a very - in my view - negative text describing as it did an enremiting passage from the high to the low, the rich to the banal).

To help me get a fix on things, I sensed in the book that in the sphere of art it was with the emergence of Pollock and Wharhol that tghe authors felt po-po (genuine typo there that I just had to leave in ) - po-mo had truly arrived. Is there a comparable point where modernist literature moves into post-modernism and if so could I have examples of works/authors of each type if any one can think of them.

Strangely U., it is the very uncertainties of capitalism, science and technology that give me the most cause for disquiet.

And what about the link between the shallow throwaway aspects of our society today and the development of post-modernism. Are they indeed linked at all. And if they are, are we living the post-modernists of olds dream today - would Wharhol clap his hands with glee and at last crack a smile - or was it not meant to be like this. If this book achieved one thing for me, it was to make me look at the people who I contact every day in the 7-11 store in a different way. The lottery, scratch-card and celebrity gossip magazine set, the microwave pizza and chocolate bar for tea people, the reality tv, £5 of phone credit and half an ounce of GV group - I think I see now that we/they are all a product, a consequence of an idea gone wrong - or not - as the cas may be.

I think U makes a good point of how modernist and post-modernists view art. It seems to me that modernists have a much more sophisticated, though exclusive, concept of art. Theirs is a combination of varied method coupled with ability. Post-modernists do not seem to have the 'ability' requirement. At least, it is not as important. Sometimes, intent or how their minions are able to view the art IS much more important than 'ability'.

As a result, things like reality shows and cartoons can not/are not necessarily modernist since it does not emphasis/contain the component of 'ability'. That of course refers to these mediums as entertainment, since at least with cartoons and even comics there are instances where ability and varied method are important.

I will say that post-modernism is dependent on modernism... but only because they are a bunch of beatnik parasites whose bankrupt creativity prevents them from doing anything but borrow from modernism (The preceding statement was made with a lot of tongue in the cheek)

peter the barsteward wrote:Is there a comparable point where modernist literature moves into post-modernism and if so could I have examples of works/authors of each type if any one can think of them.

I was talking about this with a friend last night (see what you started you barsteward ) and being Irish we named Joyce and Beckett as exemplars of what might be called high (or late) modernism in literature. Then I suggested that the rise of meta-fiction is the sign of the break into post-modern literature. Again, an Irish writer, Flann O'Brien (At-Swim-Two-Birds, The Third Policeman) was suggested as an early post-modernist writer. No doubt there are plenty of others, Russian, French, Spanish, American etc as well.

What I see as important to the understanding of post-modernism (leading to a, maybe, less negative and judgemental orientation to it. Been there myself, peter ) is the roots of it outside of literature, in economics (Marx), philosophy (Wittgenstein), linguistics (Saussure), psychology (Freud/Lacan), anthropology (Levi-Strauss). These roots show how, through a sustained questioning and critique, the certainties of modernism (the efficacy of capitalism, singular identity, the primacy of reason/rationality and so on) were undermined.

peter the barsteward wrote:Strangely U., it is the very uncertainties of capitalism, science and technology that give me the most cause for disquiet.

I think we are in agreement here. It is not the certainties of capitalism and science that I fear, it is the certainties of their proponents. It is the quasi-religious attitude to these man-made things that firghtens me. It is the refusal to question them, (to reference SRD) the refusal to doubt them. It seems deeply ironic to me how all that post-modern effort was put into undermining the old certainties just to replace them with new ones. If there is anything to be learned from post-modernism it is that all certainties must be suspect, not just the ones that I don't like.

u.

Nice threads, Av. On the quiz I scored:

You Scored as Postmodernist

Postmodernism is the belief in complete open interpretation. You see the universe as a collection of information with varying ways of putting it together. There is no absolute truth for you; even the most hardened facts are open to interpretation. Meaning relies on context and even the language you use to describe things should be subject to analysis.

Postmodernist
81%
Existentialist
75%
Cultural Creative
75%
Materialist
56%
Idealist
50%
Modernist
50%
Romanticist
31%
Fundamentalist
25%

The fact that I thought the wording on most of the questions was frustratingly ambiguous and could be interpreted many different ways probably didn't invalidate my results, since I scored as a post-modernist.

I could change my answers by stressing different, individual words. Maybe we could discuss the questions one by one? Should that be done in the original thread?

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:The term "postmodern" is what the artist uses when 1) the artist doesn't know what he is doing, 2) isn't very talented, 3) is desperate for attention, or 4) some combination of 1, 2, and 3.

Art historians and art critics have quantized the world of art to make it easy for non-artists to identify certain works (this is Bauhaus, that is cubist) but a well-done piece of art does not need a classification of style or period; instead, it speaks for itself.

On the first, sometimes...maybe even often...but not always.

On the second, classification and quantizing have always been done.
The art doesn't need that itself...but people love to define and categorize.
The questions remain, though: even assuming the art speaks for itself...
To whom?
In what language?
Can they hear it?...are they even listening?

Z: good god, your scores are scarily similar to mine. I'd have expected some likeness, but YIKES!.

And, yes on the ambiguous, and question by question could be fun. [though yea, new or original thread...don't want to hijack "the barstewards" thread.]

I don't think I did this quiz the first time around. I scored highest as a Cultural Creative. Will put my results in the other thread.

Funnily enough, I got existentialist this time round. It gave me a tie-breaker question which I suspect pushed it away from post-modernist.

--A