Is Postmodernism Dead?
I have recently had conversations with scholars on the death of Postmodernism, particularly where literature is concerned. Many have suggested we are moving toward chaos theory, the idea that the world lacks order (put VERY succinctly). Others are suggesting a return to structure and a more moral landscape. I am leaning toward the latter, although I think that Postmodernism is still alive and well, and so it should be . . .
I think the primary flaw in applying postmodernism to the arts is that postmodernism has irony as one of it's basic tenets...The borrowing of disparate parts. The examination of the margins and the center, the dismissal of "authenticity" as a concept....whereas most art, has, at its core, the pre-requisite of "suspension of disbelief" and therefore, also, the suspension of irony.
I think postmodern precepts function far better when incorporated into literature/film or literary/film criticism. Irony exists in language. It operates better in words than in visual medium (where it can fall over the edge into kitsch or a "bad joke").
Postmodernism applies neatly to conceptual art or pop art. To abstract art, it has very little to say.
I like post modernism and admire many of it's tenets but I believe there will be a sort of "backlash" from it, a return to a more "romantic" worldview of unity/universality.
That worldview will, of course, be as flawed as the postmodern concept of fragmentation but it is the prerogative of most students to learn from and then rebel against their teachers and most students in the 80s-90's have been trained in theory.
One can see this dismissal of irony starting to pop up in the art world...I would imagine rumblings of it are being heard in other genres as well.
The direction in the art world seems to be towards "beauty". Beauty in and of itself for it's own sake. (This is not reflective of my own work necassarily, it's just what I see happening in the art mags). This implies that beauty is priviledged and universal...a bit on the modernist end of things.
I think the "chaos theory" proposition would be hard pressed to survive long. If I understand you correctly, that would basically degenerate an already slightly solipsistic theory into a completely solipsistic one.
*chuckle*
The center will not hold.
Edited by: NousPoetikos at: 1/28/02 12:37:00 am
SezSimone Registered User
Posts: 8
(6/5/02 5:31 pm) Reply
PostSimplsimon
Would someone please explain in layman's language exactly what "Postmodernism" means in relation to the Arts? It sounds like a contradictory statement. How can anything be postmodern unless perhaps it is futuristic?
And are we now entering a period of "Prechaosism"? Will there ultimately be a big bang and an explosion of new forms of art/literature/music?
Pharmakon Registered User
Posts: 1
(1/24/03 12:27 pm) Reply
Re: Is Postmodernism Dead?
Hmm. I fail to see where CT would prove antagonistic to postmodernism, myself. Both in microcosm and macrocosm, the individual postmodern work and the entire catalogue of the period to date, postmodernism embodies the disorder that would seem implicit in the moniker "Chaos." Henry Jameson claims that this lack of coherence necessitates that we look at postmodernism as a period, rather than a movement. Because it lacks any but the most vague and tenuous threads of connectivity, it has a marvelous capacity for subsumption that, to me, portends its survival long into the future. Like the Borg, it will assimilate you.
Though NousPoetikos mentioned the possibility of a backlash leading possibly to a sort of neoRomantic movement (I think this is what he was suggesting?), I don't foresee that. The conditions aren't right. Because the arts function as a barometer of the intellectual trends of their time, which are in turn symptomatic of their concurrent social and political climates, a historicist approach would predict precisely the opposite. And certainly, this approach would be bolstered by the close connection between social climate and artistic outgrowth, viewed retrospectively or historically. Our world is shrinking and fragmenting exponentially faster, a trend in which the burgeoning of distance-discourse such as this (via an online medium) plays no small part. Science as well as philosophy continue to move away from order, and many think that both fields show signs of diminishing returns (or, more drastically, are already dead).
At any rate, to answer the question--at the moment, postmodernism is most assuredly not dead. It's everywhere.
"A perfectly adjusted organism would be silent." - Forster
Quote:Our world is shrinking and fragmenting exponentially faster, a trend of which the burgeoning of distance-discourse such as this (via an online medium) plays no small part.
Interesting. If you claim this exponential trend now, then you must also admit it has always existed. Exponential trends don't just pop up. Looking at this exponential trend then, early on, I am sure it seemed very rapid to everyone while they rode the wave at the tip of time. To us change in say the year 1000 seems slow, but to them that rode the time wave, I think it seemed as rapid as it does to us. That is afterall the nature of an exponential function.
Quote:Science as well as philosophy continue to move away from order, with many thinking that both fields show signs of diminishing returns (or, more drastically, are already dead).
Naw. We have reached a place in which our ability to analyze has outstripped our ability to hypothesize. It is obvious new break-throughs are needed to advance. The moment we succomb to believing chaos rules, we are no better than our ancestorial cavemen. "Well...it is just to hard to figure out so it must be chaos...or perhaps Clarence The Mud God." I am unfortunately not learned enough to provide you the "Unified Field Theory" to prove my point that it is not chaos that rules.
---
Concerning arts functioning as a barometer of the time I believe only agreement is possible. Predicting the path of art is therefore as easy and accurate as predicting the future. If the direction of art is somehow reasonably predictable (a thought I have never before entertained) it gives me all sorts of ideas.
Is there some thought that the direction of art somehow reasonably predictable? To what time frame? Edited by: Damnit Jim at: 1/24/03 1:17:36 pm
Pharmakon Registered User
Posts: 3
(1/24/03 8:47 pm) Reply
Re: Is Postmodernism Dead?
"If you claim this exponential trend now, then you must also admit it has always existed. Exponential trends don't just pop up."
I disagree. Think about the past 2000 years versus the last century, in which communication has become virtually instant from the radio to the television to the internet to the commercial airliner. Certain technological factors have been introduced so as to create a bifurcation between the vast majority of history and recent history. It seems a mistake to me to claim that the difference between, say, the 9th and the 11th century versus the 18th century and the 20th century is even remotely comparable, at least in terms of the technological application of known scientific concepts. Even if we were to claim a uniform "exponential" shrinkage of the (social) human world, it would still imply a more and more rapid *rate* of shrinkage, of which I now perceive we are experiencing the effects.
I agree with you, Jim, when you separate science--I would separate it between technological development and theoretical development, and I agree that this theoretical development (our ability to "hypothesize") has begun to lag. The problem is that our technological development is directly correlated with our ability to hypothesize, though the latency in the period between hypothesis and subsequent technology prevents this diminishing return in theoretical inquiry from being immmediately apparent. In terms of a "Unified Field Theory" or "Grand Unification Theory," it's all still up in the air. It does lend to simplicity, something that I think is generally palatable to man, and perhaps it will happen. Perhaps we're on the cusp of a new breakthrough.
The problem, however, is that one individual's ability to link different fields of inquiry--even, say, different fields within the greater field of physics--is rapidly growing more and more difficult as more time becomes required to familiarize oneself with the ins and outs of *any* field. The Greeks had an easier time with science, because the horizon of any one discipline wasn't so distant so as to preclude comprehensive multidisciplinary study. Synthesis of these disciplines didn't require several lifetimes, but instead connections could be made in one. A Greek could be taught the then-current formulations of science and philosophy in much less time than a modern physicist can learn his discipline, on top of, say, learning even a foundational level of philosophy. The learning occuring over hundreds of years of rational thought has become more than one individual can assimilate in his lifetime. Ostensibly, I think, this leads to an inevitable asymptote to what an individual can explore of centuries and centuries worth of inquiry.
Of course, this is not to say that anyone should become resigned to ignorance. Far from it, I should say. It only amplifies the necessity for rigorous thought and learning. That's what was so (tragically?) beautiful about the modernists, in my opinion: they were unwilling to resign themselves to unreconciled fragmentation and alienation.
If we can predict art or the future, two birds that likely require only one stone, I think it's only reasonable to assume that we will first have to make sense of the patterns of the past and extrapolate, project the perceived patterns past the present and into the future. If, indeed, such predictions will ever be possible. So, I'd instead ask the question of what consequences an accurate ability to predict a future path would present. I'm rather ambivalent about it, just like I would be about knowing my own future path. Just a thought. Edited by: Pharmakon at: 1/24/03 10:08:33 pm
Re: Is Postmodernism Dead?
Hello Pharmakon and welcome to the board.
Quote:Though NousPoetikos mentioned the possibility of a backlash leading possibly to a sort of neoRomantic movement (I think this is what he was suggesting?), I don't foresee that. The conditions aren't right.
There already was a small philosophical/theoretical uprising in England that started around 5 years ago. There were a number of theorists (forgive me, I was never all that interested in them in the first place and its been a while ago since I heard of them, so unfortunately, I do not remember the names) who were taking up much of the criticism/philosophy of Ruskin and continuing it in a Lacan->Freud way (although they would probably not approve of the comparison). Again, I did not read primary source material, but they were working in direct opposition to postmodernism.
I would think that the conditions would be far too splintered to be able to make an assessment concerning the collective.
One of many reasons to hate postmodernism: This theory can and will be used against you.
Quote:Because the arts function as a barometer of the intellectual trends of their time, which are in turn symptomatic of their concurrent social and political climates, a historicist approach would predict precisely the opposite.
If my semantics are somewhat aligned with yours, what you're saying is that the cohesion of artistic styles throughout the disciplines has dismantled with increasing swiftness (if one examines the arts from antiquity to the present day)...and that this disjointedness will be perpetuated (with exponential frequency) into the future.
For my purposes, I'll take visual arts...since that's my background. Are you correct in the assertion that stylistically, concerns have splintered off in a million directions?
Yes, you are.
Would you be so if you posited the same of conceptual concerns?
I don't believe so.
This is why David Hickey is a rich man. Beauty has become an overriding concern in most of present day visual art. Beauty, as a concept, of course, means different things to different people. That has always been true throughout history...(at least in moments where what constituted beauty was not regulated by a regime). "Beauty" is hardly a concept espoused by fans of postmodernism...it implies a search for a particuliar moment of "purity" and "purity" as a concept is anti-thetical to postmodern theory.
On another note, outside of the 1980's, where several artists never-to-be-heard-from-again made art that literally illustrated post-structuralist/postmodernist ideas, I'm not certain your statement that the arts reflect current "intellectual trends" holds true. Do they both reflect and help to generate the *cultural* climate? Yes. I would suggest that the cultural climate which both generates, is influenced by and popularizes certain works over others has as much to do with the stockmarket and/or the Versace spring collection as it does with intellectual trends.
IMHO, if the current *capitalist* (nope, not postmodernist) trend continues, the more inaccessible art forms: opera, dance, visual art, literature (here I mean literature, not pulp!), poetry, theatre, may slowly become beside the point for the culture at large...replaced by cheap and easily aquired/digested consumables. So, in this way, we are certainly moving towards a dubious unity.
Quote:Our world is shrinking and fragmenting exponentially faster, a trend in which the burgeoning of distance-discourse such as this (via an online medium) plays no small part. Science as well as philosophy continue to move away from order, and many think that both fields show signs of diminishing returns (or, more drastically, are already dead).
Shrinking and fragmenting...one could just as easily posit that the world is expanding and unifying under the current technological and cultural conditions. It's truly subjective. Companies like Viacom and Fox certainly find the world more unified and expanded these days.
I sometimes wonder whether the stance of postmodernism actually arises out of a sort of radical individualist viewpoint - for me, its flaw is that it neglects to entertain the idea that there are fundamental commonalities between people over which this splintering is placed. Postmodernism suits capitalism well...and yet the largest trend within capitalism: the yuppie, is a decidedly unpostmodern trend. Yuppies assert an almost amusing unity in their tastes, culture, etc.
Has science split off into more disciplines as time has passed? Certainly.
Is this particuliarly postmodern? I remember this idea in the postmodern codex but never swallowed it. Certain positions in postmodernism are decidedly unique. However, the additions of "branches" to a "tree" needs no theory to explain it. It is the natural process of growth and expansion (expansion requiring a certain level of restructuring which post-modernism refers to as "fragmenting"). This is as true in a computer program as it is in a plant or a discipline or a game of chess.
Sorry, I tend to ignore the bits I don't agree with when I can't directly write the authors and complain.
One person's alienation is another's blissful ignorance or burning curiousity. Either way, disciplines grow in tree form as knowledge is accumulated...and the proliferation of branches of disciplines reached the "alienation" point long before our century.
In the 11th century, stonemasons were suddenly trained only in stonemasonry and architects only in architecture. Previously, the two disciplines had been interchangable. They needed churches back then. We need communication and medicine. Note that anthropology, sociology and archeology are slowly merging in our time period.
For me, the postmodern element is located in the manner in which scientific disciplines are implemented/pursued and with what aim. If you look at reproductive medicine, or the mass production of various pharmacuticals for an infinite variety of purposes, the world (and science) appears chaotic...(note that they're far more driven by consumerism). If you turn to the Superstrings theory......or the human genome project (which will eventually cause medical science to treat all non traumatic ailments with the same principle) the world looks smooth as glass. We may get to the point where curing disease will be as straightforward and accessible to the layman as figuring out homeopathy.
Again, much like art, the neat fit with postmodernism depends on how you examine the structure and at what level. I far too often feel that it is merely a pattern which locates itself only where one looks for it...rather than being located everywhere one looks.
BTW: Although the noun "Nous" is masculine in Greek, I am distinctly feminine.
Quote:IMHO, if the current *capitalist* (nope, not postmodernist) trend continues, the more inaccessible art forms: opera, dance, visual art, literature (here I mean literature, not pulp!), poetry, theatre, may slowly become beside the point for the culture at large...replaced by cheap and easily aquired/digested consumables. So, in this way, we are certainly moving towards a dubious unity.
Entropy. Again I see how science and art are truly interwoven...the same definition used in Thermo-Dynamics is exactly applicable to the arts. So would many other terms fit. Back in the good ol' Renaissance days science and art were part of the same instrument to be played by only a lucky few soloists. Now the fragmentation is so complete that there are experts in fields that didn't even exist a few years ago. Yet strangely enough the world turned back then.
Pharmakon
I abandon my earlier "constant exponential curve" of development concept, though I started the day aligning my defense. It is simple...should have seen this earlier. A significant breakthrough, may indeed not only cause a large step, it could alter the equation completely. At-a-way to stick to your guns.
Now that I accept your underlying assumptions, I'll take a better look at the conclusions, however, unlike Nous I am less equipped as an all-around player...being particularly weak in my knowledge of the arts...my knowledge is basically limited to looking at something and muttering, "Gawd...ain't that a perdy pitcher...Elvis never looked so good...I can't believe nobody ever thought of RED velvet before...I bet a unicorn would look good, too...maybe Elvis RIDING a unicorn...with a happy tree in the background. I'd pay a lot for that...maybe 25 bucks."
Re: Velvet Elvis!
I think I saw him in the store...looked a little older, but man...it HAD to be him...or Billy Idol...well, it could have been Jimmy Carter...yep...it was Jimmy. Just what AM I going to do with all these peanuts?
Crescendo Registered User
Posts: 2
(2/22/03 10:44 pm) Reply
Postmodernism and Capitalism
I tend to agree with Nous. I think the fate of postmodernism is going to be determined by the forces of power. Basically, that means capitalism.
In capitalism, postmodernism has almost become trendy. For years now we've seen commercials where the commercial itself is the subject of the commercial. A recent example of this is a Coca Cola add that runs before films in some of the major cinemas. Basically, the ad shows a music group singing about how selling out isn't "real." At the same time, the singers are advertising for Coca Cola. Are we supposed to laugh at the irony, or are we supposed to think that selling out for Coca Cola is more "real?"
I would say neither. I think this is indicative of a new kind of advertising, one that has been developing for several years now, in which the point of the ad is to make viewers recognize the irony of postmodernism while associating that revelation with a particular product. Coca Cola is "cool" because they know about irony. Coca Cola is capitalism disguised as postmodernism.
So, postmodernism just becomes one more image, one more object of beauty, in the homogenizing machinery of capitalism.
I think it's depressing.
mozzman Registered User
Posts: 1
(5/21/03 2:23 pm) Reply
postmodernism
Is postmodernism still relevant to understanding contemporary visual practice?
Edited by: 
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies