NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, I used to be Vaitupu on these forums. Got sick of that name, so here is my new one (cookie for whoever gets the reference).

Now for the actual question. I have an essay/debate coming up on modernism vs. postmodernism. Thats great, but I really don't know which I want to support...I like both to some extent, and dislike both to some extent. I was hoping the wonderful NSGeneralites could weigh in on this. (poll coming)

Okay...quick outline.

main characteristics of modernism (from literary pov)
1: Subjectivity and impressionism. What you see is not as important as HOW you see it.
2:Move away from fixed POV, omnicient narrators, and clear cut morals. Think of Faulkner.
3: blur the genres. Make prose more poetic (Joyce), poetry more of a documentary (Eliot)
4: fragmented forms/collages
5: rejection of formal aesthetics and looking instead for the discovery of creation
6: a look into self-reflectivness...the work displays an aspect of its own creation
7: rejection of the High/Low culture designations. All art is art, regardless of what a bunch of cultural elitists say.

pomo follows many of these, particularly 3 and 7.

Modernists still follow the ideas of the enlightenment, believing that there are scientific truths, a rational self, reason is the ultimate judge of truth and good, reason rules the world. These concepts are the basis of the modern nations, and are the major format of the US.

Modernists believe that art can ultimatly provide a truth or greater knowing through its creation. Additionally, modernists reject "victorian", traditional methods. Schoenburg rejected tonal music and created the 12 tone system. Art became increasingly abstract, and often without a true form to be attempting.

Everything from Van Gogh to Joyce fall into modernism. Most modern novels do as well, particularly those of the "American literature" category.

As the modernist movement progressed, the consumer of this culture became increasingly alienated by the movement. Art became so abstract and music so clashing/grating, that it was rejected. This spawned Postmodernism.

Postmodernism, while rooting itself in similar concepts as modernism, rejects the enlightenment. There is no order. Coherance isn't important. There is no greater truth to be found in art, so why act as if there is?

Postmodernists regain form in art, and traditional music sense. Music returned to being tonal, art less abstract.

The most accessable form of pomo art is Family Guy, South Park, and The Simpsons. They reject reality. In South Park, kenny dies every episode, but comes back to life. South Park and the Simpsons constantly make somewhat random references that consistantly contradict themselves. To a postmodernist, this doesnt matter because there is no logic to maintain.

Now, on the one hand, I like earlier modernism before it became so grating and distant from reality that it stopped having purpose. The writings and art can be amazing. I enjoy coherant story lines that have some driving force.

I also enjoy post modernism. I like the return of forms and some kind of structure, and even enjoy the lack of story lines to an extent...however, it bothers me that it is "L'art pour L'art"...art for arts sake. What is the point in creating if it doesn't have some kind of purpose? Why create a book that both endorses current situations and rejects them?

postmodernism argues that there are both ordered and disordered systems, but the self-ordering systems cannot be easily explained in terms of individualism, society, or other authoratative systems of explination. As such, false structural systems are created (Thanks BWO). The book MaoII is seen as a final call for modernism, saying that the society needs the individual and the individual needs society. Rejecting one rejects both, and that is ultimatly a failing. I agree that society and individual are important.

However, modernism became so distant that it seems to no longer be relevant.

So, which do you prefer? (poll coming in a sec)

Edit: This isn't about what I consider myself to be...since we live in a postmodern timeframe, I have already been too influenced by postmodernism, and therefore am unable to be postmodern. The issue at hand is me having to debate them and say which serves its purposes better/which is more beneficial

As a Catholic, I've been out of the loop since the Enlightenment, but if you like a mixture of Modernism and Postmodernism, doesn't that automatically make you a Postmodernist?

As a Catholic, I've been out of the loop since the Enlightenment, but if you like a mixture of Modernism and Postmodernism, doesn't that automatically make you a Postmodernist?

It doesn't matter what you 'like', what is important is which has the most rigorous phiosophical basis.

To answer your question less confrontationally, yes - any self-knowing harking back to already discredited notions of modernity remains at best post-modernistic posing.

PoMo argues there is no real individual or society...only disorder.

No, there is not solely disorder, there are self-organising systems, but the agents of such self-organisation cannot be easily defined in the authoirtarian concepts of either the individual or society, instead we have a flux of human and non-human desires which through their struggle form temporary homogenous structures and self-replicating machinic assemblies. Check your Deleuze & Guattari, and don't just think that rejecting outdated methodologies of viewing the world is sufficient for you to claim that there is only disorder.

Addendum: in the name of Christ, please don't use the shorthand 'PoMo'. It makes you seem like a refugee from the 1980s.

No, there is not solely disorder, there are self-organising systems, but the agents of such self-organisation cannot be easily defined in the authoirtarian concepts of either the individual or society, instead we have a flux of human and non-human desires which through their struggle form temporary homogenous structures and self-replicating machinic assemblies. Check your Deleuze & Guattari, and don't just think that rejecting outdated methodologies of viewing the world is sufficient for you to claim that there is only disorder.
Ahh...thanks. I'll go fix that.

Addendum: in the name of Christ, please don't use the shorthand 'PoMo'. It makes you seem like a refugee from the 1980s.
haha...sorry, I wrote this in between study sessions, so I was a bit rushed. I'll fix that as well.

...and another thing...

Mao II isn't a call for a return to modernity, it is an exploration of the state of post-modernity. Its crux is not in the later pages but in the incident were the family are tagged as virtual casualties in a virtual war/disaster: this is the most 'real' experience they have. The years since I read it disallow a more detailed critique.

As a Catholic, I've been out of the loop since the Enlightenment, but if you like a mixture of Modernism and Postmodernism, doesn't that automatically make you a Postmodernist?
It isn't about what I am or am not (are not?). The issue is which I choose to support in debate. Which better served its people? I am postmodernist because I have been impacted by postmodernism.

By the way, just because you're Catholic doesn't mean you've been untouched by modernism and postmodernism. If you've read any modern literature or TV shows or movies or music, you've been impacted. You may reject them, but that is still a part of it.

...and another thing...

Mao II isn't a call for a return to modernity, it is an exploration of the state of post-modernity. Its crux is not in the later pages but in the incident were the family are tagged as virtual casualties in a virtual war/disaster: this is the most 'real' experience they have. The years since I read it disallow a more detailed critique.
I like that reading...I'll have to use it somehow. Actually, reading that analysis again makes me think of Delillo - White Noise...hmm...I'll have to look at that a bit more.

Anyway, the way I read it was that it was heavily individual vs./with society and the dangers of losing that. Bill removed himself from society and as such lost his ability to create something for that very society. Karen and Scott were the opposite end of the spectrum, and were unable to function without Bill or the cult to define who they are (even when scott argues with Bill, it is only because he is "supposed to"...ie, bill told him to). Brita is the only character who accepts both individual and society, and is therefore able to create.

The move from "artists" to "terrorists" is what swayed me to the modernist/post modernist viewpoint. Both, according to delillo, function to shock at some level. The difference is that artists function within society, while terrorists do not. This, in my reading, was interpreted to demonstrate the need for that implicit structure, as are the prior character analyses. Without that natural structure, the point of things, to some extent, fails. (sorry if that is poorly worded...I've been studying alot tonight, and my brain turned off an hour ago)

Where does that put photorealism then?

Go with Modernism, it's easier to argue if you can avoid the word "random."

I like that reading...I'll have to use it somehow. Actually, reading that analysis again makes me think of Delillo - White Noise...hmm...I'll have to look at that a bit more.

Apologies, I, myself wa thinking of White Noise there.

Where does that put photorealism then?
It gets put into modern, if I'm not mistaken

Apologies, I, myself wa thinking of White Noise there.
haha...very similar books, they are...your reading works well for either.

I'm not particularly interested in the literary use of the word "postmodernism," which the first post seems to draw on, but I do think many of the philosophers grouped under the label "postmodern" are quite interesting. Not necessarily "correct," but interesting.

Oh, and if we're talking about postmodern art, my favorite piece has been this Onion headline:


Derrida "Dies"