Postmodernism... so clearly undefined
Final exams... such an interesting exercises...
The first thing that came to mind was Jacques Derrida’s quote from Lloyd Spencer’s article, “Modernity, Postmodernism and the Tradition of Dissent”, from the Icon Dictionary of Postmodernism, edited by Stuart Sim (Icon Books, Cambridge, 1998)
“I cannot conceive of a radical critique which would not be ultimately motivated by some sort of affirmation, acknowledged or not.”
It is that very affirmation that forces me to respond. It is my understanding of the importance of the time line of art history, that keeps me from committing an act of anarchy. That seems to be the juxtaposition of postmodernism. We are taught a subject fraught with contradiction, within the confines of a traditional educational institution. Within the “new” university, I should not be asked to define something, that is by its own nature, undefinable. I should walk away knowing that any definition that I put forward, will in fact, be outdated and redundant almost instantly, within the academic ‘definitions’ of postmodernism. By responding in the traditional academic manner, I run the risk of becoming the ‘snake eating its own tail’, merely to prove a redundant point.
Suggesting that postmodernism can be narrowed down to three definitions goes against what I have learned. All three of the definitions outlined in the examination are relevant, but they are ambiguous, and can be easily dissected and manipulated to spurn more statements and more questions. By narrowing down the definition of postmodernism, it narrows the mind, thereby eliminating the whole point.
Each of the statements are true, yet false at the same time. In statement (a) The continuation of the modernist impulses in art and society but without the utopian hopes and vision that have characterized the more political forms of modernism, it is suggested that there is a lack of hope and vision, and to some extent I would agree. During the modernist era, times were very different. The mediums and media of visual imagery had an exclusivity that does not characterize postmodernism. Today, we are faced with a bombardment of media imagery designed for the masses. Media imagery now forms our culture, as opposed to the Modernists who reflected it. I believe hope is still reflected, but the focus of our hopes have shifted significantly. Economics has become one of the most significant cultural concerns. It drives our media imagery, it forms our culture.
In statement (b) a perspective strongly opposed to the principles of modernism which has recently gained currency in academic circles, as Lloyd Spencer points out, it is the most obvious in its flexibility, which of course is required when defining postmodernism, but again, I can argue that postmodernism is not strongly opposed to the principles of modernism, but definitely challenges them. Art does not move forward without examination of the past. We need to define and compartmentalize cultural eras in order to study them in an academic environment. It would be impossible to study postmodern imagery without breaking it down, in the same way that scholars have always examined a subject. The ‘newness’ of postmodernism detracts from the academic currency mentioned.
I found the last statement to be the most provocative of the three statements, a label for a mixed bag of current fads invented bye style gurus, fashion editors and gossip columnists; the pretentious side of ‘yuppie-dom’. To have the luxury, or the burden of characterizing the moment, is fraught with challenge. Any imagery, in its initial presentation is judged and gauged by its market. An artist has always had to defend and explain their work, scepticism is rampant, and the very definitions and characteristics that postmodernism tries to shed, will be what legitimizes it in the end. The so called ‘style gurus’ of today, are really not that much different then the art critics and gallery owners of the past. It points out the shift in cultural awareness, and emphasizes the concept of imagery for the masses.
With the onset of globalization, and mass media, the visual imagery of the postmodern world has more influence on cultural behavior than any other era. At one time, art was for the affluent, media imagery was geared to the educated, today with massive marketing campaigns geared towards visual logos, language, social or economic status no longer confines imagery. It is designed for everyone, we are flooded with it our entire lives, which makes it all the more difficult to find the true pieces of art.
It is difficult to conclude an essay on postmodernism. The questions always lead to more questions, and the responses are never ending, and filled with contradiction. I am so curious about how we will shift from ‘postmodern’ to the next era, or, will we simply divide postmodernism into a series of fragmented ‘isms’ and never leave this era? Has the label postmodernism, in its ever shifting parameters, managed to make itself infinite. The hardest part about studying a current cultural shift, is not knowing the outcome, which leads me back to the initial comments that I should not have to answer these questions, instead, I should ask more, which seems to be one of many provocative characteristics of postmodernism.
The first thing that came to mind was Jacques Derrida’s quote from Lloyd Spencer’s article, “Modernity, Postmodernism and the Tradition of Dissent”, from the Icon Dictionary of Postmodernism, edited by Stuart Sim (Icon Books, Cambridge, 1998)
“I cannot conceive of a radical critique which would not be ultimately motivated by some sort of affirmation, acknowledged or not.”
It is that very affirmation that forces me to respond. It is my understanding of the importance of the time line of art history, that keeps me from committing an act of anarchy. That seems to be the juxtaposition of postmodernism. We are taught a subject fraught with contradiction, within the confines of a traditional educational institution. Within the “new” university, I should not be asked to define something, that is by its own nature, undefinable. I should walk away knowing that any definition that I put forward, will in fact, be outdated and redundant almost instantly, within the academic ‘definitions’ of postmodernism. By responding in the traditional academic manner, I run the risk of becoming the ‘snake eating its own tail’, merely to prove a redundant point.
Suggesting that postmodernism can be narrowed down to three definitions goes against what I have learned. All three of the definitions outlined in the examination are relevant, but they are ambiguous, and can be easily dissected and manipulated to spurn more statements and more questions. By narrowing down the definition of postmodernism, it narrows the mind, thereby eliminating the whole point.
Each of the statements are true, yet false at the same time. In statement (a) The continuation of the modernist impulses in art and society but without the utopian hopes and vision that have characterized the more political forms of modernism, it is suggested that there is a lack of hope and vision, and to some extent I would agree. During the modernist era, times were very different. The mediums and media of visual imagery had an exclusivity that does not characterize postmodernism. Today, we are faced with a bombardment of media imagery designed for the masses. Media imagery now forms our culture, as opposed to the Modernists who reflected it. I believe hope is still reflected, but the focus of our hopes have shifted significantly. Economics has become one of the most significant cultural concerns. It drives our media imagery, it forms our culture.
In statement (b) a perspective strongly opposed to the principles of modernism which has recently gained currency in academic circles, as Lloyd Spencer points out, it is the most obvious in its flexibility, which of course is required when defining postmodernism, but again, I can argue that postmodernism is not strongly opposed to the principles of modernism, but definitely challenges them. Art does not move forward without examination of the past. We need to define and compartmentalize cultural eras in order to study them in an academic environment. It would be impossible to study postmodern imagery without breaking it down, in the same way that scholars have always examined a subject. The ‘newness’ of postmodernism detracts from the academic currency mentioned.
I found the last statement to be the most provocative of the three statements, a label for a mixed bag of current fads invented bye style gurus, fashion editors and gossip columnists; the pretentious side of ‘yuppie-dom’. To have the luxury, or the burden of characterizing the moment, is fraught with challenge. Any imagery, in its initial presentation is judged and gauged by its market. An artist has always had to defend and explain their work, scepticism is rampant, and the very definitions and characteristics that postmodernism tries to shed, will be what legitimizes it in the end. The so called ‘style gurus’ of today, are really not that much different then the art critics and gallery owners of the past. It points out the shift in cultural awareness, and emphasizes the concept of imagery for the masses.
With the onset of globalization, and mass media, the visual imagery of the postmodern world has more influence on cultural behavior than any other era. At one time, art was for the affluent, media imagery was geared to the educated, today with massive marketing campaigns geared towards visual logos, language, social or economic status no longer confines imagery. It is designed for everyone, we are flooded with it our entire lives, which makes it all the more difficult to find the true pieces of art.
It is difficult to conclude an essay on postmodernism. The questions always lead to more questions, and the responses are never ending, and filled with contradiction. I am so curious about how we will shift from ‘postmodern’ to the next era, or, will we simply divide postmodernism into a series of fragmented ‘isms’ and never leave this era? Has the label postmodernism, in its ever shifting parameters, managed to make itself infinite. The hardest part about studying a current cultural shift, is not knowing the outcome, which leads me back to the initial comments that I should not have to answer these questions, instead, I should ask more, which seems to be one of many provocative characteristics of postmodernism.
posted by SlickChick's Hit List at 12:28 PM
2 comments
