Comments on: The Death of Postmodernism And Beyond http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/ Pop culture in a new world order. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:14:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: antodicia7 http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-13463 Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:15:59 +0000 http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-13463 I've read what Alan Kirby says, I was born on march 1983, I am an italian junior designer. i just think his definition of pseudo_modernism it is really good, by myself I like to take it in a optimistic point of view, I am conscious of the Golden Age of the Past, I am Italian and I am proud of the Golden Age, but that kind of representation of the world, considering also that as been presented to us even better of what it was, cannot be considered as expression of the real world. It is right that pseudo-modernism it is not so deep to bee considered a cultural movement or something that we can look at within the next 50 0 100 years, but it is true that it represents and shows an "average of reality" that has never been showeb before. As meaning of the word "average" we are conscious we are loosing a bit of information, but at the same time we are gaining something, let's face it we do not look like we are in a bad situation, we are happy with this, maybe we will pay the consequencies in the future. For now it is nice to read things like this, because it gives to you a possibility to enrich your sens of counsciousness or your illusion to it :) ciao! I’ve read what Alan Kirby says, I was born on march 1983, I am an italian junior designer. i just think his definition of pseudo_modernism it is really good, by myself I like to take it in a optimistic point of view, I am conscious of the Golden Age of the Past, I am Italian and I am proud of the Golden Age, but that kind of representation of the world, considering also that as been presented to us even better of what it was, cannot be considered as expression of the real world.
It is right that pseudo-modernism it is not so deep to bee considered a cultural movement or something that we can look at within the next 50 0 100 years, but it is true that it represents and shows an “average of reality” that has never been showeb before.
As meaning of the word “average” we are conscious we are loosing a bit of information, but at the same time we are gaining something, let’s face it we do not look like we are in a bad situation, we are happy with this, maybe we will pay the consequencies in the future.
For now it is nice to read things like this, because it gives to you a possibility to enrich your sens of counsciousness or your illusion to it :)

ciao!

]]> by: oldskoolcommie http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-5826 Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:45:41 +0000 http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-5826 When I read the article, I thought, "right on." It's been my conclusion for a long time that Postmodernism was dead. Why? Because it doesn't make sense to say that people in the Western world are incredulous toward metanarratives (Lyotard) when it's tacitly assumed by pretty much everybody that Capitalism is the only game in town, with various forms of fundamentalism being the only alternatives. So much for difference! What marks "pseudo-modernism" is the shift back a sort of idealistic solipsism, i.e. the illusion that we as individuals now can create our own world through the magic of information technology (information fast eclipsing money as THE commodity fetish of the 21st century). We may have our ethnic difference, local funky diy cultures, etc. but to what extent has this been coopted? One of the (paradoxically) universalistic tenets of postmodernism has been that grand theory has no viability anymore, and that truth is only local. Even conservatives have jumped on the bandwagon by saying that global warming is nothing but a social construct. But of course, ecological disaster on the global scale is the ultimate proof that there is a reality "out there," and all arguments otherwise can not but smack of smug narcissism. But then again, I was born before 1980, quite the gen-x-er, and I have become a bit of a curmudgeon as of late. When I read the article, I thought, “right on.” It’s been my conclusion for a long time that Postmodernism was dead. Why? Because it doesn’t make sense to say that people in the Western world are incredulous toward metanarratives (Lyotard) when it’s tacitly assumed by pretty much everybody that Capitalism is the only game in town, with various forms of fundamentalism being the only alternatives. So much for difference!

What marks “pseudo-modernism” is the shift back a sort of idealistic solipsism, i.e. the illusion that we as individuals now can create our own world through the magic of information technology (information fast eclipsing money as THE commodity fetish of the 21st century).

We may have our ethnic difference, local funky diy cultures, etc. but to what extent has this been coopted?

One of the (paradoxically) universalistic tenets of postmodernism has been that grand theory has no viability anymore, and that truth is only local. Even conservatives have jumped on the bandwagon by saying that global warming is nothing but a social construct. But of course, ecological disaster on the global scale is the ultimate proof that there is a reality “out there,” and all arguments otherwise can not but smack of smug narcissism.

But then again, I was born before 1980, quite the gen-x-er, and I have become a bit of a curmudgeon as of late.

]]> by: madnicity http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-1953 Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:37:30 +0000 http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-1953 Sturm und Drang time again on the "Is Pomo Dead (finally?)" issue. Quit trying to kill it guys, since postmodern in the Lyotard sense (he introduced it in 1979 in the sense we are talking about) in which he killed the supposition of the various flavours of modernism (ergo 'post') by pointing out the linguistic relativism (that means that words are too slippery to be used in manifestos) and that culture dominates our perceptions, remains valid for now until we invent a better word for the present condition. So this "autistic pseudo-modernism" is really just so much nostalgia for the days of certainty when we could call on workers and cubists to change the world every few years ad infinitum. I so do not miss the '60's in this respect (that being the last hurrah for that sort of thing) and we can all live happy now in the realization that Betties Boop and Venuses de Milo are both representations of feminine reality and not worry about issues regarding classicism vs. romanticism and any of them other 'isms' that were so popular in the years between Kant and Pollock. Sturm und Drang time again on the “Is Pomo Dead (finally?)” issue. Quit trying to kill it guys, since postmodern in the Lyotard sense (he introduced it in 1979 in the sense we are talking about) in which he killed the supposition of the various flavours of modernism (ergo ‘post’) by pointing out the linguistic relativism (that means that words are too slippery to be used in manifestos) and that culture dominates our perceptions, remains valid for now until we invent a better word for the present condition.

So this “autistic pseudo-modernism” is really just so much nostalgia for the days of certainty when we could call on workers and cubists to change the world every few years ad infinitum.

I so do not miss the ’60’s in this respect (that being the last hurrah for that sort of thing) and we can all live happy now in the realization that Betties Boop and Venuses de Milo are both representations of feminine reality and not worry about issues regarding classicism vs. romanticism and any of them other ‘isms’ that were so popular in the years between Kant and Pollock.

]]> by: Ian Forth http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-1945 Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:22:02 +0000 http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-1945 An interesting article. There is a tendency though to choose whichever examples suit the story. To take your sitcom example - Fawlty Towers was not especially postmodern, it's true (unless you count its playful comment on music hall farce). But The Office and Extras are postmodern, and they're post-2001. And, say, The Worst Week In My Life is not even postmodern and yet shows no signs of recipient interactivity (OK they'll probably be some quiz or something on the DVD - but there were probably Fawlty Towers quiz books in 1977 as well). As the above blogger commented, if serialisers such as Dickens and Hardy had emerged to tailor their stories to public input, we'd all agree you'd got an excellent case for pseudomodernism, and that it hailed a new trend. Instead it all looks just a bit random to me. An interesting article. There is a tendency though to choose whichever examples suit the story. To take your sitcom example - Fawlty Towers was not especially postmodern, it’s true (unless you count its playful comment on music hall farce).

But The Office and Extras are postmodern, and they’re post-2001. And, say, The Worst Week In My Life is not even postmodern and yet shows no signs of recipient interactivity (OK they’ll probably be some quiz or something on the DVD - but there were probably Fawlty Towers quiz books in 1977 as well). As the above blogger commented, if serialisers such as Dickens and Hardy had emerged to tailor their stories to public input, we’d all agree you’d got an excellent case for pseudomodernism, and that it hailed a new trend. Instead it all looks just a bit random to me.

]]> by: nicesocks http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-1092 Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:14:14 +0000 http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-1092 i am no philosophy student, but i am somewhat aware of the postmodern versus modern argument. and knowing what i know i would argue that we are still postmodern, not post-postmodern. why? postmodernism focuses on the tensions of difference, it focuses on the rampant cross-cultural interactions, and it focuses the comingling of local and global information. it has an air of irony applied upon exsisting irony. the notion that a tv program is no longer postmodern is absurd. the sheer fact that the fate of the show is decided upon by the viewers, by the market for which the show will survive, is postmodern. the notion that the cell phone companies make ten cents each time a viewer sends an SMS submission is postmodern. the reality that the show is dependant upon the viewer who is dependant upon the show's gift of escapism is postmodern. i don't see where you get this pseudomodern concept. it just sounds like the further efflorescence of the postmodern thought, or a step back to modernism to describe postmodernism. incriminating or scary, yes? but there is a rise of seperate cultures as finick suggests. we see evangelicals who don't <i>actually</i> follow the teachings of jesus, but fervently defend their message of anti-abortion/evolution/homosexuality. we see DIY communities where the idea of growing your own food supercedes the vulgar disney-land like visit to whole foods. and let us not forget the power of the web; google and wikipedia are veritable gods of the realm, permitting a platform for discourse and topical discussion that one might never have while riding the bus as steve suggests. the act of blogging or myspacing has transcended the modern notion of culture, society and networking. it is a modern thought that the parts comprise the whole. it is a postmodern thought that the whole is greater than the parts. i am no philosophy student, but i am somewhat aware of the postmodern versus modern argument. and knowing what i know i would argue that we are still postmodern, not post-postmodern.

why? postmodernism focuses on the tensions of difference, it focuses on the rampant cross-cultural interactions, and it focuses the comingling of local and global information. it has an air of irony applied upon exsisting irony.

the notion that a tv program is no longer postmodern is absurd. the sheer fact that the fate of the show is decided upon by the viewers, by the market for which the show will survive, is postmodern. the notion that the cell phone companies make ten cents each time a viewer sends an SMS submission is postmodern. the reality that the show is dependant upon the viewer who is dependant upon the show’s gift of escapism is postmodern.

i don’t see where you get this pseudomodern concept. it just sounds like the further efflorescence of the postmodern thought, or a step back to modernism to describe postmodernism. incriminating or scary, yes? but there is a rise of seperate cultures as finick suggests. we see evangelicals who don’t actually follow the teachings of jesus, but fervently defend their message of anti-abortion/evolution/homosexuality. we see DIY communities where the idea of growing your own food supercedes the vulgar disney-land like visit to whole foods. and let us not forget the power of the web; google and wikipedia are veritable gods of the realm, permitting a platform for discourse and topical discussion that one might never have while riding the bus as steve suggests. the act of blogging or myspacing has transcended the modern notion of culture, society and networking.

it is a modern thought that the parts comprise the whole. it is a postmodern thought that the whole is greater than the parts.

]]> by: Psylight http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-950 Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:03:54 +0000 http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-950 "Replace this cache with other postmodern stalwarts – Beloved, Flaubert’s Parrot, Waterland, The Crying of Lot 49, Pale Fire, Slaughterhouse 5, Lanark, Neuromancer, anything by B.S. Johnson – and the same applies. It’s all about as contemporary as The Smiths, as hip as shoulder pads, as happening as Betamax video recorders. These are texts which are just coming to grips with the existence of rock music and television; they mostly do not dream even of the possibility of the technology and communications media – mobile phones, email, the internet, computers in every house powerful enough to put a man on the moon – which today’s undergraduates take for granted." Those criticisms could be fairly leveled at the other books in the list, but certainly not Neuromancer. Neuromancer is *still* contemporary in a very real sense. There are a few niggling details in Neuromancer that aren't correct, but it is still astonishingly relevant and forward-thinking. I was born in 1984, I'm from the culture. Trust me. It's still relevant today, short of being cyberpunk. Then again, it's really good cyberpunk, and there is still a market for that today. There is no post-post-modernism that can be well-defined. Instead of there being anything resembling cohesive Western culture, society has fractured into subcultures, microcultures, and tribes. Each has a particularly distinct way of perceiving society. Some base themselves around music. Some base themselves around religion. Some base themselves around activities. Everything is customized, including social circles. There are some social circles that rarely ever mix. The new generation explicitly resists easy definition, and will subvert any definition or categorization you try to place them in unless it's one they adopt for themselves. “Replace this cache with other postmodern stalwarts – Beloved, Flaubert’s Parrot, Waterland, The Crying of Lot 49, Pale Fire, Slaughterhouse 5, Lanark, Neuromancer, anything by B.S. Johnson – and the same applies. It’s all about as contemporary as The Smiths, as hip as shoulder pads, as happening as Betamax video recorders. These are texts which are just coming to grips with the existence of rock music and television; they mostly do not dream even of the possibility of the technology and communications media – mobile phones, email, the internet, computers in every house powerful enough to put a man on the moon – which today’s undergraduates take for granted.”

Those criticisms could be fairly leveled at the other books in the list, but certainly not Neuromancer. Neuromancer is *still* contemporary in a very real sense. There are a few niggling details in Neuromancer that aren’t correct, but it is still astonishingly relevant and forward-thinking. I was born in 1984, I’m from the culture. Trust me. It’s still relevant today, short of being cyberpunk. Then again, it’s really good cyberpunk, and there is still a market for that today.

There is no post-post-modernism that can be well-defined. Instead of there being anything resembling cohesive Western culture, society has fractured into subcultures, microcultures, and tribes. Each has a particularly distinct way of perceiving society. Some base themselves around music. Some base themselves around religion. Some base themselves around activities. Everything is customized, including social circles. There are some social circles that rarely ever mix.

The new generation explicitly resists easy definition, and will subvert any definition or categorization you try to place them in unless it’s one they adopt for themselves.

]]> by: Steve http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-895 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:14:19 +0000 http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-895 I agree with finick and Jibrial that your outlook on 'pseudo-modernism' is too bleak. I disagree with finick when (s)he says that there is no more avant garde; but it has changed a lot. The internet (Web2.0) has given underground counterculture a forum that is equal to mainstream culture - from Pink Floyd to my neighbours trashy experimental postrock guitar band, every band has its url. I would also like to continue the theme touched in the final paragraph about the infantile playing with toys. We're probably all thinking of the iPod here, which is the perfect example. The big, scary and complex technology is reduced to its most simple and elegant form, to serve us and nothing more. You don't have to set its clock, it doesn't eject something that could break off, and it does something we all want: it shields us from the dangerous world outside with a 110 dB wall of sound, creating our safe, private cocoon. Pseudo-modernists are communicators, on blogs, email, sms, cellphones, ... - but on their/our own terms. The thing to be avoided is being drawn into an unprepared discussion with a stranger on the bus. After all, you don't know who (s)he is, you don't know what you have in common to talk about (because of the gigantic diversity of entertainment available). But when you get home and after you've had some coffee and maybe a shower you log on and start talking about the previous (or next) episode of Lost, replying to a message on the board that may well be from the (wo)man who sat next to you on the commuter train. But man is a social animal, so from time to time we find ourselves crawling back to the hive. We go to mass concerts, the bigger the better, even for bands we don't like. When there is an emotion we can share with others, we do it in massive numbers. In my country, the shared grief over infants killed in violence is expressed in silent wakes. They have become a tradition (sadly). Another example are the Make Poverty History events, differing from the very postmodern Live Aid because the overwhelming feeling was not indignation or the cry for politicians to change all this - no, the common theme on these gatherings is being together for a shared value. In this way, the pseudomodern mass is very different from the postmodern mass, which is dumb and following. The pseudomodern mass is a conscious group, but is also temporary. After the concert, everybody goes his or her own way; badges and banners and bracelets are worn, without conviction, for a few more days. The moment is gone. Pseudomodern people are aware of this fleeting aspect of their culture, and they have devised strategies to overturn this effect. Never before have boxed editions of tv series been so popular. Apart from the 'reality tv' group of programs, which is indeed very fleeting, there are also series like Lost, which is thoroughly pseudomodern: the writers changed their scenarios based on discussions of fans on internet forums. Needless to say, Lost is a huge hit in the DVD market. But also old shows, like Cheers, MASH, the A-Team etc., which five years ago most people were glad to forget, have found new life on DVD. This is another pseudomodern strategy to shield oneself from a reality that is too complex. First of all, it looks back upon what is already known and familiar. You don't watch the episodes for the first time, you re-watch what you saw as a kid. But there's more to it than a classic regression to childhood comfort. It's also a regression into a time when there were more shared emotions. When you came to school, everyone had seen yesterday's episode of MacGyver and everybody talked about it. Today, the supply of entertainment is so overwhelming that you can only find someone to talk about the last episode of your favourite show on the internet. I agree with finick and Jibrial that your outlook on ‘pseudo-modernism’ is too bleak. I disagree with finick when (s)he says that there is no more avant garde; but it has changed a lot. The internet (Web2.0) has given underground counterculture a forum that is equal to mainstream culture - from Pink Floyd to my neighbours trashy experimental postrock guitar band, every band has its url.

I would also like to continue the theme touched in the final paragraph about the infantile playing with toys. We’re probably all thinking of the iPod here, which is the perfect example. The big, scary and complex technology is reduced to its most simple and elegant form, to serve us and nothing more. You don’t have to set its clock, it doesn’t eject something that could break off, and it does something we all want: it shields us from the dangerous world outside with a 110 dB wall of sound, creating our safe, private cocoon.

Pseudo-modernists are communicators, on blogs, email, sms, cellphones, … - but on their/our own terms. The thing to be avoided is being drawn into an unprepared discussion with a stranger on the bus. After all, you don’t know who (s)he is, you don’t know what you have in common to talk about (because of the gigantic diversity of entertainment available). But when you get home and after you’ve had some coffee and maybe a shower you log on and start talking about the previous (or next) episode of Lost, replying to a message on the board that may well be from the (wo)man who sat next to you on the commuter train.

But man is a social animal, so from time to time we find ourselves crawling back to the hive. We go to mass concerts, the bigger the better, even for bands we don’t like. When there is an emotion we can share with others, we do it in massive numbers. In my country, the shared grief over infants killed in violence is expressed in silent wakes. They have become a tradition (sadly). Another example are the Make Poverty History events, differing from the very postmodern Live Aid because the overwhelming feeling was not indignation or the cry for politicians to change all this - no, the common theme on these gatherings is being together for a shared value. In this way, the pseudomodern mass is very different from the postmodern mass, which is dumb and following. The pseudomodern mass is a conscious group, but is also temporary. After the concert, everybody goes his or her own way; badges and banners and bracelets are worn, without conviction, for a few more days. The moment is gone.

Pseudomodern people are aware of this fleeting aspect of their culture, and they have devised strategies to overturn this effect. Never before have boxed editions of tv series been so popular. Apart from the ‘reality tv’ group of programs, which is indeed very fleeting, there are also series like Lost, which is thoroughly pseudomodern: the writers changed their scenarios based on discussions of fans on internet forums. Needless to say, Lost is a huge hit in the DVD market.

But also old shows, like Cheers, MASH, the A-Team etc., which five years ago most people were glad to forget, have found new life on DVD. This is another pseudomodern strategy to shield oneself from a reality that is too complex. First of all, it looks back upon what is already known and familiar. You don’t watch the episodes for the first time, you re-watch what you saw as a kid. But there’s more to it than a classic regression to childhood comfort. It’s also a regression into a time when there were more shared emotions. When you came to school, everyone had seen yesterday’s episode of MacGyver and everybody talked about it. Today, the supply of entertainment is so overwhelming that you can only find someone to talk about the last episode of your favourite show on the internet.

]]> by: Postmodern Milli http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-872 Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:44:34 +0000 http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-872 Dr. Kelly could not be more wrong. Postmodernism is alive and well in the 21st Century. See the following films: Moulin Rouge, Memento, 24 Hour Party People. Big Brother is inherently postmodern. The housemates percepetion of reality is radically different from that of the TV onlookers. The self-awareness of the housemates and the resultant irony of their position reeks of post-modernism. The house is the ultimate panopticon, a motif espoused by postmodern writers since Foucault. I rest my case. Dr. Kelly could not be more wrong. Postmodernism is alive and well in the 21st Century.

See the following films:
Moulin Rouge,
Memento,
24 Hour Party People.

Big Brother is inherently postmodern. The housemates percepetion of reality is radically different from that of the TV onlookers. The self-awareness of the housemates and the resultant irony of their position reeks of post-modernism. The house is the ultimate panopticon, a motif espoused by postmodern writers since Foucault.

I rest my case.

]]> by: John M http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-865 Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:47:29 +0000 http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-865 The general comments about novels as published texts are valid but Great Expectations (and the works of Charles Dickens in general) are not good examples. Dickens frequently responded to public opinion as his novels were being serialized and Great Expectations famously contains two endings. The original darker ending was superseded by a slightly more optimistic one due to public demand. The general comments about novels as published texts are valid but Great Expectations (and the works of Charles Dickens in general) are not good examples. Dickens frequently responded to public opinion as his novels were being serialized and Great Expectations famously contains two endings. The original darker ending was superseded by a slightly more optimistic one due to public demand.

]]> by: Jibrial http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-625 Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:28:31 +0000 http://www.stateyourposition.com/2007/01/21/the-death-of-postmodernism-and-beyond/#comment-625 "The problem may be that now we can control what we see (become the text as you put it), the urge only to see what we wish to see - already one of the most fundamental human urges, becomes totally dominant. The contradiction is thus that in a society where there are more cameras than people, we end up potentially seeing less than we ever saw before. " The problem becomes the division between those who see things as they want and those who see things as they are. There's always been that division and nothing will change that. Those that choose to "see" all they can, and draw from it an independent interpritation. So the division splits further, those who see the whole truth and like it and those who see the whole truth and hate it, those who choose to do something, those who don't, and so on. What do I mean to say? Well, essentially, that it's this constant division, this constant division on one side of the field (those who choose to see all as opposed to only what they want) is what causes the stagnation that we're suffering at the moment. There are so many factions of ideas that no one group is large enough to really progress anything ( i mean things such as politics, art and literature) “The problem may be that now we can control what we see (become the text as you put it), the urge only to see what we wish to see - already one of the most fundamental human urges, becomes totally dominant.

The contradiction is thus that in a society where there are more cameras than people, we end up potentially seeing less than we ever saw before. ”

The problem becomes the division between those who see things as they want and those who see things as they are. There’s always been that division and nothing will change that. Those that choose to “see” all they can, and draw from it an independent interpritation. So the division splits further, those who see the whole truth and like it and those who see the whole truth and hate it, those who choose to do something, those who don’t, and so on.

What do I mean to say? Well, essentially, that it’s this constant division, this constant division on one side of the field (those who choose to see all as opposed to only what they want) is what causes the stagnation that we’re suffering at the moment. There are so many factions of ideas that no one group is large enough to really progress anything ( i mean things such as politics, art and literature)

]]>