|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 07/27/2005 : 21:05:50 [Permalink]
|
Postmodernism as a philosophy is a slippery fish and not without its flaws. It's probably also debatable that it's a valid stand-alone philosophy. Though I don't think modernism is either. (does anyone call themselves a modernist to refer to a complete worldview? I'm inclined to say no.)
I think you were right on the money when you said “postmodernity is merely the name given to changes in social attitudes and values since the end of the Second World War.”
If you want evidence that scientists during the age of modernism were allowing social and cultural prejudices to taint their work, look no further than the field of anthropology. Scientists wanted to believe that man evolved the big brain before bipedality, and thus many denied evidence that bipedality evolved first. There was a total neglect of research into sexual selection for females because it was assumed that since females bear the children that all females were equally selected. Also sexist, there were claims that males were selected for intelligence while women were not, thus men are genetically smarter than women. There was racist stuff being claim based on brain size and other superficial morphological comparisons.
To be fair – a modernist viewpoint says that these sorts of biases were overcome BY science. A postmodernist would say that they were overcome by changes in cultural perceptions (like women's lib and civil rights), and that only then were the majority of scientists open minded enough to see the scientific results that proved their bias.
Postmodernism appeals to me as a pragmatist, primarily when it comes to the humanities. I agree with you that the scientific method is absolutely essential to discovering truths about the natural world. I'm not a strict postmodernist (I don't think many are) – I agree with you that if strictly adhered to, it does lead to nonsense – but I don't think it's meant to be strictly adhered to. People who claim there's no objective reality (I'm sure they exist, even though I've never met one) are truly being foolish.
There's a book called “The Third Culture” – I love the idea of it, but it sort of failed to meet my expectation after reading what the goal of the book was. It was supposed to be a response to a talk at the beginning of this century (I'd give the exact reference, but I'm moving an my books are packed up!), where a scientist declared that "intellectuals" (he meant those in the humanities and very soft sciences) and "scientists" were at cultural war with each other. The proposed “Third Culture” is meant to be a reconciliation between the two, where they come together in the spirit of mutual benefit. Alas, the actual book “The Third Culture” is way heavy on scientists and way light on journalists, novelists, poets, philosophers and the like. Dawkins is actually IMHO a great champion of this reconciliation in that in his book “Unweaving the Rainbow” he addresses emotional or what some might call spiritual needs of people using the wonders of science. Perhaps this third culture would really be a marriage of modernism (those being the scientists) and postmodernism (those being the intellectuals). I don't think the two philosophies are quite as at odds with each other as it seams at first glance.
You asked for truths discovered by postmodernism. I don't think postmodernism itself discovers truths. But modernism doesn't discover truth either. The scientific method – which is championed by modernism – has discovered truths about the natural world. But like you said, the scientific method came before modernism. I did before mention about postmodernism being associated with feminism and civil rights. There are truths about sexual and racial inequality that have been discovered, and if postmodernism is what we call the social attitudes that gave birth to feminism and the civil rights movement, then I suppose I could say postmodernism contributed to the discovery of those the truths about some dark aspects |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2005 : 21:57:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Postmodernism as a philosophy is a slippery fish and not without its flaws.
Yeah, the slipperiness of postmodernism leads me to believe that it has not been adequately or consistently defined.quote:
It?s probably also debatable that it?s a valid stand-alone philosophy. Though I don't think modernism is either. (does anyone call themselves a modernist to refer to a complete worldview? I'm inclined to say no.)
In a sense though modernism is the default world view. There's not much need to apply a label to your views unless they are opposed to the default view.quote:
I think you were right on the money when you said ?postmodernity is merely the name given to changes in social attitudes and values since the end of the Second World War.?
Okay, so then postmodernism must be a philisophical position based on and expanding from those social attitudes, correct?quote:
If you want evidence that scientists during the age of modernism were allowing social and cultural prejudices to taint their work, look no further than the field of anthropology. Scientists wanted to believe that man evolved the big brain before bipedality, and thus many denied evidence that bipedality evolved first. There was a total neglect of research into sexual selection for females because it was assumed that since females bear the children that all females were equally selected. Also sexist, there were claims that males were selected for intelligence while women were not, thus men are genetically smarter than women. There was racist stuff being claim based on brain size and other superficial morphological comparisons.
To be fair ? a modernist viewpoint says that these sorts of biases were overcome BY science. A postmodernist would say that they were overcome by changes in cultural perceptions (like women?s lib and civil rights), and that only then were the majority of scientists open minded enough to see the scientific results that proved their bias.
I agree that cultural perceptions were the source of the scientist's bias. If postmodernism (not postmodernity) played a significant role in changing those cultural perceptions then I would say that that is (or was?) a positive attribute of postmodernism. However, I would also say that the actual errors (though not the bias itself) made by scientists were corrected solely by scientists.quote:
Postmodernism appeals to me as a pragmatist, primarily when it comes to the humanities. I agree with you that the scientific method is absolutely essential to discovering truths about the natural world. I?m not a strict postmodernist (I don?t think many are) ? I agree with you that if strictly adhered to, it does lead to nonsense ? but I don?t think it?s meant to be strictly adhered to. People who claim there?s no objective reality (I?m sure they exist, even though I?ve never met one) are truly being foolish.
Is it fair to say then (since strictly speaking it leads to nonsense) that postmodernism is a reactionary philosophy within the overall framework of modernism which attempts to shift modernism to a more humanistic perspective?quote:
There?s a book called ?The Third Culture? ? I love the idea of it, but it sort of failed to meet my expectation after reading what the goal of the book was. It was supposed to be a response to a talk at the beginning of this century (I'd give the exact reference, but I'm moving an my books are packed up!), where a scientist declared that "intellectuals" (he meant those in the humanities and very soft sciences) and "scientists" were at cultural war with each other. The proposed ?Third Culture? is meant to be a reconciliation between the two, where they come together in the spirit of mutual benefit. Alas, the actual book ?The Third Culture? is way heavy on scientists and way light on journalists, novelists, poets, philosophers and the like. Dawkins is actually IMHO a great champion of this reconciliation in that in his book ?Unweaving the Rainbow? he addresses emotional or what some might call spiritual needs of people using the wonders of science. Perhaps this third culture would really be a marriage of modernism (those being the scientists) and postmodernism (those being the intellectuals). I don't think the two philosophies are quite as at odds with each other as it seams at first glance.
Curious. I suppose I have to read the books you mention if I want to know why, eh?  quote:
You asked for truths discovered by postmodernism. I don?t think postmodernism itself discovers truths. But modernism doesn?t discover truth either. The scientific method ? which is championed by modernism ? has discovered truths about the natural world. But like you said, the scientific method came before modernism.
Okay, maybe modernism itself doesn't discover truth, but it does value discovery and exploration, and, as you said, champions the scientific method.quote:
I did before mention about postmodernism being associated with feminism and civil rights. There are truths about sexual and racial inequality that have been discovered, and if postmodernism is what we call the social attitudes that gave birth to feminism and the civil rights movement, then I suppose I could say postmodernism contributed to the discovery of those the truths about some dark aspects of racism and sexual discrimination.
Maybe, but it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Did postmodernism contribute to the social attitudes that gave birth to feminism and the civil rights movement, or did those movements give rise to postmodernism?
Or is it some sort of feedback loop?quote:
Hmmm? I suppose in that sense, if I?m going to loosely credit postmodernism with those very beneficial social manifestations, I?ll have to also agree that it is also to blame for the cultural manifestation of wishy washy thinking. Damn it.
Nonetheless you've raised some very good points. I'm not convinced that the "possible" positive aspects of postmodernism outweigh what I see as the many "definite" negatives, but you have made me realize that it's not as clear cut as I |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2005 : 15:16:17 [Permalink]
|
Okay, so then postmodernism must be a philisophical position based on and expanding from those social attitudes, correct?
I would agree with that. I've never thought of postmodernism as in opposition to modernism. But then, that is largely because I learned of both through art. Postmodernism has been VERY beneficial to the art world (breaking it out of a singular Western, male elistist, and linear history viewpoint), and modernism in art, while it was valuable in of itself, actively devalued all forms of art outside of it.
Is it fair to say then (since strictly speaking it leads to nonsense) that postmodernism is a reactionary philosophy within the overall framework of modernism which attempts to shift modernism to a more humanistic perspective?
I don't think I agree with that because modernism is considered a reactionary philosophy, too. It was a reaction to industrialism and WWI. Also, heh heh... now this gets fun, philosophical Humanists are known to be rapidly anti-postmodern. (I am an exception.) However, I looked up "Humanities" in wikipedia, and this definition seems to go along well with this discussion:
The humanities are a group of academic subjects united by a commitment to studying aspects of the human condition and a qualitative approach that generally prevents a single paradigm from coming to define any discipline. (emphasis added.)
Now that sounds postmodern!
maybe modernism itself doesn't discover truth, but it does value discovery and exploration
Yeah, but even though "discovery" and "exploration" have positive connotations (probably because they more often than not have lead to beneficial things), they are not beneficial or harmful things in of themselves.
For brevity's sake, "Science without culture is lame, culture without science is blind." I like it. It doesn't seem like a particularly postmodern idea to me though.
The reason I used the more complex "cultural awareness and sensitivity" is because the way you have re-stated it, it could mean a single culture. And I tend to think that humanity is too diverse to fit into a single culture (though many think otherwise and would impose their idea of the perfect culture on everyone), so the trick is to learn how to co-exist peacefully.
It seems both modernism and postmodernism set their sights on improving the human condition. It's just that modernism puts perhaps too much weight on science and technology and objective truths about the natural world, and postmodernism puts too much weight on people's emotional needs, psychology and multiculturalism. I've often thought if the two were meshed together in just the right way, we'd really be on to something. And perhaps that is already happening? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/01/2005 15:18:01 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2005 : 00:45:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I've never thought of postmodernism as in opposition to modernism. But then, that is largely because I learned of both through art.
Ah, this may be why we approach postmodernism from such different tangents. I learned of postmodernism through philosophy.quote:
Postmodernism has been VERY beneficial to the art world (breaking it out of a singular Western, male elistist, and linear history viewpoint), and modernism in art, while it was valuable in of itself, actively devalued all forms of art outside of it.
Bearing in mind that I know next to nothing about art, I'll give my basic impressions of what modern and postmodern art are.
Modern art can be characterized (in my delusional mind) as the general trend away from literal (almost photographic) representations of reality to increasingly abstract representations. At some point the art became so abstract that it could no longer really be said to have any discernible connection to reality. This was a dead end for modern art. So there it sat to proud to go back, but unable to go forward.
Then postmodern art came along. It avoided the dilemma that paralized modern art by realizing that reality wasn't the problem art was. The formula for producing postmodern art was disarmingly simple. Just take something that is not art, and call it art. Postmodern art is therefore actually anti-art in disguise. 
This is obviously a bit of a parody, but I think that it fairly acurately expresses the opinions of some (like myself) who have little interest in art.quote:
Is it fair to say then (since strictly speaking it leads to nonsense) that postmodernism is a reactionary philosophy within the overall framework of modernism which attempts to shift modernism to a more humanistic perspective?
I don't think I agree with that because modernism is considered a reactionary philosophy, too. It was a reaction to industrialism and WWI.
Well "reactionary" tends to imply "reacting against" something. I don't think that modernism was a reaction against industrialism (and wasn't modernism fairly well established before WWI?) but more a reaction to or 'result of' industrialism.quote:
Also, heh heh... now this gets fun, philosophical Humanists are known to be rapidly[rabidly?] anti-postmodern. (I am an exception.) However, I looked up "Humanities" in wikipedia, and this definition seems to go along well with this discussion:
The humanities are a group of academic subjects united by a commitment to studying aspects of the human condition and a qualitative approach that generally prevents a single paradigm from coming to define any discipline. (emphasis added.)
Now that sounds postmodern!
Seems we have a paradox. So what do you make of it?quote:
...even though "discovery" and "exploration" have positive connotations (probably because they more often than not have lead to beneficial things), they are not beneficial or harmful things in of themselves.
Personally, I think that they are beneficial things in and of themselves.quote:
For brevity's sake, "Science without culture is lame, culture without science is blind." I like it. It doesn't seem like a particularly postmodern idea to me though.
The reason I used the more complex "cultural awareness and sensitivity" is because the way you have re-stated it, it could mean a single culture.
er ...couldn't it still mean a single culture? Shouldn't it be "multicultural awareness and sensitivity"?quote:
And I tend to think that humanity is too diverse to fit into a single culture (though many think otherwise and would impose their idea of the perfect culture on everyone), so the trick is to learn how to co-exist peacefully.
I tend to think that humanity is diverse because we exist in many different cultural settings. Diversity is another one of those things that I think is good in and of itself, so I definitly agree that imposing a single culture on everyone would be a bad thing.quote:
It seems both modernism and postmodernism set their sights on improving the human condition. It's just that modernism puts perhaps too much weight on science and technology and objective truths about the natural world, and postmodernism puts too much weight on people's emotional needs, psychology and multiculturalism. I've often thought if the two were meshed together in just the right way, we'd really be on to something. And perhaps that is already happening?
I respect your viewpoint here, but I disagree.
 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2005 : 13:22:11 [Permalink]
|
Your description of modern art is accurate enough, though I should mention that the linear progression into abstraction was based on the idea that all legitimate art history, beginning with the European pre-Renaissance, focuses on formal visual elements. I won't go into any more detail on that, since I'm sure it would bore anyone not into art. I personally have a love-hate relationship with modernist art, because while I do consider it significant to art history, it has received far more than its fair share of attention.
But your description of postmodernism is inaccurate, even as a parody. True “anti-art” such as dada and the fluxus movement came out of cultural (opposed to artistic) modernist attitudes. When I spoke of modernism being reactionary, I did mean reacting against. Specifically, reacting against old traditions. Of course modernism isn't purely reactionary, because it does pose an alternative – constant progress.
Humanism is a great example of an old-style modernist philosophy, but it has evolved into styles influenced by postmodernism (such as my belief system) and what could be called the new modernist form of humanism – transhumanism. (Which I think is, at its worst, distracting from more important matters.)
Anyway, real postmodern art is influenced by two major sources – multiculturalism and pop culture – and it is characterized by the broadening of the definition of art to include all visual manifestations of human creativity. It does not, as you say, take something that is “not art” and call it “art”. For instance, a small group of African American quilters who live in a tiny town called Gee's Bend, Alabama, were discovered by postmodern thinkers in the art world, and those quilters are now acknowledged as significant artists, and sell their work for thousands of dollars. It's not “anti-art” because the designs of the Gee's Bend quilters really are quite innovative and interesting visually. The work has legitimate merit by fine art standards. But a modernist would either not acknowledge their work, or regard it as a happy accident, because it isn't in the narrow linear progression of “art history”. So unless you consider foreign and self-taught artists to be not “real” artists, postmodernism is hardly anti-art.
I don' t know what you mean about a paradox concerning the humanities and humanism. The word “Humanism” has been used for many different, sometimes contradictory, attitudes and philosophies. I just meant to clarify what you meant when you associated it with postmodernism.
How are discovery and exploration beneficial things in and of themselves? Perhaps in the most lukewarm sense. The thrill of adventure, I suppose? But that could be countered with the comfort of stability and tradition.
er ...couldn't it still mean a single culture? Shouldn't it be "multicultural awareness and sensitivity"?
Usually when we say “awareness” and “sensitivity” we mean sensitivity to an “other”, not sensitivity toward ourselves. So I thought the whole phrase “cultural awareness and sensitivity” implies multiples, and so using “multicultural” would be redundant.
I tend to think that humanity is diverse because we exist in many different cultural settings.
Then how come when a society gets to a certain size, sub-cultures naturally arise? (I don't just mean ones that originated from different ethnicities.) I'm not even sure that if a group of culturally homogenous humans lived in a totally consistent and controlled natural environment that they would continue to be homogenous. If you have a lot of humans, they are going to start locally identifying by things like appearance, kin-groups, geography, worldview, lifestyle, etc.
I don't know that I agree that diversity is valuable in of itself, mostly because I don't consider all cultural groups to be equally successful. So if you have a highly successful cultural group intermixing with a very destructive cultural group, diversi |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/02/2005 13:23:45 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2005 : 15:10:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
But your description of postmodernism is inaccurate, even as a parody. True ?anti-art? such as dada and the fluxus movement came out of cultural (opposed to artistic) modernist attitudes.
So the dada movement was not a postmodern art movement?quote:
Anyway, real postmodern art is influenced by two major sources ? multiculturalism and pop culture ? and it is characterized by the broadening of the definition of art to include all visual manifestations of human creativity. It does not, as you say, take something that is ?not art? and call it ?art?.
Not ever?quote:
For instance, a small group of African American quilters who live in a tiny town called Gee?s Bend, Alabama, were discovered by postmodern thinkers in the art world, and those quilters are now acknowledged as significant artists, and sell their work for thousands of dollars. It?s not ?anti-art? because the designs of the Gee?s Bend quilters really are quite innovative and interesting visually. The work has legitimate merit by fine art standards.
I agree that quilting is an art, but I have never, ever heard it refered to as postmodern art. Also quilting existed long before postmodernism, so in what sense can postmodernism take credit?quote:
But a modernist would either not acknowledge their work, or regard it as a happy accident, because it isn?t in the narrow linear progression of ?art history?.
In my view, although quilting is an art form, it is not modern or postmodern art.quote:
So unless you consider foreign and self-taught artists to be not ?real? artists, postmodernism is hardly anti-art.
Of couse they are real artists, but unless they produce postmodern art, then they are not postmodern artists.quote:
I don? t know what you mean about a paradox concerning the humanities and humanism. The word ?Humanism? has been used for many different, sometimes contradictory, attitudes and philosophies. I just meant to clarify what you meant when you associated it with postmodernism.
Oh, I thought you were pointing out that, "...philosophical Humanists are known to be [rabidly] anti-postmodern." and yet, the very definition of the humanities seems to be postmodern.quote:
How are discovery and exploration beneficial things in and of themselves? Perhaps in the most lukewarm sense. The thrill of adventure, I suppose? But that could be countered with the comfort of stability and tradition.
Well, getting into this would definitely open up a can of worms. Briefly, I view the continued survival of the human species as being a "good" thing. You could call this the 'super-goal'. Things that advance the 'super-goal', are generally also "good" things.quote:
Usually when we say ?awareness? and ?sensitivity? we mean sensitivity to an ?other?, not sensitivity toward ourselves. So I thought the whole phrase ?cultural awareness and sensitivity? implies multiples, and so using ?multicultural? would be redundant.
When I first read it, I read it as being singular. But yeah, you're right. Most people would get it the way you wrote it.quote:
I tend to think that humanity is diverse because we exist in many different cultural settings.
Then how come when a society gets to a certain size, sub-cultures naturally arise? (I don?t just mean ones that originated from different ethnicities.) I?m not even sure that if a group of culturally homogenous humans lived in a totally consistent and controlled natural environment that they would continue to be homogenous. If you have a lot of humans, they are going to start locally identifying by things like appearance, kin-groups, geography, worldview, lifestyle, etc.
I didn't mean to imply that culture is the only factor influencing human diversity. My view is that culture drives diversity more than diversity drives culture.quote:
I don?t know that I agree that diversity is valuable in of itself, mostly because I don?t consider all cultural groups to be equally successful. So if you have a highly successful cultural group intermixing with a very destructive cultural group, diversity could be bad.
In some situations diversity can be bad, but from the point of view of long term survivial, diversity is essential.quote:
When you say you disagree (at the end of your last post) did you mean that you disagree with my assertion that modernism and postmodernism compliment each other in what they emphasize/neglect, or did you meant that you disagree that meshing the two together would be a good thing, or did you disagree that the meshing is already happening?
Actually all of the above. It's not really that your arguments are unconvincing. It's that we have essentially different ideas of what postmodernism is. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2005 : 22:26:17 [Permalink]
|
Whether dada is a postmodern movement or a side note in modernism depends on who you talk to. However, since dada was specifically a reaction against mentalities that brought about WWI, and how the war was handled, it seems more closely related to modernism. Dada would also be grouped with modernism based on timelines, since modernism is considered the dominant thought trend of the early 20th century, and postmodernism is considered the dominant thought trend of the later 20th century. At best, dada is a pre-postmodern artistic movement.
Sure, there are clear postmodern artists who are anti-art, but they are a tiny minority, and frankly, anyone who does readymades after Duchamp's urinal is just a lame copycat. Also, finding new ways to express ourselves through symbols, nontraditional materials and performances is not the same thing as taking something that is not art and calling it art. Technically, the pigments, binders, camel hair, pulp and other materials used to make traditional art-making materials are not, by themselves, art. If it is visual and presented in a way to invite interpretation, it is art.
Quilting was definitely not considered art (“art”, as in the field of fine arts, not “an art”) previous to postmodern recognition. And while all quilting may be an art form (or more accurately, a craft) it is not art when a housewife copies a pattern out of book to make a pretty blanket.
Unlike the modernist movement in art, postmodern is a label that gets applied by critics, it is not necessarily adopted by the artist. The acknowledgement that some foreign and self-taught art is true art, not mere craft is very much a postmodern cultural development. All contemporary hybrid art, be it the work of Australian Aborigines who combines traditional craft and mysticism with contemporary ideas, or high quality urban graffiti, is postmodern art. The only artists who are not postmodern artists are ones working exclusively within a particular fine art tradition, such as Western realism, or Japanese screen painting.
Oh, I thought you were pointing out that, "...philosophical Humanists are known to be [rabidly] anti-postmodern." and yet, the very definition of the humanities seems to be postmodern.
You asked if it was fair to say that postmodernism is a reactionary philosophy that attempts to shift modernism to a more humanistic perspective. I wasn't sure which type of “humanism” you were referring to. If you meant philosophical humanism, then the answer would be no. If you meant humanism as in the humanities, then the answer would be yes.
How do discovery and exploration directly relate to the continued survival of human beings?
My view is that culture drives diversity more than diversity drives culture.
I can't say I know enough information to agree or disagree with that statement, but it seems we can at least agree that both do drive the other at least to some extent.
In some situations diversity can be bad, but from the point of view of long term survivial, diversity is essential.
Yes indeed.
It's not really that your arguments are unconvincing. It's that we have essentially different ideas of what postmodernism is.
Fair enough. You did (quite accurately) say early on in this conversation that postmodernism hasn't been clearly defined, and certainly this discussion has shown that to be true.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/02/2005 22:33:22 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 13:33:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Whether dada is a postmodern movement or a side note in modernism depends on who you talk to. However, since dada was specifically a reaction against mentalities that brought about WWI, and how the war was handled, it seems more closely related to modernism. Dada would also be grouped with modernism based on timelines, since modernism is considered the dominant thought trend of the early 20th century, and postmodernism is considered the dominant thought trend of the later 20th century. At best, dada is a pre-postmodern artistic movement.
Ah, perhaps the dada movement may have more to do with the developement of social postmodernism than with postmodern art. I've noticed that postmodern artwork often features collages though. This seems to be an artifact of the dada movement.quote:
Sure, there are clear postmodern artists who are anti-art, but they are a tiny minority, and frankly, anyone who does readymades after Duchamp?s urinal is just a lame copycat.
Pop art is not real postmodern art then. Correct?quote:
Also, finding new ways to express ourselves through symbols, nontraditional materials and performances is not the same thing as taking something that is not art and calling it art.
Totally agree here. In fact I would say that the use of nontraditional materials and mediums is a common theme in postmodern art.quote:
Quilting was definitely not considered art (?art?, as in the field of fine arts, not ?an art?) previous to postmodern recognition. And while all quilting may be an art form (or more accurately, a craft) it is not art when a housewife copies a pattern out of book to make a pretty blanket.
I consider quilting to have been an art long before postmodernism came along, but if you do not consider quilting to be art, then it becomes a perfect example of postmodern art taking something that is 'not art' and calling it 'art'.quote:
Unlike the modernist movement in art, postmodern is a label that gets applied by critics, it is not necessarily adopted by the artist. The acknowledgement that some foreign and self-taught art is true art, not mere craft is very much a postmodern cultural development. All contemporary hybrid art, be it the work of Australian Aborigines who combines traditional craft and mysticism with contemporary ideas, or high quality urban graffiti, is postmodern art. The only artists who are not postmodern artists are ones working exclusively within a particular fine art tradition, such as Western realism, or Japanese screen painting.
It sounds like you're saying that all art that does not fit exclusively into a particular fine art tradition is by definition postmodern art. This is utterly ridiculous. In this case why not eliminate the term postmodern from art altogether? The term postmodern could be replaced with a catch all category like miscellaneous, or non-traditional.quote:
You asked if it was fair to say that postmodernism is a reactionary philosophy that attempts to shift modernism to a more humanistic perspective. I wasn?t sure which type of ?humanism? you were referring to. If you meant philosophical humanism, then the answer would be no. If you meant humanism as in the humanities, then the answer would be yes.
Oh... yeah, I see what you mean now. Hmmm... well I was thinking of in terms of quality of life issues, so I guess that the humanities would be what I was getting at.quote:
How do discovery and exploration directly relate to the continued survival of human beings?
Well I could present any number of hypothetical situations (ie: a doomsday asteroid scenario) in which discovery and exploration (among other things) directly impact the suvival of the human race, but honestly I feel that the great bulk of the benefit of exploration and discovery is indirect. If one looks back on humanity as a species can we really say that our chances of survival would have been as good if we hadn't discovered irrigation, or the wheel, or fire, or any of a million other things that humanity has discovered or invented throughout its short history? |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 20:28:45 [Permalink]
|
Pop art is not real postmodern art then. Correct?
Pop art is postmodern art. I fail to see how pop art is anti-art (dada was clearly and intentionally anti-art), or how it includes readymades.
I consider quilting to have been an art long before postmodernism came along, but if you do not consider quilting to be art, then it becomes a perfect example of postmodern art taking something that is 'not art' and calling it 'art'.
I was trying to make a point that there is a difference between a Gee's Bend quilter who designs a quilt, and a person who copies a pattern directly to make a pretty blanket. One is art combined with craft, and one is purely craft. And yes, there is always plenty of gray. What postmodernism does is recognized that crafts, like quilting, have the potential to be art.
It sounds like you're saying that all art that does not fit exclusively into a particular fine art tradition is by definition postmodern art. This is utterly ridiculous. In this case why not eliminate the term postmodern from art altogether? The term postmodern could be replaced with a catch all category like miscellaneous, or non-traditional.
No, I was trying to say (although I admit, I probably wasn't clear enough) that postmodernism recognizes that things which are not traditionally considered to be “art” have enough qualities of art as to be recognized by the art world as art. It's a shift in thinking, not necessarily a shift in what types of art are made.
If one looks back on humanity as a species can we really say that our chances of survival would have been as good if we hadn't discovered irrigation, or the wheel, or fire, or any of a million other things that humanity has discovered or invented throughout its short history?
Actually, you've convinced me that discovery and exploration can sometimes directly benefit mankind, even if they most often do indirectly. But to respond to the above, there are many who argue that things like irrigation didn't help humanity survive as a species, but more resulted from humanity surviving a little too well, and thus overpopulating and needing a way to cope with the problems caused by overpopulation. Indeed, human societies seem to suddenly make huge technological leaps only when resources are ample and the population begins to surge. Without technology, those booming populations would start to die off, but not go exist, just reach equilibrium with the environment. Something we've failed to do as a species thus far, exactly because of technology.
I'm not using that as an argument as to why technology is bad at all. I am not a luddite. I think it is human nature to respond to overpopulation and other problems with technology, and rightly so, but only time will tell whether that will ultimately work or if we're just prolonging our inevitable extinction. Not that I spend a lot of time thinking about such long-term and abstract things.
Also, technology is more like creativity and ingenuity than it is discovery and exploration. However, definitely there's a relationship between them (having to do with our large brains) and a gray area.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/03/2005 21:03:06 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 23:24:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Pop art is postmodern art. I fail to see how pop art is anti-art (dada was clearly and intentionally anti-art), or how it includes readymades.
To me there is scant difference between readymades and pop art. Remember 'Campbell's Condensed Tomato Soup'?quote:
...there is a difference between a Gee?s Bend quilter who designs a quilt, and a person who copies a pattern directly to make a pretty blanket. One is art combined with craft, and one is purely craft.
I don't actually disagree with the distinction you're making here between an art and a craft, but to say that quilting was not an art because some people simply followed a pattern, is like saying watercolor is not an art because some people simply paint by number.quote:
...postmodernism recognizes that things which are not traditionally considered to be ?art? have enough qualities of art as to be recognized by the art world as art. It?s a shift in thinking, not necessarily a shift in what types of art are made.
Okay, but aren't those things still "art" whether or not postmodernism recognizes them as such?
Just a thought. Perhaps the postmodern prefix is something like a marketing lable or a brand. A way for overlooked art to get a foothold in the art world.quote:
Actually, you?ve convinced me that discovery and exploration can sometimes directly benefit mankind, even if they most often do indirectly. But to respond to the above, there are many who argue that things like irrigation didn?t help humanity survive as a species, but more resulted from humanity surviving a little too well, and thus overpopulating and needing a way to cope with the problems caused by overpopulation.
Absolutely right. In fact if one were a cynic (I try not to be) one could argue that, due to human stupidity and shortsightedness, every technological step forward brings us closer to a premature extinction.
On the other hand, a human without technology is tiger food.quote:
Indeed, human societies seem to suddenly make huge technological leaps only when resources are ample and the population begins to surge. Without technology, those booming populations would start to die off, but not go exist, just reach equilibrium with the environment. Something we?ve failed to do as a species thus far, exactly because of technology.
I?m not using that as an argument as to why technology is bad at all. I am not a luddite. I think it is human nature to respond to overpopulation and other problems with technology, and rightly so, but only time will tell whether that will ultimately work or if we?re just prolonging our inevitable extinction. Not that I spend a lot of time thinking about such long-term and abstract things.
Imagine if you were to flip a coin. If you guess right you get to live a thousand years, but if you guess wrong you die on the spot. In some ways science and technology is like a coin flip for the entire species. Granted there are many aspects that we can control, but in the end it may come down to dumb luck.quote:
Also, technology is more like creativity and ingenuity than it is discovery and exploration. However, definitely there?s a relationship between them (having to do with our large brains) and a gray area.
I guess I mainly dealt with the discovery side of the discovery and exploration combo. One of the obvious benefits of exploration and colonization is that it makes it that much harder for all of humanity to go extinct. If a tsunami wipes a village off the face of the earth, humanity will survive unless all humans were in that village. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 14:07:22 [Permalink]
|
To me there is scant difference between readymades and pop art. Remember 'Campbell's Condensed Tomato Soup'?
You are referring to Andy Warhol, the daddy of pop art. Warhol's work is a combination of commercial printmaking with realism in painting. He never took soup can labels or brillo boxes and displayed them as his work. He actually painted or printed them in a studio. Yes, they were visually indistinguishable from the original products, but a photorealistic painting is still more closely related to painting than it is to photography.
Also, Warhol's work (like all postmodern art) sought to expand the range of media and subject matter that was considered appropriate to fine art, which is the opposite anti-art. The purpose of anti-art such as dada is to make the concept of “fine art” obsolete.
to say that quilting was not an art because some people simply followed a pattern, is like saying watercolor is not an art because some people simply paint by number.
OK, so you are at least partially agreeing with the postmodernists, because previous to postmodern thinking in art, a big part of how fine art was defined was in terms of traditional materials. In earlier eras, even though quilts of unique designs were made, they never would be considered “fine art” just because they were quilts.
Okay, but aren't those things still "art" whether or not postmodernism recognizes them as such?
No. Things are only “art” if people consider them to be “art” since “art” is defined by people who apply the concept and term. Actually, the term and concept of “art” as it is used by the mainstream art world doesn't even exist in most cultures, and is relatively contemporary even in Western thinking.
Just a thought. Perhaps the postmodern prefix is something like a marketing lable or a brand. A way for overlooked art to get a foothold in the art world.
I'm sure that plays a role, especially since postmodernism in art is so friendly towards fashion.
Imagine if you were to flip a coin. If you guess right you get to live a thousand years, but if you guess wrong you die on the spot. In some ways science and technology is like a coin flip for the entire species. Granted there are many aspects that we can control, but in the end it may come down to dumb luck.
That is an awesome way of putting that! I'll definitely be passing on the flip of a coin metaphor in future conversations about this issue.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/04/2005 14:08:31 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 16:11:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
You are referring to Andy Warhol, the daddy of pop art.
Yeah.quote:
Warhol?s work is a combination of commercial printmaking with realism in painting. He never took soup can labels or brillo boxes and displayed them as his work. He actually painted or printed them in a studio.
I know, but it makes little difference to me. The final result is utterly unoriginal and completely lacking in creativity so in my authoritative opinion it is not art.quote:
Yes, they were visually indistinguishable from the original products, but a photorealistic painting is still more closely related to painting than it is to photography.
The fact that it is a painting doesn't make it art. If he had simply taken a photograph he would have gotten an almost indistinguishable result. I'm not impressed by the idea that something is art simply because it makes use of a traditional medium.quote:
Also, Warhol?s work (like all postmodern art) sought to expand the range of media and subject matter that was considered appropriate to fine art, which is the opposite anti-art.
I agree that the art world tends to dismiss many valid forms of artistic expression, and to the extent that postmodernism addresses this error it is a positive thing. However expanding the concept of art to things that are not art (such as a photorealistic painting of a soup can) is simply hubris.quote:
The purpose of anti-art such as dada is to make the concept of ?fine art? obsolete.
Okay, but the effect of expanding "art" to include things that are "not art" makes the concept of "art" meaningless.quote:
OK, so you are at least partially agreeing with the postmodernists, because previous to postmodern thinking in art, a big part of how fine art was defined was in terms of traditional materials. In earlier eras, even though quilts of unique designs were made, they never would be considered ?fine art? just because they were quilts.
Yeah, the medium is not the message!  quote:
Things are only ?art? if people consider them to be ?art? since ?art? is defined by people who apply the concept and term. Actually, the term and concept of ?art? as it is used by the mainstream art world doesn?t even exist in most cultures, and is relatively contemporary even in Western thinking.
I guess I object to the idea that the "art world" decides what is art for the rest of us.quote:
Imagine if you were to flip a coin. If you guess right you get to live a thousand years, but if you guess wrong you die on the spot. In some ways science and technology is like a coin flip for the entire species. Granted there are many aspects that we can control, but in the end it may come down to dumb luck.
That is an awesome way of putting that! I?ll definitely be passing on the flip of a coin metaphor in future conversations about this issue.
Aw jeeze,  I'm such a sucker for praise. Thanks for the compliment. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 19:47:55 [Permalink]
|
The final result is utterly unoriginal and completely lacking in creativity so in my authoritative opinion it is not art.
Does the winking smiley mean you're kidding? ‘Cause if you're not kidding, this opinion displays a great deal of ignorance about art and art history. If the subject actually interests you, I suggest reading Arthur Danto's “The Abuse of Beauty”, because he talks a good deal in the first chapters about Warhol. But if you don't actually like art and aren't that interested, why do you even have an opinion? Wouldn't it be enough to say “I don't like that art.” Or “I don't get that art.”? Because, I'm sorry, when something is written about by hundreds of art critics, is shown in galleries by curators, and is then written about by aesthetic philosophers and art historians, um, yeah – it's art.
The fact that it is a painting doesn't make it art.
You have changed the subject. You said that Warhol's soup cans were like readymades, and I explained why they were not, using photorealism as a parallel. We were categorizing genres of art and their relationships in that part of the conversation, not debating whether such genres are art or not.
However expanding the concept of art to things that are not art (such as a photorealistic painting of a soup can) is simply hubris.
First, just to clarify, Warhol's soup cans are not photorealism. Photorealism is a genre of painting that involves applying painstaking traditional methods of oil painting to render images that are identical to photographs. The soup cans were screen prints made to look identical to the printing on the soup can labels.
Second, on what grounds are you claiming that Warhol's prints of soup cans are not art? They were considered art as soon as they were made and displayed. They are quite established as art. Why are they “not art”, but an oil painting of a sunset is “art”? Both are simply different approaches to realistic representation. You seem to have an arbitrary bias against pop art.
Okay, but the effect of expanding "art" to include things that are "not art" makes the concept of "art" meaningless.
Once again, including Gee's Bend quilters being considered as fine artists doesn't mean that all quilters are suddenly considered fine artists. So why are you taking this concept to an irrational extreme when I have quite clearly stated that postmodernism in practice does not actually stretch to that irrational extreme?
I guess I object to the idea that the "art world" decides what is art for the rest of us.
Most laymen have a piss poor idea of what real science is. This is due to ignorance. Most people have a piss poor idea of what real fine art is. This is due to ignorance.
Actually, you could say this of pretty much any academic subject.
Art has a history that goes back as far as the 40,000 years. Fine art as a concept goes back thousands of years in both the West and China. Are you going to tell me that experts who love art and study art don't know more about it than people who only have a surface impression of it?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/04/2005 19:53:07 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 22:29:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Does the winking smiley mean you?re kidding?
Not kidding. The winking smiley means I realize that my opinion is not authoritative.quote:
?Cause if you?re not kidding, this opinion displays a great deal of ignorance about art and art history.
I already admitted my ignorance.quote:
If the subject actually interests you, I suggest reading Arthur Danto?s ?The Abuse of Beauty?, because he talks a good deal in the first chapters about Warhol.
I've read a bit about Warhol, I admit he doesn't interest me.quote:
But if you don?t actually like art and aren?t that interested, why do you even have an opinion? Wouldn?t it be enough to say ?I don?t like that art.? Or ?I don?t get that art.??
You and me looking at the same painting. To you it's art and it's okay if you say so. To me it's not art. Is it alright if I say so?quote:
Because, I?m sorry, when something is written about by hundreds of art critics, is shown in galleries by curators, and is then written about by aesthetic philosophers and art historians, um, yeah ? it?s art.
Well I'm feeling generous today, so I guess it's okay if they have an opinion also.  quote:
You said that Warhol?s soup cans were like readymades, and I explained why they were not, using photorealism as a parallel. We were categorizing genres of art and their relationships in that part of the conversation, not debating whether such genres are art or not.
Okay, my mistake. I should have said, "The final result is essentially identical to a photograph of a soup can and is utterly unoriginal and completely lacking in creativity so it is only trivially different from a readymade."quote:
First, just to clarify, Warhol?s soup cans are not photorealism. Photorealism is a genre of painting that involves applying painstaking traditional methods of oil painting to render images that are identical to photographs. The soup cans were screen prints made to look identical to the printing on the soup can labels.
Fair enough. For my edification, could you suggest a concise word that would be appropriate to use to express the "photorealism" of Warhol's soup can?quote:
Second, on what grounds are you claiming that Warhol?s prints of soup cans are not art?
Glad you asked. I do not consider them to be art for several reasons. As already mentioned they lack originality and creativity, they also lack aesthetic, emotional and intellectual elements, and they border on artistic plagerism.quote:
They were considered art as soon as they were made and displayed.
To the shock of shoppers everywhere no doubt. quote:
They are quite established as art.
Within the "art world" yes. Not with me.quote:
Why are they ?not art?, but an oil painting of a sunset is ?art??
Assuming that the oil painting is "photorealistic", then the main difference would be that the painting of a sunset possesses aesthetic and possibly emotional appeal.quote:
Both are simply different approaches to realistic representation. You seem to have an arbitrary bias against pop art.
Not really. My bias, such as it is, is against virtually all modern and postmodern art.quote:
Once again, including Gee?s Bend quilters being considered as fine artists doesn?t mean that all quilters are suddenly considered fine artists.
I haven't objected to the Gee's Bend quilters being considered artists.quote:
So why are you taking this concept to an irrational extreme when I have quite clearly stated that postmodernism in practice does not actually stretch to that irrational extreme?
Because regardless of what you've 'quite clearly stated' it is obvious to me that postmodernism has already taken the concept to irrational extremes.quote:
Most laymen have a piss poor idea of what real science is. This is due to ignorance. Most people have a piss poor idea of what real fine art is. This is due to ignorance.
Science is objective, art is subjective, so the analogy fails.quote:
Art has a history that goes back as far as the 40,000 years. Fine art as a concept goes back thousands of years in both the West and China. Are you going to tell me that experts who love art and study art don?t know more about it than people who only have a surface impression of it?
Obviously the experts do know more about art and art history than the average joe. This is not what I'm getting at at all.
Art is supposed to have certain qualities. When those qualities are missing, it becomes clear that the emporer has no clothes.
And yes. Art is in the eye of the beholder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 22:33:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
You and me looking at the same painting. To you it's art and it's okay if you say so. To me it's not art. Is it alright if I say so?
Well, you can hold the opinion that it's bad art or art not to your taste, but I don't think you could hold the opinion that it isn't art.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
