Re: Quick guide to postmodernism (was: Re: Gibson (was: Re: Computer chicken))


Subject: Re: Quick guide to postmodernism (was: Re: Gibson (was: Re: Computer chicken))
From: bill thompson (innerd00r@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Oct 01 2005 - 20:28:02 EDT


ah, i've read some of lyotard's stuff and like it
quite a bit. wasn't he critiqued for approaching p.m.
'aesthetically'...maybe that's why i like it. i will
check out the specific references though, thanx.

b.

--- Coryn Smethurst <corynrrsmethurst@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:

> Bill
>
> Try Jean-Francois Lyotard for post-Modernism, and
> Kant's Third Critique for
> Modernism.
>
> crrs
>
> on 2/10/05 0:33, Eliot Handelman at
> eliot@generation.net wrote:
>
> > bill thompson wrote:
> >
> >> hi eliot,
> >>
> >> do you have any books that might relate some of
> the
> >> more subtle aspects of p.m. to time-based media
> (sonic
> >> art, but not limited to) that you could
> recommend? or
> >> does anyone else?
> >>
> >> b.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > It's very easy to understand what PM is about in
> music (or
> > "postmusical") terms.
> >
> > Schoenberg was modern. Glass is postmodern. One
> has an inner system of
> > secret codes. The
> > other put his system on the surface. Importantly,
> the result "sounds
> > good." This is because
> > if it sounded bad, that would be a kind of appeal
> to an inner
> > adjustment. In PM there's no such thing
> > as "inner".
> >
> > PM means "we're living in an increasingly
> externalized world." There are
> > certain analogies that
> > can be made with schizophrenia. The main thing
> that happens in
> > schizophrenia is the disintegration
> > of self. In the same way, "life outside" in the PM
> world involves
> > seriously rethinking what
> > we mean by saying "I."
> >
> > There isn't a very clear test to find out whether
> a given work of art is
> > postmodern or
> > not, which suggests that PM is still *a bit* of an
> "inner" topic. In the
> > future, we won;t have to
> > worry about this: the distinctions between "the
> right art" and "the
> > wrong art" will be crystal clear.
> >
> > You can use that as a kind of test by asking the
> following question:
> > "does this art seem to contribute to
> > the idea that art should be unambiguously right?"
> >
> > If it goes off into reality, for example, then the
> answer could be
> > "yes," because if art has to be real
> > then "the wrong kind of art" will seem to be wrong
> because it's not real
> > enough. "Real" here
> > has to mean "physical, embodied reality." The
> imagination is not
> > enough. Verification is required.
> >
> >
> > does that help?
> >
> > -- eliot
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

www.billthompson.org

........................................................................
"The more you think about things the weirder they seem." -Calvin

        
                
______________________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:12 EST