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: Coryn Smethurst (corynrrsmethurst@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 01 2005 - 17:45:02 EDT


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
>
>
>
>
>
>



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