Re:Postmoderinism : Revised quick guide

Subject: Re:Postmoderinism : Revised quick guide
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 11:59:35 EDT


IMM that might be the clearest, most concise explanation of postmoderinsim that
I have read.

the boundary references that are usually present in PM explanations (ie
qualifications so as to avoid dispute regarding other PM definitions), dissolve
into the whole of the explanation.

2 cents for what its worth


From eliot Handelman>>

> I'm trying to help clarify a few topics in musical postmodernism offering
> a (of course) idiosyncratic interpretation. I don't want argue about
> 12-tone music.
> PM is to me mostly about problems of communication in the light of
> the circumstances of the world we inhabit. It's not about a style.
> One important issue is that whereas the world *is* going somewhere,
> we're at the beginning of the most radical social revolution that ever
> happened,
> escalating changes, etc.
> In the Ferrari interview that someone mentioned, Ferrari said:
> "I think 1968 benefitted from our action."
> May 68 is in fact THE event that defines the enlightenment impulse in all
> later discussions of postmodernism, especially when french writers are
> concerned.
> This was still the moment when artists "were the antennae of the race,"
> in Pound's phrase.
> By making your little noises you were somehow helping to create a new
> feeling about the
> kinds of freedoms that were possible and which should be taken (see also
> F.'s comments
> about a workshop realization of Tautologos 3 "I am free, you know ...")
> and which eventually WERE taken.
> Postmodernism, in some (I think important) ways, means "post-68".
> One paradox of postmodernism is that in many ways art DID succeed in its
> social views about creative liberation. Everyone can now be an artist on
> their
> own terms and find their own public. This was totally not true even in
> Ferrari's day -- the GRM said about "presque rien 1": "it wasn't music."
> Of course F laughs about this, as do we, because how can it not be music
> if someone
> says it is? Do we require anything more? I may not like it ... but to
> challenge its
> ontology --- to situate music in some space beyond its actual practice?
> People used to
> talk about "the rules of music," but nowadays we say "the rules of a
> style" and what we
> probably mean has something more to do with Chomsky than with parallel
> fifths.
> So one aspect of postmodernism is : art has become a "social practice", or,
> of course, many social practices.
> At the same time, if I may say so, this is exactly NOT how that part of
> the world
> that is organizing our revolution works. Let's take one example -- the
> protocol.
> Eg, TCP/IP or 'the "information processing paradigm" of cognitive science,
> etc. Standardization can have enormous power to create foundations on
> which things
> can be built.
> Now we get into the "blank slate" problem. If we are, in fact, purely
> social organisms,
> then we have infinite freedom to say who we are and to become whatever
> we want.
> If we are actually complex machines with built-in programs, our freedom is
> illusory or, to put it in a different way: there is such a thing as
> music. It's music
> not because someone says so, but because we can observe the music part
> of the
> brain doing something when we scan ourselves.
> Postmodernism in music means to me: address this discrepancy.
> Of course there are also many ways of thinking about PM as "the end of
> ..." but
> I'm personally much more interested in "the beginning of ..."
> PM is NOT, to me, importantly about "there are 10 million active
> composers at present,
> and all of these different styles, so how to make your mark." NOT.
> PM is likely to be: there is no distinction between producer and
> consumer. Excuse
> me while I kiss the sky.
> Or composing will become a kind of serious research in a way that it
> never was.
> Or new kinds of virtuality.
> Or the ability to confer technical possibilities on everyone.
> These things all have one common issue -- listener-centricity.
> To me that's the single most important issue surrounding the problem of
> postmodernism.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >In other words, 9/13 of postmodernism is still modernism.
> >
> >
> We only ever have intimations of postmodernism -- the quote from the
> Gibson book
> I was mentioning earlier. It's an imaginative sweep at present, not a
> product.
> >Okay, but postmodernism includes a vast swath of everything, making it
> >possible to pick and choose what can be perceived.
> >
> Picking and choosing is a kind of listener-centricity -- remember what
> one of the punks
> around here said a few years ago -- that arranging songs in playlists is
> a creativity of no
> different order than anything else. There's something to that.
> >Of course, I've also made the claim many times that this is a Golden Age of
> >new music.
> >
> >
> Well I totally believe that this is THE time to be living if you're
> interested in music, on
> whatever level, composer, listener, student. There was never a moment
> with greater possibility
> than right now. And the possibilities are going to increase.
> >I'm still typing as your messages come in. Something like, "there's no such
> >thing as a theory of music that isn't, in the first place, a theory of
> >musical quality." The advantage of postmodernism is its charming lack of a
> >theory of music, so that quality never need come into question.
> >
> On my terms, hit song science is postmodern. It's not my kind of theory,
> because it doesn't provide
> any kind of explanation, and it's not a good theory because it has no
> power to predict
> what might interest people other than through the framework of what they
> previously liked, but it is a theory
> in the sense of predicting quality. This kind of thing WILL increase.
> producer-centric free-for-all-ism to my mind is only a transitional
> phase of postmodernism.
> Things are due to change.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>The underlying idea is that we should not allow our social world to
> >>instigate parameters
> >>on truth for us. Instead this must be individually accessible.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You're the intelligence theory guy, so I'll not be able to hold my own in a
> >discussion about how an individual can even be identified as such without
> >being part of a 'social world to instigate parameters on truth'.
> >
> >
> By thinking? By doing research? Do I allow my bosses to tell me what
> problems I'm allowed
> to think about? Am I afraid of not getting tenure? Do my student reviews
> affect me? Am I afraid
> of not getting the grant because what I'm doing doesn't fit in? Am I
> able to evaluate research on my
> own, or should I check to see how many times the article was cited? Can
> I spot the flaw? Does
> it disagree with my own experience? Do I have some way of evaluating the
> plausibility of my
> theorizations other than appealing to a peer-review committee?
> -- eliot

Andrew McCallum

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