This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Any postmodern theory lovers out there???

Well???

I am - but never get anyone to chat to about it!! Is anyone studying it or about to study it?

Pete

(P.S. I'm not going to explain what it is - there are just so many critical approaches to it)

Reply 1

pharmakos

8

ProEvPete

Well???

I am - but never get anyone to chat to about it!! Is anyone studying it or about to study it?

Pete

(P.S. I'm not going to explain what it is - there are just so many critical approaches to it)

What do you want to chat then? Lyotard or Jameson? Postmodern architecture or literature (the word "postmodern" doesn't mean quite the same in these two fields)?

Reply 2

silence

16

i'm not particularly interested in post modernism, but that above reply reminded me of how a friend studying architecture was indeed familiar with some of the critical movements of literature - although they do tend to have different meanings, it was quite amusing when he remarked that poststructuralism was something he'd studied.

Reply 3

ProEvPete

OP

2

I'm in the middle of a book containing the lectures of Jameson during the 80s and 90s - some great arguments.

I'm a supporter of the postmodern rejection of the modernists desire for individual genius - no piece of literature is original but rather is made up of various elements of other pieces of literature.

I'm also a lover of the rejection of the restrictions of the traditional narrative - fragmentation is the key my friends!

Reply 4

pharmakos

8

no piece of literature is original but rather is made up of various elements of other pieces of literature.

For this, you should check Roland Barthes's "The Death of the Author," "From Work to Text" (Image-Music-Text), and S/Z. By reading these pieces, you'll find that the postmodern disregard for the (Romantic) idea of genius in fact derives from post-structuralist theory of language.

Suffice it to look at a quote from Barthes: "a text . . . [is] a multi-dimensioal space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumberable centres of culture" ("The Death of the Author," Image-Music-Text, p. 146).

I'm also a lover of the rejection of the restrictions of the traditional narrative - fragmentation is the key my friends!

Yes, fragmentation is the key. But fragmentation is also a defining feature of modernism. In this sense, postmodernism is the continuation of modernism. Nevertheless, there's a fine line between postmodern and modern fragmentation. For this, see Lyotard's "Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism" (The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge), in which he ascribes Joyce's fragmentation to the postmodern and Proust's fragmentation to the modern. This piece is a must read if you want to get a philosophical rationale for postmodernism.

Reply 5

Sallykins

1

I haven't really done that much study on postmodernism other than Barthes' 'S/Z' and 'The Death of the Author' oh and Foucault; but I am a great lover of deconstruction. Bring on the binary opposites Derrida!

Reply 6

ProEvPete

OP

2

Id have to disagree that postmodernism is the continuation of modernism - I see it as rather a rejection of modernism, a reaction against it. I appreciate your point on fragmentation - but one element of modernism was the search of the complete piece of work - the work of 'genius' that defined the writer's original and undeniable talent (in the eyes of the modernist literary critic.

Yeah Ive read Barthes 'Death of the Author' - ive used it in many an assignemt and significantly my final assessent for my degree.

Regarding deconstruction - Im also incredibly interested in the theories of deconstruction (again I'd highlight it as another example of a reaction against modernism) - the deconstruction of the 'self' in 20th century literature I feel is one of the main issues regarding contemporary lit (see American Psycho - Fight Club etc) and it could be argued that it is linked to contemporary society (especailly American society)

Reply 7

mrteacher

1

this conversation sounds surreal

Reply 8

silence

16

ProEvPete

I'm a supporter of the postmodern rejection of the modernists desire for individual genius - no piece of literature is original but rather is made up of various elements of other pieces of literature.

eliot - the wasteland: in my opinion this is both elements of other pieces of literature and individual genuis. perhaps it's unique in this aspect; however, although being one of the main (initial) achievements of the modernist movement, it is of such greatness and innovation that anything to follow or emulate it might indeed lack the individual genuis. individual genuis within a movement, apart from perhaps those at its start, might prove difficult to find.

Reply 9

Tyler Durden

17

ProEvPete

I appreciate your point on fragmentation - but one element of modernism was the search of the complete piece of work - the work of 'genius' that defined the writer's original and undeniable talent (in the eyes of the modernist literary critic.

Is that not a rather circular argument? On the one hand you accept that modernist literature has the "fragmentation" so w*nked over by postmodernists, but on the other hand you judge the texts themselves by the standards of the literary critics of the time they were written (even though you have inverted the process and made it seem as though writers wrote for critics... which strikes me as unlikely). If you want to take a postmodernist stance and reject the genius of Joyce then feel free (you might look a little silly...) But you should be consistent in your arguments; either you look at a text or work of art from a postmodern perspective (and counter the arguments for Joyce or Picasso as genius) or you judge it as part of a historical context and accept that their contemporaries thought highly of them etc. And if you argue that for a text to be postmodern it has to be a product of the past few decades then you must realise that limiting your study to that is shooting yourself in the foot. But if you widen the scope then you face the problem of applying your critiques to historical moments at which it would have been impossible to predict the onslaught of garbled postmodernism.

Reply 10

ProEvPete

OP

2

englishstudent

either you look at a text or work of art from a postmodern perspective (and counter the arguments for Joyce or Picasso as genius) or you judge it as part of a historical context and accept that their contemporaries thought highly of them etc.

Hi thanks for your reply.

I dont see any work of art as 'genius' (hece the fact that I put it in quotations marks originally in one of my previous posts) - the word itself is so over used that really it holds no value anymore in my opinion - we could get into a signs/systems argument but I just thought Id clear that up - I maybe should have said that earlier.

Anyway regarding Joyce - isnt one of the major strong points of his most regarded piece of work 'Ulysees' the fact that it has a fragmented narrative? I appreciate the work of Picasso - Im a big fan of cubism - again another example of deconstruction in my opinion.

Of course every piece of work has to judged as part of a historical context - I just disagree with the fundamental elements of modernism - the desire for individuality - the elitist perception of genius etc.

I enjoyed your post! :smile:

Reply 11

silence

16

ProEvPete

I just disagree with the fundamental elements of modernism - the desire for individuality - the elitist perception of genius etc.

do qutie a few critical movements (postmodernism included) not involve individual critics (rather than artists/writers) attempting to come up with their own theories which, although perhaps influenced or based on the thoughts of other critics, are quite individualised?

Reply 12

ProEvPete

OP

2

My point was that this desire for individuality is the artists desire for their piece of work to be aesthetically individual.

Reply 13

pharmakos

8

Id have to disagree that postmodernism is the continuation of modernism - I see it as rather a rejection of modernism, a reaction against it. I appreciate your point on fragmentation - but one element of modernism was the search of the complete piece of work - the work of 'genius' that defined the writer's original and undeniable talent (in the eyes of the modernist literary critic.

In Lyotard, postmodernism is less a rebellion against modernism than both a derivative of and a departure from modernism; that the line between modernism and postmodernism is not necessarily restricted to the supersession of historical periods. As he says of the paradoxical nature of the postmodern at the very end of his article "Answering the Question": “Post modern would have to be understood according to the paradox of the future (post) anterior (modo)” (p. 81). In other words, a text is not always either modern or postmodern, but can be both modern and postmodern. This is testified by the fact that he uses Joyce and Proust—while both are generally pigeonholed as modern writers--to illustrate the fine line between modern and postmodern aesthetics.

Proust, according to Lyotard, puts forth the unpresentable with concern for telling, the signified, wholeness, and thus his work turns out to be unified and closed: The literary institution that Proust inherits from Balzac and Flaubert “is admittedly subverted . . . in that the diegetic diachrony, already damaged by Flaubert, is here put into question because of the narrative voice. Nevertheless, the unity of the book, . . . even if it is deferred from chapter to chapter, is not seriously challenged” (p. 80). By contrast, Joyce is concerned only about showing, the signifier, and as such his work remains—both substantively and formally—incomplete and open: “Joyce allows the unpresentable to become perceptible in his writing itself, in the signifier. The whole range of available narrative and even stylistic operators is put into play without concern for the unity of whole, and new operators are tried (p. 80). Also, while in Proust “the form, because of its recognizable consistency, continues to offer to the reader or viewer matter for solace and pleasure,” the form in Joyce “denies itself the solace of good forms” and, more importantly, “searches for new presentations, not in order to enjoy them, but in order to impart a stronger sense of the unpresentable” (p. 81).

The above passage is quoted from my own article "(Post)Modern Godard: Vivre sa vie," published on the journal Synoptique: http://www.synoptique.ca/core/en/articles/leon_godard/#fn7

Reply 14

Da Bachtopus

12

ProEvPete

My point was that this desire for individuality is the artists desire for their piece of work to be aesthetically individual.

I thought that was an assumption necessary in accepting your point proper, which was that such notions of 'individuality' are deceptive. It is one thing to claim that Modernist artworks are intended as a reification of the talents of their artists; it is another to question the idea of 'talent' altogether, which I think is what you seek to do.

ProEvPete

one element of modernism was the search of the complete piece of work - the work of 'genius' that defined the writer's original and undeniable talent (in the eyes of the modernist literary critic.)

You rely too heavily on this gloss of Modernism, I think. Yes, you say "one element" here, but in an earlier post you describe the "fundamental elements of modernism" as "the desire for individuality" &c. I get the impression that you're trying to characterise in a few broad strokes an international, multifaceted movement (not that it was ever united), spanning ~1890-1950, as a continuation of the Romantic sensibilty. I'm not willing to accept this, because it strikes me as reductive. Joyce for one attacks with savage irony the Romantic conception of genius in Stephen Dedalus.

Who or what is "the modernist literary critic"? Eliot or Pound, I suppose, though this smacks again of a straw-man argument. Isn't it implicit in 'Tradition and the Individual Talent' that an author is in a dialectical relationship with the Tradition; that is, he is "catalyst", and whenever he speaks most individually, at that same time the voices of the Tradition assert themselves most powerfully? [I'm paraphrasing from memory, so that might be a bit off]. Again, I think you're being reductive.

I hope pharmakos has complicated things nicely for you :wink:

I’m struck by his use of the word “open”, which reminds me of Eco’s book ‘The Open Work’. I find it a far more lucid take on the whole author/reader issue than that notorious Barthes essay.

Reply 15

ProEvPete

OP

2

Da Bachtopus

You rely too heavily on this gloss of Modernism, I think. Yes, you say "one element" here, but in an earlier post you describe the "fundamental elements of modernism" as "the desire for individuality" &c. I get the impression that you're trying to characterise in a few broad strokes an international, multifaceted movement (not that it was ever united), spanning ~1890-1950, as a continuation of the Romantic sensibilty. I'm not willing to accept this, because it strikes me as reductive. Joyce for one attacks with savage irony the Romantic conception of genius in Stephen Dedalus.

Yeah Id appreciate that point. Again in my defence Id saythat this is an internet forum - and with the lack of literary theory discussions I didnt expect these posts - but its great that there are people out there who do have opinions.

Without doubt every literary movement, either consciously or not, is multifaceted as you say - it is easy to argue of many diffierent and contrasting modernisms - yet there are certain fundamental qualities that they share that ultimately defines modernism. And why is that? Well because literary movements are instrinsically linked to their social context - i.e. undoubtedly these movements are influenced by society and I would hope that also these literary movements influence society.

Reply 16

Da Bachtopus

12

ProEvPete

there are certain fundamental qualities that they share that ultimately defines modernism.

I'd say that the way in which people use the term 'Modernism' defines its meaning, but that's beside the point. I disagree with you about what those "fundamental qualities" are: I don't think you can get away with saying that "one element of modernism was the search of the complete piece of work - the work of 'genius' that defined the writer's original and undeniable talent".

And why is that? Well because literary movements are instrinsically linked to their social context - i.e. undoubtedly these movements are influenced by society and I would hope that also these literary movements influence society.

Does "social context" really mean anything when you use it in such a vague fashion? 1890-1950 is quite a long time. Europe is quite big, and certainly heterogeneous. Yes, you can talk about the social background to, say, Ibsen's drama, and to Joyce's 'Dubliners', but you're more likely to find 'intrinsic links' between the two in the fact that Joyce read and worked under the influence of Ibsen, than in whatever similarities you can detect between Ireland and Norway at the turn of the century. I don't intend to suggest that literature is entirely independent of the societies in which it is produced; rather, I'm wary that you seem to think that "fundamental qualities" are determined just by "social context", which is itself just as multifaceted as Modernism.

Reply 17

ProEvPete

OP

2

Da Bachtopus

I'd say that the way in which people use the term 'Modernism' defines its meaning, but that's beside the point. I disagree with you about what those "fundamental qualities" are: I don't think you can get away with saying that "one element of modernism was the search of the complete piece of work - the work of 'genius' that defined the writer's original and undeniable talent".

I'd disagree with you there. I think that these modernist characteristics are valid points. One of the main objectives of modernist writers was the desire to produce the 'complete' piece of work' - the aesthetic masterpiece in their eyes (Wilde, early Mansfield etc). Certain modernist writers did have an elitist view of literature and the arts (wilde again) and certainly the supporters of high modernism promoted a high aesthetic consciousness ('art for art's sake') - although on the other hand certain 19th cenutry and early 20th century Russian literature of Tolstoy and Chekhov did blur the boundaries between the aesthetic and the instrumental objectives of lit from this period.

Da Bachtopus

Does "social context" really mean anything when you use it in such a vague fashion? 1890-1950 is quite a long time. Europe is quite big, and certainly heterogeneous. Yes, you can talk about the social background to, say, Ibsen's drama, and to Joyce's 'Dubliners', but you're more likely to find 'intrinsic links' between the two in the fact that Joyce read and worked under the influence of Ibsen, than in whatever similarities you can detect between Ireland and Norway at the turn of the century. I don't intend to suggest that literature is entirely independent of the societies in which it is produced; rather, I'm wary that you seem to think that "fundamental qualities" are determined just by "social context", which is itself just as multifaceted as Modernism.

I think youve misunderstood the point there. The fact that they are both pieces of work from the Modernist period doesnt mean that they are instrinsically linked - the fact is that their individual social contexts are intrinsically linked to the individual pieces of work.

Reply 18

Da Bachtopus

12

ProEvPete

The fact that they are both pieces of work from the Modernist period doesnt mean that they are instrinsically linked - the fact is that their individual social contexts are intrinsically linked to the individual pieces of work.

Perhaps I shouldn't have quoted your 'intrinsic linking'. You implied that similarities between modernist texts from different countries and periods could be accounted for by their being linked to their social context; this suggests that there is one social context broad enough to encompass two such texts, and it was with such a vague context that I took issue.

Reply 19

icedout

1

Read 'Postmodernism and the Other: New Imperialism of Western Culture' by Ziauddin Sardar. Even if you don't agree with it all, you'll get another perspective on the much-feted 'postmodern'.

Amazon.com

Postmodernism is often presented as a theory of liberation that promotes pluralism and gives representation to the marginalized peoples of the non-West and Other cultures. This book offers an examination of postmodernism from a non-Western perspective. It argues that the claims of postmodernism are a sham. By making a systematic assessment of the main spheres of postmodernism - from philosophy, art and architecture to film, television, pop music and consumer lifestyles and new age religions - it sets out to reveal that, contrary to commonly-held notions, postmodernism in fact operates to further marginalize the non-West and confound its aspirations. In this outspoken testimony it is asserted that, while there is superficial reference to the Other, the people of the non-West are actually redundant in the postmodern present and irrelevent to its future. The book offers ways in which the non-West can counter the postmodern assault and survive with their histories, identities and cultures intact.

Any postmodern theory lovers out there???

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you