i've been looking for a good definition of postmodernism for awhile, and all i can find is that nobody wants to define it. everybody seems to have their own different idea of what it means, and they ramble on for pages about it.
overall, sources have told me that modernism was a sort of revolt against the art before it - artists were using their art, with a heavy focus on aesthetics, to convey new personal ideals (which challenged the conventional ideals) to reform society. it seems as if postmodernism took the idea of breaking boundaries and deconstructing people's conception of 'art' and revolted against the modernist movement by focusing on the idea behind the art, rather than the aesthetic of the art itself.
to me, the terms themselves are kind of silly. it's like creating a movement called present-ism. well, that movement is inevitably boundary-less, since the present is a rolling point in time. thus, the larger movement in not a new one, just a new sense of consciousness within it. what is modern is constantly changing as new developments are made. now how can you be post-present? are post-modernists suggesting that they're ahead of their own time and that their avant guard approach to art is carrying the world forward toward them? or are they acknowledging that the modernist movement was a significant movement, and suggesting that they're extending forward with that same movement? maybe both (or neither, of course)
so, back to nobody being able to define the movement; is that the point? is this a movement against movements? it seems as if that would've started with modernism, however, postmodernist then decided to do create their own movement that claims to exist beyond modernism at a definite point in an infinite structure (if that makes any sense...) are they challenging the concept of time, infinitude, and perception in general? is this their point; is the movement about creating concepts to challenge conventional concepts? are they challenging the inclination to lump artists in a big group suggesting that they're all doing the same thing? are they trying to regain their own individuality by killing the idea of a 'movement' or genre?
if that's all the case, postmodernists probably wouldn't even want to call themselves postmodern, and postmodernists as a whole probably don't share a similar goal. who created the title itself? art critics and historians?
is "postmodernism" just a term created by art historians who want to fuck with our heads the way modern artists have been fucking with their heads?
overall, sources have told me that modernism was a sort of revolt against the art before it - artists were using their art, with a heavy focus on aesthetics, to convey new personal ideals (which challenged the conventional ideals) to reform society. it seems as if postmodernism took the idea of breaking boundaries and deconstructing people's conception of 'art' and revolted against the modernist movement by focusing on the idea behind the art, rather than the aesthetic of the art itself.
to me, the terms themselves are kind of silly. it's like creating a movement called present-ism. well, that movement is inevitably boundary-less, since the present is a rolling point in time. thus, the larger movement in not a new one, just a new sense of consciousness within it. what is modern is constantly changing as new developments are made. now how can you be post-present? are post-modernists suggesting that they're ahead of their own time and that their avant guard approach to art is carrying the world forward toward them? or are they acknowledging that the modernist movement was a significant movement, and suggesting that they're extending forward with that same movement? maybe both (or neither, of course)
so, back to nobody being able to define the movement; is that the point? is this a movement against movements? it seems as if that would've started with modernism, however, postmodernist then decided to do create their own movement that claims to exist beyond modernism at a definite point in an infinite structure (if that makes any sense...) are they challenging the concept of time, infinitude, and perception in general? is this their point; is the movement about creating concepts to challenge conventional concepts? are they challenging the inclination to lump artists in a big group suggesting that they're all doing the same thing? are they trying to regain their own individuality by killing the idea of a 'movement' or genre?
if that's all the case, postmodernists probably wouldn't even want to call themselves postmodern, and postmodernists as a whole probably don't share a similar goal. who created the title itself? art critics and historians?
is "postmodernism" just a term created by art historians who want to fuck with our heads the way modern artists have been fucking with their heads?
VIEW 25 of 29 COMMENTS
i'm just starting my work now... sigh
i really need to work it second half of semester.
whatcha watching? whatcha writing?
i hate when that happens. think of it as a blessing though because now you know what you want or need to do different or new.