While, again, I found this reading to be confusing due to the contradiction of the term "post-modernism," Lyotard's summarization of the word allowed me to think more deeply about it:
"The postmodern would be that which, in the modern, puts forward the unpresentable in presentation itself; that which denies itself the solace of good forms, the consensus of a taste which would make it possible to share collectively the nostalgia for the unattainable; that which searches for new presentations, not in order to enjoy them but in order to impart a stronger sense of the unpresentable [...] The artist and the writer, then, are working without rules in order to formulate the rules of what will have been done" (1984, p. 6).
In essence, there are no regulations in the postmodern art world. To be postmodern means to be "new." However, the term does not strive to conform to anything pre-existing. Thus, if it does not follow convention, it is not apart of consumerism. My question, then, is art still considered beautiful if it does not have a monetary value? Who decides this fate?
In addition, what is considered postmodern art of this generation? I would say memes might work in this case. While many memes strive to relate to the masses, the newest form are incredibly obscure. It seems like the creators, or artists if you will, are trying to push the boundaries of "jokes." There are no rules to the content and all have sprung up rather quickly. The previous generation struggles to understand the art form and yet, day-by-day, current memes are setting an example for future generations to edit and make their own. However, social media allows for users to accrue currency. As a result, would we even consider Instagram to be modern?
Lots of questions can be formed after delving into this reading. Frankly, though, I want to know why postmodernism is contradictory in many ways and so difficult to make sense of.
"The postmodern would be that which, in the modern, puts forward the unpresentable in presentation itself; that which denies itself the solace of good forms, the consensus of a taste which would make it possible to share collectively the nostalgia for the unattainable; that which searches for new presentations, not in order to enjoy them but in order to impart a stronger sense of the unpresentable [...] The artist and the writer, then, are working without rules in order to formulate the rules of what will have been done" (1984, p. 6).
In essence, there are no regulations in the postmodern art world. To be postmodern means to be "new." However, the term does not strive to conform to anything pre-existing. Thus, if it does not follow convention, it is not apart of consumerism. My question, then, is art still considered beautiful if it does not have a monetary value? Who decides this fate?
In addition, what is considered postmodern art of this generation? I would say memes might work in this case. While many memes strive to relate to the masses, the newest form are incredibly obscure. It seems like the creators, or artists if you will, are trying to push the boundaries of "jokes." There are no rules to the content and all have sprung up rather quickly. The previous generation struggles to understand the art form and yet, day-by-day, current memes are setting an example for future generations to edit and make their own. However, social media allows for users to accrue currency. As a result, would we even consider Instagram to be modern?
Lots of questions can be formed after delving into this reading. Frankly, though, I want to know why postmodernism is contradictory in many ways and so difficult to make sense of.
Comments
Post a Comment