Essay, Research Paper
In a universe of psychotic beliefs, semblances, allusions and practical worlds, but besides of constructed worlds and of? deconstructed? textualities, the agencies of representation, the marks, have dissolved in the on-going procedure of infinite semiosis. The crisis of representation is the apprehensiveness of a universe in which the marks have lost their power to stand for anything. Where is the structural foundation of text in a web of hypertextuality, precisely what is this structural land for postmodernism to be?
Jean Francois Lyotard argues that the? station? in postmodern has ever existed, that modernness ever contained minutes of postmodernism. From early architecture onwards mankind seldom rebuilds a infinite but? generates a multiplicity of little transmutations in the infinite it inherits? ( Specifying the postmodern ) . This sequence is reliable upon earlier periods whether imperfect or regressive. Lyotard claims that chronology is wholly modern and if postmodern means interrupting off by burying or quashing the yesteryear, so we would be reiterating it and non get the better ofing it. His 2nd point in distinguishing modern and postmodern is contained within the thought of advancement? rooted in the certainty that the development of the humanistic disciplines, engineering, cognition and autonomy would be profitable to mankind as a whole? ( Specifying the postmodern ) . Yet what is the topic to be emancipated between the 19th and twentieth centuries and earlier periods and surely release is excessively be held by finds, establishments and endeavor every bit good.
Lyotard farther inquiries Auschwitz in relation to modernness as empirical and Utopian. Then there is the advancement of scientific discipline and its ensuing? complexification? ; the ability to ramify, intercede, memorise and synthesise every object is seen more as an duty instead than emancipation. His 3rd statement is related to the looks of idea, for illustration art and the avant garde. It is seemingly to mankind? s alleviation that avant gardism is over because of its rigorous construction and military intensions. Yet was it non the plants of such creative persons such as Manet, Duchamp and Newman that paved the manner for others, were their presuppositions of modernness taken into consideration? Surely we should non see postmodernism as an onslaught on our failed efforts therefore taking to the modern neuroticism and Western schizophrenia which I will subsequently speak about. Lyotard reckons postmodernity is non a procedure of? coming back or blinking back, feeding back, but of analysing anamnesing, of reflecting. ? ( Specifying the postmodern ) . Thus it is a demand of contemplation and apprehension, but as a whole bash we have a linguistic communication that can weave us together towards enlightment in realisation of our postmodernity. Apparently non, Lyotard grounds that postmodernism are an? disbelief towards meta-narratives. ? . There is no such thing as a meta-language, meta-narrative or meta-theory through which all things can be connected or represented. This crisis needs to urgently be addressed since by reprobating such interpretative impressions of world we make? war on entirety? which so consequences in the power discourse theory by Foucoult and the atomization of linguistic communication by Lyotard.
Therefore, harmonizing to Harvey this branches into two theories that are closely related. Briefly Foucoult grounds that there is? no dealingss of power without opposition? we therefore can non get away from the power-knowledge relation in non-repressive ways. Foucoult acknowledges that we must all? explore and construct upon the unfastened qualities of human discourse, and at that place by intervene in the manner cognition is produced and constituted at the peculiar sites where a localised power discourse prevails? . ( The status of Postmodernity )
Harvey recognizes that Lyotards Language games in which each of us have separate codifications depending on the state of affairs we find ourselves along the changeless flux of Language itself refers to a certain power-knowledge production in communicating itself and should be pinpointed within a heterogeneousness of linguistic communication games and hence with greater flexibleness of vocalizations, possibly true communicating can take topographic point every bit long as we realize the alteration in flux of linguistic communication. To which certain establishments will ne’er acknowledge because they have been erected to specify merely certain points of power-knowledge production. Thereby giving rise to smaller establishments? ? Let us do war on entirety? . At this point one recognizes that postmodernism is fragmented by linguistic communication, by power and difference of metaphysics and if world must be considered as a whole so how do we stand for a entirety through postmodernism.
Frederic Jameson, whom portrays Foucoult as a postmodern theoretical discourse, since he is nether categorized as sociologist, nor philosopher, nor literary critic but a generalised mixture of idea. Jameson? s important characteristics towards the designation of postmodernism in? Postmodernism and consumer society? are termed medley and schizophrenic disorder. In an luxuriant prose he inquiries that which lampoon mocks & # 8211 ; manner and individualism in regard to the? lingual norm? . Yet what if lingual norm did non be and in this postmodern universe we fragmented to the extreme scenario where each person became a lingual island. What so does lampoon mock in a universe of such rich diverseness and heterogeneousness? Parody becomes weak and no thirster mocks but mimics into? address of a dead linguistic communication? .
Jameson argues that either the? decease of the topic? ( individuality ) is genuinely? dead? due to globalization, corporate capitalist economy, bureaucratisms in concern every bit good as province ; the modernist aesthetic of the older businessperson person is dead. Or that it was a myth that individualism ne’er existed at all in which we fooled ourselves by some philosophical and cultural bewilderment. Either theories result in this? decease of the topic? which raises the inquiry once more ; what are so stand foring as creative persons and authors of this postmodern period? Are we left with medley, have oning of dead masks and imitation of old manners that we one time mocked, or is the new message of art the failure to stand for the new whilst imprisoned in the yesteryear?
Could this art be collage/montage, Derrida reckons this is the primary signifier of postmodern discourse. Its heterogeneousness of that ( be it painting/architecture/writing/photography/textiles ) stimulates us. In which each component? breaks the continuity or the one-dimensionality of discourse and leads needfully to a dual reading: that of the fragment perceived in relation to its trial of beginning or that of the fragment as incorporated into a new whole, a different entirety? ( The Condition of Postmodernity ) . I must stress upon Derrida? s? different entirety? , for it is a entirety that recognizes elements of Foucault? s power-discourse theory and Lyotards linguistic communication games. Taking into consideration, Lyotards statement that? modernness? has ever had its? station modern? minutes so is non the art of John Heartfield a postmodern onslaught on power, on atomization, on linguistic communication and entirety and if so so certainly hope and strength of the minority in a clip of a Holocaust is perceived as a valorous effort to fight against the complexness instead than as a self-contradictory representation when discussed today.
? There is nil causeless about Heartfields composings. The rapacious animate being, skull and the goon, the skeleton and the midnight landscape, the serpent, the graveyard and the mediaeval architecture all echo the traditional iconography of German, non to state Western European art. ? . ( beyond art ) .
Using a knife of intertextuality, Heartfield merges the iconography of modern militarism and that of engineering and commercialism.
Yet is there a point in dissecting what is schizophrenic in the first topographic point. Postmodernism insist we can non draw a bead on to any incorporate representation of the universe, or image it as a entirety, so how do we move coherently with the remainder of world? Is the postmodernist answer an semblance, deemed to draw a bead on farther dissolution of any solid community. Or is the reply the? local determinisms? , in which we enter little incongruous universes like that of Blue Velvet oppugning which is world and which is truth. This unhealthy preoccupation with the atomization and instability of linguistic communication, discourses and representation can be seen as schizophrenic, a development from the paranoia of modernism? Jameson harmonizing to Harvey, sees Ts
? a lingual upset, a dislocation in the signifying concatenation of intending that creates a simple sentence. When the signifying concatenation catchs, so? we have schizophrenia in the signifier of a debris of distinguishable and unrelated signifiers. ? . ( The Condition of Postmodernity )
Are these the forms that postmodernisms are occupied with? The surface significances or visual aspects instead than the root significances and disappearings? By interrupting down the signifying concatenation are we so left with a spiral of eternal present minutes of fluctuating alterations where nil can be deemed anchorable? If this is so, so in our intervention of the nowadays of which Lyotard has described as
? the grade nothing of modern-day civilization? ; ? one listens to reggae, watches a western, eats McDonalds nutrient for tiffin and local culinary art for dinner, wears Paris aroma in Tokyo and retro apparels in Hong Kong? . ( A Concise Glossary of Cultural Theory )
How so do we handle the yesteryear or the hereafter? Must we see the past as adult males ineffectual quest of enlightment and the hereafter as a farther disconnected spiral of pluralism? There seems to be small effort to prolong continuity of values, beliefs or even incredulities when discoursing the postmodernist status, everything seems questionable.
This prostration of clip and compulsion with instantaneity can be traced along a steadfast line of cultural production. Harvey negotiations about the changeless? re-emphasis of fugitive qualities of modern life. ? ( The Condition of Postmodernity ) Therefore with new engineerings such as multimedia our significances can be directed easy across the multitudes, diminishing the spread between popular civilization and cultural production. Although this has been go oning for some clip now, Dadaism and Surrealism urgently tried to shut the spread between high art/low art in hunt of all art to be a pursuit of ground. As Jameson mentioned earlier, we have covered our Humanistic disciplines whether? low? or? high? into medley, borrowing from other texts and manners across a multicultural discourse of genres until all civilizations, all past, all present and even hereafter is broken down. Popular civilization is now a? self-ironic eclectic method and awareness? in any signifier of look. I can now compare this to the clever and extremely kitsch movie, which is in contradiction of being popular although without gustatory sensation, which I feel has succeeded by its huge cynicism and postmodernist oppugning? Trey Parker, the Godhead of the grownup sketch relies on our cognition of current fugitive events in order to utilize lampoon against the multitudes. He introduces Sadam Hussein as Satan? s lover, Bill Clinton as a robotic go-between, the crowds as paranoid sheep, the pedagogues as schizophrenic, different civilizations as hapless, the Resistance as agnostic and Capitalism as our God. His temper and graphics is based on photomontage/collage, repeatedly mocking station modernist conditioning whilst incorporating its supposed instructions. The chief subject of the film is based on the contention of its being. He plays on the parental counsel concerns with the launching of the sketch movie, since there was contention in America about kids watching South Park due to its cute graphics yet brasslike content. This clearly plays on our dual crisis of disconnected discourse. South Park relies on our conditioning in which we have no true representation of ourselves and therefore can merely express joy or be outraged by its lampoon. Please take into its history that the lampoon Trey Parker uses is non concerned with the? norm? but the deficiency of? norm? . It is the postmodern credence of futility that has the multitudes express joying and the serious creative persons shouting.
Allan Sekula nevertheless is neither shouting nor express joying but pleading and shouting at this MTV credence ;
? these crises are rooted in the materially determined inequalities of advanced capitalist economy and will merely be resolved practically, by the battle for an reliable socialism! ? ( Leveling Modernism )
He describes how creative persons are gifted with the freedom of look and how we must educate the working category towards a non-formalist semiologies of media. In his Hagiographas he clearly differentiates between? them? and? us? . ? Them? are the Capitalist, the Monopoly, the Marketers and Advertisers of the planetary hereafter. He warns? us? that? High art is quickly going a specialised settlement of the monopoly capitalist media. ? The? us? are those who refuse Postmodernism, its Art, its manner, its broad bewilderment. Yet Sekula praises Heartfield for his? deconstruction of images? even though Heartfield is good known as a postmodern creative person as discussed before. Is Sekula beliing himself, I personally would non believe so. My logical thinking is that harmonizing to Jameson? postmodernism replicates or reproduces? reinforces? the logic of consumer capitalist economy? By this he refers to multinational capitalist economy and globalization in which their power has really frequently ruined the cloth of society yet their merchandises or services are someway deemed necessary because of deficiency of competition which is a consequence of their monopoly. Yet if Postmodernism works as a signifier of apery so would non? the critical, negative, contestory, insurgent, oppositional art work in stand foring the opposition of that logic?
Sekula although differing with postmodernism is portion of the oppositional apery of postmodernism. This would besides associate back to Foucoults? power discourse? theory. Sekula is shouting for? an art that paperss monopoly capitalisms inability to present the conditions of a to the full human life. ? Although he acknowledges that a representation must happen he realizes that it would be of an? deficient status for the transmutation of society? . Sekula ends in hope whilst the universe continues to commodify all that is at that place, unluckily that will include the motion of art and its representation of commodification.
In replying the inquiry: what is postmodernism? Lyotard discusses knowledge straying into trade good in the same conference as art, he talks of wisdom gyrating into transnational corporations and power the development of cognition itself.
? Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valorized in a new production: in both instances, the end is exchange. Knowledge ceases to be an terminal in itself, it loses its? usage value? . ? ( Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism? )
Lyotards foreseeable hereafter seems to be closer to our present, information engineering, the cyberspace and globalization seems to be our developed states civilization. Recently Microsoft was taken to tribunal for monopoly of package integrating, Microsoft lost nevertheless an entreaty has been made, who knows how long this will last. Lyotard grounds that Nation States will be without control of transnational corporations. I will hold to hold ; if modernism has been deemed uncomplete and art is corrupted and commodified now and in bend cognition will closely follow, so is it non every bit clear as H2O that some regulations have been forgotten and will we trouble oneself to recover them. Postmodernism denies itself the? consolation of good signifiers, the consensus of a gustatory sensation which would do it possible to portion jointly the nostalgia for the unattainable. ? ( Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism? )
What we seek seem to be regulations and those regulations seem to be searched for already, we might bury and return but realisation springs to mind that postmodernism is an agitated apprehension of self-contradictory idea and Disneyland is easier to populate in.
Lyotard, Jean Francois Specifying the Postmodern
Harvey, David? The Condition of Postmodernity? in The
Post-Modern Reader by Charles Jencks [ Academy Editions 1992 ]
Jameson, Frederic? Postmodernism and Consumer Society? from E Ann Kaplen ( erectile dysfunction ) Postmodern and its Discontentments
Scharf Aaron? Beyond art? in Art And Photography [ Penguin Books 1986 ]
Brooker Peter Under? Postmodernism? in A Concise Glossary of Cultural Theory [ Oxford University Press Inc..New York ]
Sekula Allan? Leveling Modernism, Reinventing Documentary? Notes on the Politicss of Representation? in Photography against the grain [ Halifax 1983 ]
? South Park? The Movie?
Lyotard, Jean Francois? Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism? ? in The Post-Modern Reader by Charles Jencks [ Academy Editions 1992 ]