Post-postmodernism (For the love of God we can't come up with a better name)

I have been reading up on post-postmodernism (seriously is there no creativity left in the academic world that a better name cannot be found?) trying to examine the academic perspective on a gestalt which is changing, amongst the hoi poloi one can see the subtle yet consistent change that is occurring and naturally the arts are starting to reflect it.

Nonetheless Here is a quote which I found to be rather fascinating from david Foster Wallace:

"The next real literary “rebels” in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels, born oglers who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew self-consciousness and hip fatigue. These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naive, anachronistic. Maybe that’ll be the point. Maybe that’s why they’ll be the next real rebels. Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval. The old postmodern insurgents risked the gasp and squeal: shock, disgust, outrage, censorship, accusations of socialism, anarchism, nihilism. Today’s risks are different. The new rebels might be artists willing to risk the yawn, the rolled eyes, the cool smile, the nudged ribs, the parody of gifted ironists, the “Oh how banal.” To risk accusations of sentimentality, melodrama. Of overcredulity. Of softness. Of willingness to be suckered by a world of lurkers and starers who fear gaze and ridicule above imprisonment without law. Who knows. "


Would anyone care to discuss the quote and also their general opinions on Post-postmodernism( you know damn this, that word is truly unbearable, for the sake of elegance let us just refer to the new movement as Carthage in this thread. The word post-postmodernism is at once pathetic, ridiculous and tragic - Carthage on the other hand is entirely respectable)

I don't think post-postmodernism exists. At the same time I don't really recognize the break between modernism and pomo.

I always thought literary periods were given names after they'd taken place.

Man, Wallace has been coming up a lot recently since I picked up Infinite Jest...I find his quote very refreshing. Rebel culture has fallen into a state of dogma that isn't very different from the mainstream society that it was trying to fight back against. It can get very tiring. Going to a punk show looking like a regular dude will get you just as much hostility as going to church dressed like Sid Vicious. And I don't think there's any meaningful difference between calling someone a "square repressed prude" and calling them a "slut."

I agree with his sentiments, basically. I don't know if there's anything the next generation of literary rebels should be...I think it would be nice if they were just themselves, whatever that means...They can be the hipsters Wallace disdains if they want to, or they can be the sort that Wallace calls for. There's more than one way to be genuine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desolation

It can get very tiring. Going to a punk show looking like a regular dude will get you just as much hostility as going to church dressed like Sid Vicious.

---

Hmmm, I don't know about this. Have you ever been to a punk show? I haven't, but I've been to Lenny of death metal shows (which probably have a more extreme crowd) and you see "regular dudes" everywhere. Hell, my50-something dad will go in a tucked in collared shirt and slacks (literally) and he doesn't get so much as a sideways glance. If anything, the crowd likes seeing straight laced people at the show. Now, you're telling me the same thing is going to happen when a guy dressed in black who has long hair, piercings in his face, and barely any skin that isn't tattooed is going to get the same reaction going into a church on Sunday? I find this unlikely.

Well... I don't see the problem with the term. In the visual arts we had Neo-Classicism, Post-Impressionism, Neo-Geo, and Post-Modernism. I think the terms "Post-something" simply defines a movement lacking a clear unified direction that is yet at the same time clearly a break with the period prior. The break with Modernism is absolutely clear in the visual arts... and I suspect not less so in literature. I have often thought that if I were to rename the movement I'd call it "Neo-Mannerism" for the entire movement is "mannered"... and like the art movement known as "Mannerism" it involves a rejection (to a certain extent) and a reassessment... or rather a struggle to come to terms with the period prior (The Renaissance/Modernism)... a period of incredible achievement and optimism.

"The next real literary “rebels” in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels, born oglers who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew self-consciousness and hip fatigue. These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naive, anachronistic. Maybe that’ll be the point. Maybe that’s why they’ll be the next real rebels. Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval. The old postmodern insurgents risked the gasp and squeal: shock, disgust, outrage, censorship, accusations of socialism, anarchism, nihilism. Today’s risks are different. The new rebels might be artists willing to risk the yawn, the rolled eyes, the cool smile, the nudged ribs, the parody of gifted ironists, the “Oh how banal.” To risk accusations of sentimentality, melodrama. Of overcredulity. Of softness. Of willingness to be suckered by a world of lurkers and starers who fear gaze and ridicule above imprisonment without law. Who knows. "

In the traditional visual arts... painting... there has been a push toward a return to certain traditions of "realism"... not so much as rejection of Modernism... but out of a recognition that Modernism just offers one more possibility... no more of less valid that that of the centuries prior. The term "New Old-Masters" has been bandied about... along with an interest in the old system of artistic training ala apprenticeships and artist's ateliers. Undoubtedly, this has been helped by the economic crash and the suspicion that earning an art degree through colleges or universities is not only grossly overpriced... but highly ineffective at transmitting the skills needed by artists. Thus we have have had the glut of "Conceptual Artists" who can't draw better than a third-grader... but can "think deep thoughts" and know how to use the language of "Art Speak" to defend their crap.

I just finished Tom Wolfe's satirical overview of Modernism and Art, The Painted Word. Wolfe's book ends with the rise of Photo-Realism/Super-Realism and he is quite bemused by the outrage of Modernist critics/theorists/theologians who are outraged that the "Philistines" have returned... the "lowest common denominator" of Middle-America. Wolfe is especially bemused by the manner in which Modernists and the avant-garde go out of their way to make sure that they are in every way anti-bourgeois... that they defy and insult the taste of the public... the masses... that they create an art which is light-years beyond the puny intellect of the insensible and tasteless middle-class... and then having succeeded admirably... indignantly lament (without the least sense of the irony involved) that the public doesn't buy their product.

But then... as Bill Watterson in his classic comic strip, Calvin and Hobbes suggested with his usual insight... and in full recognition of the irony involved in the art worldi:

"People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world. As my artist’s statement explains, my work is utterly incomprehensible and is therefore full of deep significance."

Thus when those artists who did return to "realism"... or those who never left... begin to sell well.. it was proclaimed as the "triumph of mediocrity!" Perhaps that is a badge any artist should be proud to wear.

I'll be the blue knight approaching the ivory tower. I already sent a letter to Whitman to see if I can get a copy of one of the good atoms that anyone has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

Have you ever been to a punk show?

---

Of course I have. I grew up in the punk scene in Los Angeles. Most of the punks I've known have been very mild mannered and polite people (this goes doubly for the musicians themselves...I'll always remember Henry Rollins as the very coolest rock star I've ever met), but the extreme punks don't take kindly to anyone they perceive as an "outsider." Things were a lot friendlier in the scene when I had spiky red hair...Although, to be fair, un-ironically wearing a suit jacket to a punk show probably is a bit much.

I think the reason it's different at death metal shows is that metal tends to attract a much wider and more moderate audience, so there's more acceptance of outsiders, even by the extremists. Punk is very strict about its counterculture ethos. The idea is that it's not supposed to just be music that you enjoy, it's supposed to be your entire lifestyle.

The literary world never really embraced the "neo" title that the art and architecture world did, but it seems that this quote is suggesting a form of neo-modernism. And I would tend to agree. The literary world seems to be getting tired of the "literary tricks" epitomized by the oulipo movement, and moving back to a realism that reflects the "values" of our time - as early modernism did.

Modernism sprang from the fact that people grew tired of the Old Victorians: all the frills that adorned the great works of Dickens, Eliot, Hardy &. don't do anything anymore. Similarly, You wouldn't be able to publish another Finnegan's Wake in 2012.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desolation

Of course I have. I grew up in the punk scene in Los Angeles. Most of the punks I've known have been very mild mannered and polite people (this goes doubly for the musicians themselves...I'll always remember Henry Rollins as the very coolest rock star I've ever met), but the extreme punks don't take kindly to anyone they perceive as an "outsider." Things were a lot friendlier in the scene when I had spiky red hair...Although, to be fair, un-ironically wearing a suit jacket to a punk show probably is a bit much.

I think the reason it's different at death metal shows is that metal tends to attract a much wider and more moderate audience, so there's more acceptance of outsiders, even by the extremists. Punk is very strict about its counterculture ethos. The idea is that it's not supposed to just be music that you enjoy, it's supposed to be your entire lifestyle.

---

You're probably right--Punk probably is more about the culture than metal is, which is more about the music (arguably, and that's not meant as an insult or complement to either genre). I remember seeing an interview of Henry Rollins where he said one of the main reasons he wanted to get out of punk rock and Black Flag was the extremist fans, which included neo-nazis (the antithesis of Rollins stands for, ironically).

Should be "hoi polloi" by the way ("the many"; "the crowd")

That just sounds stupid.

As for post-postmodernism, well, post-modernism should have been termed post-modernisms, as it was relatively different everywhere. Modernism is probably the most interesting of these 'isms' in that it is quite a universal phenomenon which is still going on today - this sort of modern sensibility - the literature of which is found everywhere, but in reality is a mere off-shoot of the 19th century's realist work. In that sense the narrative of modernism is the coming to terms with a time so apart from the past that in terms of literature, that there is no possible cohesion through letters - no community of artists who all know each other, no formal movement of representation, no real identity or self - in itself an off shoot of the rise of nationalism. Post-modernism is the bastard child of the lament for the loss of cohesion. In many senses it is what comes after the loss, this in between state.

I think now, being removed by several degrees from the pre-modern world order, we no longer lament it. In that sense, post-modernism is dead, and people do not feel bad being sincere anymore.

as for this need for formal revision - not really. The basic novel has always remained, and most of the surviving canonical post-modern texts are relatively standard in their narration. The more polemic ones are already as abandoned as Gertrude Stein's incomprehensible gibberish.

The novel itself is an exhausted, weak form, which yields itself to repetition and tedium. I don't care if it is post-modern, or modern, or realist, it is all generally the same genre, and all quite similar. American prose in particular is bound to a repetitive scheme - the real post-modern innovators were International - particularly Latin Americans, who were far more creative in their breaking of form (they still managed to write enjoyable prose, unlike many of their American counterparts).

I came across the term post-postmodernism around 17 years ago when I embarked on a life-long journey that involved the study of modernism and postmodernism. I was told that I was already obsolete ('dead on paper'). I don't know. The dominant theme of modernism was the end of civilisation, postmodernism was about disillusionment and what ever comes next- CARTHAGE- well it is better than the alternatives, should deal with an all encompassing dishonesty, the death of the good and and adumbration of total and utter hypocrisy, voluntary or forced. Total death of the good side of human nature. This is dark and disgusting but we need to produce art like Baudelaire's and Lautreamont's, like Kathy Acker's. What else is there? We have died of boredom. Irony helped the postmodernists as dirge was the song of the modernist, what have we got? Plastic smiles and painted happiness purchased at high spiritual and monitory price. The total and utter triumph of the capital and the control it exerts on our lives in every single sphere, what have we got now that we could call the 'authentic mode of being'? We are like the Africans in 19th century who sold their freedom for beads and mirrors.

Not sure what you meant as sounding stupid, but to most it should have been deemed as evident i was mentioning how the OP spelled wrongly the term "hoi polloi" as "hoi poloi" ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

David Foster Wallace:

"The next real literary “rebels” in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels... who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew self-consciousness and hip fatigue. These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naive, anachronistic. Maybe that’ll be the point. Maybe that’s why they’ll be the next real rebels. Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval. The old postmodern insurgents risked the gasp and squeal: shock, disgust, outrage, censorship, accusations of socialism, anarchism, nihilism. Today’s risks are different. The new rebels might be artists willing to risk the yawn, the rolled eyes, the cool smile, the nudged ribs, the parody of gifted ironists, the “Oh how banal.” To risk accusations of sentimentality, melodrama. Of overcredulity. Of softness. Of willingness to be suckered by a world of lurkers and starers who fear gaze and ridicule above imprisonment without law. Who knows. "


Would anyone care to discuss the quote and also their general opinions on Post-postmodernism, you know damn this, that word is truly unbearable, for the sake of elegance let us just refer to the new movement as Carthage in this thread. The word post-postmodernism is at once pathetic, ridiculous and tragic - Carthage on the other hand is entirely respectable)

---

Carthage? Why not call it "new realism"? Who would be the poster boys for this movement? Dickens? Primo Levi? Just read a biography of the latter, he dismissed Proust as "boring", and condemned Beckett for not being clear about what he was complaining about. Ian McEwan was having a go at modernists on Newsnight recently, and backing his kind of "straightforward" novel writing. Is he post-postmodernist?