I agree with you about Karl. He probably wouldn't think much of the postmodeernists, they are elitists. But he might ally himself withem, because they accept some of his bad economics, or they claim to anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Printable View
I agree with you about Karl. He probably wouldn't think much of the postmodeernists, they are elitists. But he might ally himself withem, because they accept some of his bad economics, or they claim to anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Dictionary.com aside, nihilism to me is the belief that life is essentially meaningless -- grounded in nothingness. Marxist and capitalist ideologues try to invent a purpose in materialism, but they see no reality beyond their (phony) inventions.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I don't disagree with that definition, but materialism is a philosophy. I am not a materialist, but I see validity in it. Your comment that certain idealogues "see no reality beyond their (phony) inventions" can easily be applied to all idealogues, that's what makes them idealogues.Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
“Beckett: Yet I speak of an art turning from it in disgust, weary of puny exploits, weary of pretending to be able, of being able, of doing a little better the same old thing, of going a little further along a dreary road.
Duthuit: And preferring what?
Beckett: The expression that there is nothing to express, nothing with which to express, nothing from which to express, no power to express, no desire to express, together with the obligation to express.”
From The Duthuit Dialogues
Yes, it has no use. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a value.
Besides, whose culture is it detrimental to, Virgil?
This entire dialogue is one of my favourite passages of Beckett. No smiley is adequate to convey my pleasure.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
Or you could say, the fact that it doesn't have an immediately apparent use doesn't mean it doesn't have one at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
And which postmodernism are we talking about anyway? I'm surprised that this thread's gone this far without any attempt to define terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
Joseph Conte in 'Unending Design - The Forms of Postmodern Poetry' posits two types of postmodernism, one a reaction against modernism, seeking to return to pre-modernist artistic conventions (e.g. the classical architecture of Quinlan Terry, or perhaps the work of young American novelists like Dale Peck and Jonathan Franzen who repudiate the experiments of modernism) and the other accepting modernism, but repudiating some of its certainties. I can't say more about the second because I'm barely sure what it is - I've tried to figure it out and I've started a thread on it as it pertains specifically to literature. As far as I can tell, the boundaries are pretty blurred or nebulous, which may be part of the point. Conte's (excellent) book cites objectivist poets such as Louis Zukofsky writing as early as the thirties as postmodernists. Other writers I'm fairly sure fit the bill include Pynchon, Kathy Acker and John Ashbery, but I'm never entirely sure why.
Modern: Of, or pertaining to the present.
Post- (prefix): After in time or order.
Hence Post-modern: After the present. In the future in other words.
So post-modernism hasn't happened yet. It might have a meaning after all; it just hasn't got one yet. When it does happen, will somebody please let me know and I will comment further upon it - except by then it won't be post-modern at all but post-past.
Facetious: Treating serious subjects with deliberately inappropriate humour; Flippant.
Agreed. I briefly thought of started a movement toward 'pretermodernism'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
Humannature, Mananimal
I apologize if I was interpreted to mean either of two things:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
(a) post modern art (fiction, poetry, music etc.) - the artist has the perogative to create whatever theme and vision he so chooses; we the responder to the art can make our personal judgements and evaluations.
(b) post modern theory as a philosophic endeavor - this is a credible philosophic line of thought, and if philosphers, God bless their hearts, find value to this, they should keep debating and discussing it.
As I've made clear elsewhere, I have a problem with it's application to understanding literature and art in general. Somewhere on another thread someone who shall be left unnamable (please excuse me; I've been wanting to use that pun for a long time ;) ) asked if all interpretations of a work were correct and if some interpretations were wrong. He answered his own question by saying some interpretations could be wrong; not all interpretations are correct. Yes, I agreed. The application of post modern criticism is by its own definition a projection of ideology into a text. I think that that leads to a poor understanding of a work. I was also asked somewhere, why am I offended by post modernism. I'm not offended by post modernism the theory per se, but I am offended by critics of any stripe who redefine the work as they want to see it.
i agree!!
what is that? that is what.
But, Virgil, as I think a few people may have already said...postmodern criticism isn't about projecting ideology onto a text - especially not by its own definition. Its own definition, to the extent that the efforts of so many different critics and theorists can be reduced to one defining principle anyway, which is really dubious, is that all texts are already ideological.
**Face turns blue.**
Au contraire, postmodern critics impose their idealogy on a text. That isn't necessarily bad, if it is done well, but too often it means that someone will use a text as a vehicle for pushing idealogy that is not in the text, claiming that it is in the text. Which brings up semiotics as applied to interpretation. In semiotic theory every sememe implies all other sememes, thus a text implies the rest of the world. The question when interpreting a text is whether one is interpreting the text or a text that is implied by the original text. It can be amusing to interpret a text in a way that is barely connected with the original text, but it isn't useful, but there are literary works that demand interpretation and in which the author didn't give a clear indication of meaning. One example that comes to mind in Coleridge's "Kubla Khan". I wrote an interpretation of it last Fall in which the poem is basically about sexual intercourse - the second stanza describes the act, the third stanza reflects on it and is a plan to write a poem about it, and the first stanza sets the scene. That poem is sometimes interpreted as a discussion of poetic creation and sometimes as a dream of unconnected images. I don't know which interpretation is correct, i.e., what Coleridge intended, but I can see validity in each of those interpretations, but I think that my interpretation fits the text better. I did not impose meaning on the poem, I extracted meaning from the poem. A postmodern critic would be more likely to impose meaning on the poem.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
With all due respect, PeterL, and interesting as your material sounds, nothing in it has anything to do with proving your point. All you do is state it at the beginning and then reiterate it at the end.
And gave an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
I just realized that you probably aren't acquainted with semiotics, the study of signs and the interpretation of signs. Everything would make more sense if you were acquainted with that study.
I know enough to understand your example, but I don't see how it backs up your argument. You seem to be talking about a kind of game of interpreting texts to say things they manifestly didn't mean. If that acknowledgement is being made, it's hardly going to make the interpretation stick. It's also a somewhat localised example that doesn't prove that anything like all postmodern critics are doing this.