How would you describe the characteristics of postmodern literature? Do you believe that postmodernism has depth, considering it tends to focus on the surface description?
Printable View
How would you describe the characteristics of postmodern literature? Do you believe that postmodernism has depth, considering it tends to focus on the surface description?
Umberto Eco one commented that postmodernism had become useless, because to fans it meant 'things that I like', and to opponents it meant 'things that i don't like'.
Let's have a better and more definite philosophical movement. H0w about "reality"? It will be based on the worls as it actually is, rather than as some people might want it to be.
I feel that, in many ways, postmodern literature shows exactly that. People tend to focus on the surface of things without getting into the very core and meat of who another person is or what things mean. If you walk down the street and look at other people, all you see are their meaningless faces which go in and out of your mind as quick as lightening. There is nothing deeper there unless you actually stop and reflect on each individual. PoMo focuses on the surface of who characters are and allows the reader to dive into the deeper meaning independently. It is almost like meeting a person and, in the beginning, they are just a face and through time and refection, their true self emerges. PoMo displays the person as just a basic character and then, through time, allows the reader to develop them independently.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I don't know that I am necessarily a fan of PoMo for this very reason, but I am trying to give it a chance. I tend to like juicier stories with lots of descriptive writing and deep characters and PoMo literature does the exact opposite.
If we take art for example, Van Gogh's "a pair of shoes" would not be a postmodern work of art.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-96exDAi0gr...r-of-shoes.jpg
This image of shoes tells a story deeper than the shoe itself. It tells a time based on the style of shoe, perhaps the occupation of the shoe's wearer, a socio-economic class, etc. The shoes have too much of a story there.
However, on the flip side, Andy Warhols Diamond Dust Shoes would be considered Postmodern because it is simply...shoes. Nothing more. There is not much to be said for the wearer of the shoes or the story behind the shoes. It is surface level. Nothing deeper.
http://images.worldgallery.co.uk/i/p...980-181010.jpg
My question is what can we take from Postmodern literature? What is the purpose of it? How does it apply to our world today? What's the reasoning for it at all? These are things that I wrestle with because many people say that Postmodern literature and art has depth in its own way. I want to know how it does and in what way it does.
if there are fans of Postmodern lit, please help me out :)
I like PMLondonderry already. Welcome to the forum!
I'll read over this a little closer tomorrow, when my brain is more awake.
Umberto Eco once commented that "postmodernism" had become useless, because to fans it meant 'things that I like', and to opponents it meant 'things that i don't like'.
Unfortunately, I think Peter is largely correct in that the term "Postmodernism" has never been clearly defined to the point that it might be obviously differentiated from "Modernism". I'm not certain the notion that Post Modernism is limited to the mere surface and lacks depth is a fair assessment... surely not if J.L. Borges, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Italo Calvino, Umberto Eco, Jose Saramago, Anne Carson and others can be counted among the Post-Modernists.
The same holds true for the visual arts. Pop Art is commonly identified as the point of departure from Modernism. Where the Abstract Expressionists and late Modernists held firm to the tradition of "fine art" or "high art" and embraced the necessity of artistic progress or search for the new and fully believed in Romantic notion of the artist as visionary and prophet, the Post-Modernists rejected the dichotomy of "high art" and "low art" and often blurred the boundaries between traditional "high art" and "low art" or popular culture. The Post-Modernists also made free use of irony, satire, and even humor... rejecting the pretentious Romantic notions of the artist as prophet and visionary. Finally, the Post-Modernists had little interest in the continual search for the "new" or novelty, but rather saw the whole of art history as one vast palette from which to pick and choose.
Warhol certainly represents one voice of Post-Modernism... and a shallow voice indeed. But to cite him as representative of the movement is misleading. Any of the following artists were also Post-Modernists:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7027/6...28842bb5_b.jpg
R.B. Kitaj- If Not, Not Kitaj blurred sources from popular culture and art history while confronting issues as profound as Auschwitz and the Nuclear Holocaust.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7034/6...fc708002_z.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7141/6...aa532657_b.jpg
Francis Bacon- Three Studies for a Crucifixion Bacon created icons to the violence and horror of the 20th century drawing upon Renaissance altarpieces, Picasso, film, medical photographs, the photography of Edward Muybridge, photographs of Hitler and Stalin, etc...
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7009/6...7bba4180_z.jpg
Lucian Freud- Portrait, the Big Man A close friend of Francis Bacon and a grandson of Sigmund Freud, Lucian fully rejected the striving for formal innovation and focused upon the human figure. His major predecessors were Rembrandt, Velasquez, and Hals.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7008/6...00baa54de1.jpg
Chuck Close- Self Portrait- An equal master "realist", Close explored the image of humanity as filtered through the mechanical process of photography.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7022/6...6fa4ff07_z.jpg
Ed Paschke- Bluelight- Like Close, Paschke explored the imagery of our world as filtered through the media.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6...81ea16ea_b.jpg
Eric Fischl- New House- Building upon Edward Hopper and film noir, Fischl explored the psycho-sexual world of the American suburbs.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7031/6...40942631_z.jpg
Odd Nerdrum- Seed Protectors- As an art student, Nerdrum struggled with Modernist classmates who rejected his paintings rooted in the techniques of the "old masters". His imagery employs a Mad Max, post-Apocalyptic view of a world that is at once archaic... and modern... in a style that is at one archaic and modern.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7001/6...3a98d399_z.jpg
Antonio Lopez-Garcia- Ice Box- Like Nerdrum, Lopez-Garcia views a world that is at once as old as it is new. His canvases are encrusted and weathered as ancient Roman frescoes... and yet his imagery is of contemporary Spain.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7003/6...5c5e4195_z.jpg
Avigdor Arikha- Shirt- Abandoning the formalist innovations of abstraction and the pretensions of Modernist painting, Arikha gave up painting altogether for 7 years. The close friend of Samuel Beckett eventually returned to painting the small realities of his day to day life, declaring that history is too big... Auschwitz is too big to paint, so "I paint a tomato."
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7152/6...a8c1c236_z.jpg
Aron Wiesenfeld- NorthWest- Begining his career as a cartoonist, Wisenfeld turned to painting bringing a strong sense of "narrative"... one of the elements most rejected by Modernist purists wishing to avoid the "literary" of "illustrational".
Clearly, none of these examples of Post-Modern painting can be easily dismissed as lacking depth or being wholly about surface.
Ultimately the term "Post Modernism" has become meaningless for the simple reason that there is no dominate voice of Modernism against which one may rebel... and there is no dominant voice that represents Post-Modernism vs any number of other "-isms".
Postmodern is just a term that people like throwing about to explain pretentious obscurity.
People take from postmodernism whatever they want to take. people put into postmodernism whatever they want, so t in and of itsself says nothing about the world,Quote:
Originally Posted by PMLondonderry
I've always had a pretty simple, personal definition of what PoMo is, and that just anything that's like modernism, only weirder, or taken to another level. I think it's about as good of a measure as anything else. Pynchon, Vonnegut, some of Borges, even Joyce--all strike me as being within the realm of PoMo.
Thank you very much for a really good explanation. I have been having a hard time really grasping the whole point of Postmodernist theory (probably because you are absolutely right that it is very hard to define concretely.)Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Using the art to explain it was the best tool that was used to explain it to me. While Andy Warhol is a great example, he certainly isn't the representative. He was used as an example only. :)
I can definitely see how the paintings that you presented would be considered Postmodern (and I really don't like any of them. I think Postmodernism and I arent going to get along but I still want to stick with it so I at least can understand it), but Odd Nerdrum- Seed Protectors spoke to me on a much deeper level than the other paintings. Would you say it is postmodern because of the fact that the artist used different techniques instead of focusing on one classical technique?
I think the reason why I can't grasp PoMo with both hands is because it doesnt have a really clear and concrete definition. It's funny that this bothers me because, in my own personal life philosophies, I tend to stay far far away from "defining" things. It's ironic that while I like to blur the lines of definitions to human beings, I can't grasp blurred lines in literary theory!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
When I asked a professor of mine what Postmodern is and what was it trying to prove, she simply said "it's just the way things are" and I sort of stood there lost again. All I can really do, at this point, is read the articles and books and try to come to my own conclusions. It seems to me that its definition is relative entirely to the reader.
To me, something is post modern when the writer is really playing with the reader by pushing the ideas of what literature should be. Really skewed timelines, odd narrative styles, absurdism (that's definitely key to Pynchon and Vonnegut), all are what makes something PoMo. Note that all of these things, except maybe absurdism, can also be seen as modernist, but PoMo really pushes it.
An example of something post modern would be the author inserting himself into the story. Borges did this often, and is probably one of the only authors to actually make it work.
Really helpful insight that I will definitely consider when I have to read PoMo literature. As for authors inserting themselves into the story, I feel that perhaps I will have to use this as a sign of Postmodernism when I read a book that was written during the 1970s-90's when PoMo literature was, arguably, at its height. Since Chaucer also put himself into his stories, I might have a hard time using this as a tool to distinguish between PoMo and modern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
However, it will be interesting to see if this is a tool that any of the authors of the books that I am assigned to read in my Black Literary Postmodernism class will use.
One author who I think has been able to make postmodernism really work for them is Paul Auster. His New York Trilogy for example takes the relatively simple idea of a series of detective stories and twists the whole concept into an analysis of solitude, identity and human obsession.
And yes, in reference to previous comments, he does make an appearance in his own book, right there on page 7.
Part of the problem is that not all critics believe postmodernism even exists. Some would argue that it is just a continuation of modernism and not really distinct in anything other than theme. On the other hand, some maintain not only that pomo exists, but that we are in a post-pomo moment. It's difficult to define what will be the defining features of an era while still living in that moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by PMLondonderry
One thing to consider is the influence of post-structuralist philosophy and psychoanalysis. These emerged in the 50s-80s, and so we have an influx of new ideas about representation, meta-narrative, truth, cognition, and aesthetics that were not available to the modernist. One hallmark of postmodernism is then an artistic representation of these pomo philosophies at work. The other major hallmark, as pointed out by Stlukes, is the break down in distinction between high and low art.
We might also consider the influence of new media: pomo literature is at least partly characterized by the influence of television, cinema, pop music, and increasingly the internet.
Postmodern is just a term that people like throwing about to explain pretentious obscurity.
So where does that leave us when confronting such iconic Modernist works as Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake, Proust's Cantos, T.S. Eliot's Wasteland, the later poems of Yeats, etc?
Indeed... where does that leave with regard to John Donne?
Are we to assume that difficulty is always proof of a pretentious attempt at obscurity... or is it not equally possible that a writer creates for an audience not unlike himself or herself, that an author like Joyce or Eliot is writing for an audience that is just as well-read as themselves?
I'd seen that painting of Nerdrum's several times before, but I'd never noticed that the legs were wrong.
Using the art to explain it was the best tool that was used to explain it to me.
The term "Post-Modernism" was first employed (I believe) in the visual arts... specifically in response to architecture.
I can definitely see how the paintings that you presented would be considered Postmodern (and I really don't like any of them. I think Postmodernism and I arent going to get along but I still want to stick with it so I at least can understand it), but Odd Nerdrum- Seed Protectors spoke to me on a much deeper level than the other paintings. Would you say it is postmodern because of the fact that the artist used different techniques instead of focusing on one classical technique?
If we look at Western art from the 14th century through the late 19th century we find a period of incredible continuity:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7025/6...cff2bbe7_b.jpg
Raphael- Portrait of Baldasare Castiglione (Italian Renaissance/early 15th c.)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7153/6...a261b536_z.jpg
Peter Paul Rubens- Portrait of Susanna Fourment (Belgian/Catholic/early 17th c.)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7147/6...0c3a72edfa.jpg
Rembrandt- Self Portrait (Dutch/Protestant/1659)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7146/6...496ac366_z.jpg
Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin- Self Portrit (French/late 18th century)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7145/6...41c7ca22_b.jpg
Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres-Portrait of Princesse Albert de Broglie (French/mid-19th century)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7003/6...f13fc8fe_z.jpg
John Singer Sargent- Portrait of Miss Helen Duinham (American/late 19th c.)
While someone well-versed in art history will be able to discern just when each of the above paintings was produced by various stylistic clues, the reality is that across this entire 500+ year span the stylistic similarities from one major artist to the next remain far greater than the differences. The reason behind this is that for the whole of this period, artist embraced the notion that the highest goal of art was to present a "window upon nature... or visible reality". This resulted in the strengths (as well as the limitations) of Western art. The most important innovations were almost all employed as a means of creating a greater illusion of real, solid form: linear and atmospheric perspective, anatomy, physiology, the development of oil paint, chiaroscuro, overlapping, foreshortening, the use of mirrors and optical lenses... and ultimately: photography. Photography represented the ultimate means of capturing visual reality and as such it also represented the beginning of Modernism and the end of the Western tradition that had begun in the Renaissance.
By way of comparison with the 500+ year span represented by the paintings above, we might take a look at the radical evolution of painting over little more than half a century following the onslaught of Modernism:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6...cc822d2c_z.jpg
Degas- Bather (French/late 1900s)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7026/6...16972437_z.jpg
Bonnard- Bather (French/1907)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7171/6...722852f8_z.jpg
Andre Derrain- London (French/early 1900s)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7165/6...0218d642_b.jpg
Matisse- Music (French/1910)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7034/6...73a2b289_z.jpg
Picasso- Girl at the Mirror (Spanish/1932)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7025/6...85158ee689.jpg
Piet Mondrian- Trafalgar Square (Dutch/1943)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7010/6...35744803_z.jpg
Arshile Gorky- The Liver is the Cocks Comb (Armenian-American/1944)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7006/6...0aa69978_b.jpg
Robert Motherwell- Elegy to the Spanish Republic LXX (American/1961)
The evolution of one artist to the next nearly surpasses the whole of that of the period from the Renaissance through the late 19th century. This is owed to the fact that the central goal of Modernism became to "Make it New" in Ezra Pound's words. The value of Modernism is that it opened up an infinite variety of possibilities to the artist. Perhaps even more importantly, it resulted in a rediscovery and increased appreciation of art work from outside the Western Post-Renaissance tradition. Prior to Modernism, art such as this:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7008/6...05a5945b_z.jpg
or this:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7023/6...733e7b81_b.jpg
or this:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7031/6...2133851e_b.jpg
or this:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7016/6...1e076656_b.jpg
or this:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7174/6...1fd34274_z.jpg
or this:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7162/6...56bfa0ee_z.jpg
... would not have been appreciated or even taken seriously as art. If anything, such works were acknowledged as little more than historical, ethnic, and anthropological "curiosities". Modernism opened up the West to the achievements of other cultures.
continued....
The main problem with Modernism was brought about by its very fixation with the new. While Modernism opened up art to a myriad of new possibilities, the demand for continual novelty meant that such possibilities needed to be abandoned as outdated as soon as they became accepted. The constant drive for the cutting-edge and the latest style also resulted in reducing art to something akin to the fashion industry and the latest fashions or the marketplace and the marketing of the latest, state of the art model to replace the old worn out/out of fashion one. And ultimately... it resulted in artists finding themselves painted into a corner with very few real possibilities of creating something new.
Post-Modernists recognized the predicament that art had come to, and began to question the overriding obsession with innovation for the sake of innovation... or mere novelty. Odd Nerdrum attended art school during the peak of Modernist theory. His work was openly attacked by professors and his peers alike. Nerdrum, however, was not unaware of Modernism (nor even unappreciative of some Modernist painters) however he felt the need to reject their obsession with formal novelty for the simple reason that he sought to create an art that was broadly accessible. As such, he returned to the techniques of "realism" of the Old Masters which he compared to a lingua franca or universal language. Beyond rejecting the central tenet of Modernism, Nerdrum clearly employs a number of key elements recognizable as "Post-Modernist". As Orphan Pip spoke of "metanarratives" and "metafictions" Nerdrum encloses his narratives within a second illusion... painting in such a manner that his paintings appear ancient and weathered... blurring the old and the new. He also makes free use of themes taken form "high" and "low" sources drawing upon science fiction, fantasy, illustration, film, pornography, etc...
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7150/6...b6332ed0_z.jpg
-Barter
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7144/6...a318e43b_z.jpg
-Early Morning
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7018/6...c7d6893ecb.jpg
-Dying Couple
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7018/6...42bcd9a1_z.jpg
-Prophet
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7159/6...117bf907_z.jpg
- Water Hole
It might be noted that the very imagery... suggesting a post-apocalyptic world ala Mad Max in which humanity struggles to survive and engages in certain crude archaic rituals wholly rejects the faith that Modernism placed in the future: "Better living through technology... chemistry... etc..."
I don't always read everything stlukes writes about art, but I sure like looking at his posts! :D
Really great point. As I was reading this, I thought of how Benjamin Franklin wrote in his autobiography that in order to get better at things, one should imitate something that they like. The more they imitate it, the better they become at it. Soon, they are better than the original which makes them "unique" and seperate from the original. I don't know that I agree with him entirely but his thoughts on developing originality by the imitation of classics instead of outdating them and trying to find uniquness in something else entirely seems more progressive than this modernist thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Could this be related to the skepticism of metanarratives and the idea of a universal truth? The fact that the Old Masters only supported a particular style, which they believed was "a universal language?"Quote:
The constant drive for the cutting-edge and the latest style also resulted in reducing art to something akin to the fashion industry and the latest fashions or the marketplace and the marketing of the latest, state of the art model to replace the old worn out/out of fashion one. And ultimately... it resulted in artists finding themselves painted into a corner with very few real possibilities of creating something new.
-Modernists recognized the predicament that art had come to, and began to question the overriding obsession with innovation for the sake of innovation... or mere novelty. Odd Nerdrum attended art school during the peak of Modernist theory. His work was openly attacked by professors and his peers alike. Nerdrum, however, was not unaware of Modernism (nor even unappreciative of some Modernist painters) however he felt the need to reject their obsession with formal novelty for the simple reason that he sought to create an art that was broadly accessible. As such, he returned to the techniques of "realism" of the Old Masters which he compared to a lingua franca or universal language. Beyond rejecting the central tenet of Modernism, Nerdrum clearly employs a number of key elements recognizable as "Post-Modernist". As Orphan Pip spoke of "metanarratives" and "metafictions" Nerdrum encloses his narratives within a second illusion... painting in such a manner that his paintings appear ancient and weathered... blurring the old and the new. He also makes free use of themes taken form "high" and "low" sources drawing upon science fiction, fantasy, illustration, film, pornography, etc...
I'm also wondering how Postmodern theory is tied into race. The class that I am currently taking is called Black Literary Postmodernism and there are a lot of arguments made by Postmodern theorists that PoMo leaves out entire classes and races of people. Most of the readings that I have to do are primarily centered about American minorities (predominantly African Americans) feeling like they need to represent the marginalized in order to be given any credibility by the middle/upperclass whites and even lower class blacks. An example would be how a black author would need to write about black poverty becuase that is what society expects black authors to write about. If she wanted to write about something different, it would be unaccepted by both communties: the white community because it is not expected that a topic other than nihilism or black poverty would be written by a black author, and also the black community becuase they would feel seperated from the author because of a difference in class. Do you think this fits in with Postmodernist theory? I am having a hard time grasping it.
before i make a comment on the topic and forget - this post amazed me. Beautiful examples!Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Lyotard's definition of postmodernity as "incredulity towards meta-narratives" is a widely accepted definition of the term.
I will attempt to explain to the best of my understanding.
Throughout history, reality as experienced has been veiled by meta-narratives as a way of organizing, understanding and institutionalizing our perception of it. Simply put (and this is a stretch), meta-narratives can be understood as ideologies. These ideologies are vying for dominance as the definite, all-encompassing, all-engrossing abstract (or distillation) of the natural world. Religion would be an example of such.
Postmodern theory efficiently substitutes "ideology" for "narrative" to assert the fallaciousness of these constructions. As such, the "meta" property of these ideologies are rejected due to the subjectivity of their constructions and usurped from their proverbial throne. The postmodern stance would then be one of incredulity towards the meta-narratives claim of absolute truth. In a way, all subjective truths are valid.
Thus, the claim spawned by the age of reason that humanity is always progressing is rejected (here it is perhaps goes awry from modernity). This is why, perhaps, postmodern art borrows so heavily from divergent eras and artists in order to create a pastiche - this hybrid can potentially yield something new.
This view was grounded by the advent of structuralism (Levi-Strauss) - where all can be reduced to binary oppositions - and psychoanalysis - where the human psyche is fragmented and layered (conscious, sub/un-conscious), and developments in other disciplines (such as semiotics - DeSaussure, Roland Barthes). Reality, as perceived by the subject, is filtered through a complex sign system independent to the individual as acquired in his experience with society, and thus, partially (!) overlapping with other individuals.
In this multi-layered and fragmented reality, man is an interpreter of symbols.
Our current society is often criticized by contemporary pm thinkers as a symbol whose referent is another symbol - thus, the essence so to speak is gone (see Baudrillard's Simulacrum theory). This blurs the boundaries between reality and fiction (Vonnegut - period).A prime example of such in art would be Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds". It invokes a historical time period, manipulates it as it pleases, and creates a pastiche fusing other movies. But then again, pm critics often discredit the validity of history.
Alright, I can't go on anymore. Hope this was helpful.
A good analysis. Modernism ended with structuralism. Very good points throughout. People are symbolic. Can't go beyond that except in science and not even there very far. Semiology is over because in depth, icon, symbol and sign are the same depending on what tickles the interpreter.Quote:
Originally Posted by the facade
I think postmodernist literature ask encompasses the experimental genres. As the term postmodern can be quite vague, works attempting to defy categorization may inevitably be categorized as not only experimental but also postmodern.
Consider projects like TheNewerYork:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...we-m-w-yor-had
they attempt to find beauty or merit in all types of text that don't receive conventional literature status.
I agree with you. But the categorizations will not be cultural. That's a giant leap ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by spencerjnelson
The best and most accurate manner of describing what post-modernism is for academians of critical thought, is this symbol:
http://27.media.tumblr.com/avatar_6feb8634e3d0_128.png
This might help:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/722/08/
I have my doubts as to whether PoMo is really a meaningful term as it applies to literature and I have yet to hear any set of characteristics or features that applies across the board to works routinely dumped into this promiscuous grab bag of a category.
Thanks to Luke for the images! A number of intriguing leads to follow up there . . .
You actually took words right out of my mouth! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
Much of what we are reading says the story is set in a specific time period, but deals with modern issues. For example The Pagoda by Patricia Powell is a story set in 1850 Jamaica and deals with Transgender issues, Oxherding Tale is a neo-slave narrative that deals with feminism, Black Nationalism, and many other issues that havent actually been put into academic study until much later. The language used in the book also feels as though it doesn't belong. Modern slang is used and the particular dialect used during the 1850s is ignored entirely. There were many times while reading these stories that I had to stop picturing my characters in jeans and t-shirts and try to remember that they were living in 1850 Jamaica and Antebellum South.
Ridiculous. It is whatever people want that says more about the world than was ever said when people did not have whatever they wanted as much as today wherever they can have that freedom of choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
It is the common man that tackled crafts in the second half of the 20th century and provided a platform for postmodern art. It is here to stay and grow regardless of elitism or any Platonic, Aristotelian, essential, existential, metaphysical, Nazilike proposition of Degenerate Art, of which we had enough until we sent it to the museum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...+art&FORM=IGRE
It really gets your goat that the finest art has always been "elitist" now doesn't it. Oh well... go on and enjoy your Lady Gaga, Twilight movies, and Dan Brown novels like a good champion of the masses.:crazy: