"That is, postmodernism is parasitic on modernism and not at all post in the sense of moving on, transcending, or succeeding modernism".
Good observation. Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Allan Sutherland <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: "You must learn to choose the truth before aesthetic preferences". (Auden) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 13:26:58 +0900 On 21/05/2010 13:10, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, good point. Reality is continually reconstructed. But is it a good > state of affairs? > Reality is no so continually reconstructed, what is so is our understanding and perceptions of that reality. If we, as humans, aesthetic practitioners, researchers, engage with previous and existing constructions of reality and make effort to deal with contradictions and inconsistencies within our perceptions and theoretical statement then I am quite comfortable with that. But where we make these inconsistencies and contradictions the basis for our theoretical statement, understandings and perceptions then it is what could, should be considered retrogressive and limiting, and should not be tolerated, in assessment. > It's interesting that Auden of the 1930s would be more engaged in > social-political content than in the 1950s. I wrote this with something of this idea in mind, but I would now say more precisely that simply his political views changed; or what he considered real were determined by different theoretical and political, more Marxist oriented, than in the 1950s when he was seeking to rewrite his poetry to fit his changed, more right-wing perspectives. Saying which engages what you say below: > Arts study at that time (1930s > through 1950s) --not necessarily practice --was still quite formal and > aesthetically defined. Of course now it's all social-political and almost > never formal and aesthetic, in both study and practice. This is a vexing > situation in that art/s as a subject is no longer neutral or made up of > objective fundamentals or rudiments like line, shape, texture, color (or their > analogues in the other arts) but is almost entirely centered on interpretive > concerns. Thus it's impossible to examine such concepts as Form anymore since > it is now merely a reflection of some social, political identity or narrative. > Form is formless except by appeal to something external to it. Same for all > other "rudiments". It all makes sense in the postmodern idea where practice > defines art rather than the other way around. > In response to your very thoughtful response I ask, was it not always the case that art was guided by other than formal aesthetic principles; classicism, naturalism, realism, and such were not guided by aesthetic principles alone. Art-for-art's sake was proposed with that in mind, or to achieve that end of prioritising aesthetic and formal forms, but it presented itself as moral and aesthetic statements, mostly of rebellion against rigid moral hypocrisy, no? Something similar can be made for postmodernism, practice does not define art, but a failure to understand art defines practice. What is repeated is a bricolage of previous limited, self-contradicting positions on art as a theory of artistic practice and consumption. That is, postmodernism is parasitic on modernism and not at at all post in the sense of moving on, transcending, or succeeding modernism. And we are now coming to agreement, that my first statement on Auden was misconceived: > But much has been lost nevertheless. It's a basic human trait to demand the > fixedness of concepts and explications. Form is not the formless. Something > specific to form must separate it from the formless in the same way that > something specific to the number 4 separates it from other numbers. At least > that's what we used to think. If so, then something in Auden's poetry of the > 1930s would be the same in the 1950s, and it would not be affected or hidden > by a societal-political content. That's Form. Something about Form is > impervious to its use, yes or no? Today the answer is no. Is it the wrong > answer? > > Some folks are saying postmodern is over. Now it's post-postmodern. The > swing is back to rudiments, to Form, to the view that the social-political as > the definer of Form and content is being reversed once again. > WC Thank you, Toodle-pip, Allan.
