From the notes I made in 2002, I can see that the first place I came across postmodernism that delineated its concepts most easily for me to dive into them was a book by Tim Woods, “Beginning Postmodernism,” published by Manchester University Press, a second edition of which has been published since I first read it. As dry as most academic books can be, for such a book to write about its subject in a way that makes you feel excited about it is extremely valuable. It was certainly enough for me two write ten A4 pages of notes from it, since rendered moot by my actually buying a copy of the book – I can only assume the original library copy was once I was able to take home.
The notes I made start by explaining that postmodernism is:
“a knowing modernism, a self-reflexive
modernism, a knowing modernism that doesn’t agonise about itself. Postmodernism
does what modernism does, only in a celebratory way, rather than repentant way.
Thus, instead of lamenting the loss of the past, the fragmentation of existence
and the collapse of selfhood, postmodernism embraces these characteristics as a
new form of social existence and behaviour. The difference between modernism
and postmodernism is therefore best seen as a difference in mood or attitude,
rather than a chronological difference, or a different set of aesthetic
practices.”
That is the kind of introduction you want. Modernism was
never replaced by postmodernism, and the impulses to find new ways of
explaining how we see the world, and creating new forms in art and society, is
true of both movements. Even a modernist group that Dada, that you would think
would match postmodernism on mood and attitude, is actually separated from it
by its earnestness to abandon the modes of thinking that led society to world
war, instead of playing about with them.
My notes contain lots of lists, with Woods creating many
summaries of the key characteristic in postmodern forms of thought, economics,
architecture, visual design, music, television and film. For example, the list
for film talks about pastiche of other genres and styles, alluding to
particular scenes and cinematic styles from other films; a flattening of
history, presenting the past in the present; self-reflexivity of technique; and
celebrating the collapse of distinction between high and low cultural styles,
with “Pulp Fiction,” a major Hollywood film aiming to evoke pulpy crime novels,
being used as the example. It helped that, during my film degree, we were shown
a Jean-Luc Godard film from 1967, “Two or Three Things I Know About Her,” that
often abandons its narrative to talk about consumerism, and has characters
addressing themselves directly to the camera. I enjoyed it a lot.
A thought my mind always replays is how I am glad I discovered
postmodernism when I did, because it has helped
explain how the world, and particularly politics, has developed in the years
since. The philosopher Jean-François Lyotard, the source of the predominant
postmodernist stance of an incredulity towards metanarratives, has his own list
made by Woods – in particular, Woods says that postmodernism, according to
Lyotard, “does not seek to give reality, but to invent allusions to the inconceivable
which cannot be presented. In this respect, there is something theological in
his concept of representational art.”
I can see I also made this note from
Joseph Natoli’s book “A Primer to Postmodernity”:
“We are responding to a world that is in
the process of breaking out of our certitude of knowing, out of the reality box
that we have built for ourselves and called it Reality. A lot of formerly
closeted people are now out of the closet; or you can say that the camouflage
screen, the barrier curtain is down. We’ve got a hunger now to hear everyone’s
story at the same time that we paradoxically want to put a gag on everyone but
our own buddies. We’re split between two vastly different ways of dealing with
the world. But in actions, in how we go about constructing our realities,
we are less and less attached to the ‘old order’ of knowing, feeling, perceiving,
and more and more attached to exploring as many other realities as we can bring
into being.”
“A Primer to Postmodernity” was published
in 1997. I also now have a copy of this book, and I can see the above passage
was preceded by the author hearing from people that want things to be like the “good
old days,” and wanting what we know to be grounded, when it cannot be. After
the passage, Natoli then says that his book can only be a “primer” for people to
do their part on the ongoing creation of culture. Later, he explains that one
viewpoint held by postmodernists is that a gap exists between the world and how
we understand it, even if there is not one between ourselves and the world:
multiple realities can exist, and while they do not battle for supremacy, they can
fade in and out of significance. A later chapter is titled “Moving Across the
Profound Surface of a Postmodern Life.”
I don’t treat postmodernism as a
religion, but I can see why it may look like that. When coming across something
new influences your view of the world, it is great when it is a view that does
not insist on someone being wrong as a result, but if you know you are right,
you will be able to prove that most easily. What it has never meant is that you
can say what you like – if something is not valid, it will go away.
No comments:
Post a comment