When
someone's last name is verbatim the file format for a word document, you know
they've probably got something going for them. That anecdote remains true with
Edward Docx's "Postmodernism
is dead" critique, which I'll concede was a great read, and healthy
food for thought. Despite that, though, I find that postmodernism is as
ever-present as it has always been, and that what has really died is simply a
contingency of starkly opinionated yet maladroit artists who get their kicks
out of the closest thing to "trolling" in the art world.
For the
majority of his critique, Eddy summarizes the existence of postmodernism as
"really an attack not just on the dominant narrative or art forms but
rather an attack on the dominant social discourse" and "that we
are all in our very selves nothing more than the breathing aggregate of
[social] structures. It contends that we cannot stand apart from the demands
and identities that these structures and discourses confer upon us."
Postmodernism is everything that modernism wanted to be—the righteous vandals
who scurry under the radar, leaving their marks and dropping hints to help the
rest of the art world, instructing them to follow the white rabbit out of the
matrix that is these "structures" that dictate what art should be.
And yet, wasn't that what modernism already was? From the Wikipedia article on
Modernism:
"In art, Modernism explicitly rejects the ideology of realism and makes use of the works of the past, through the application of reprise, incorporation, rewriting, recapitulation, revision, and parody in new forms. Modernism also rejects the lingering certainty of Enlightenment thinking, as well as the idea of a compassionate, all-powerful Creator."
The irony
in this is that in Edward's article, he himself pokes fun at how postmodernism
tears apart the predisposed ideas we developed in the Enlightenment.
What I
see here isn't a unique new genre of music or art or expression, I see the
rustled jimmies of displaced modern artists who felt as though their
established state of unestablishment became too established, so they moved on
to create something less established. An endless cycle of who can be the most
disconnected. As a highschool student, this is pretty evident with the way
basic trends work, too. Remember "Call Me Maybe"? Remember when it
first came out, how cool it
was to be into it, because not everyone was? But then it became uncool, because
everyone was into it! So now Call Me Maybe isn't cool anymore. It's just
overplayed. Need another analogy? Think of the Twilight Book series. When it
first emerged and hordes of teenage girls were in ecstatic tumult about it, the
few and the proud who remained contrary to that mentality were the cool ones. Slowly but surely, as the
series ended, more and more people flocked to the "We hate Twilight!"
crowds, though. And now, hating Twilight isn't funny anymore. Now, you don't
even talk about it. The same thing happened with Justin Bieber. I could go on.
But given
enough time, all of it moves in a cycle. This cycle tends to be very
subjective, but probably at some point in the future, Call Me Maybe will be
remembered fondly again, without any of the baggage it's developed from being
played and talked about so often. Even now, the people who adopt the
"Well, it's a very good song with a catchy tune and fun lyrics, it's
simply overplayed" attitude are considered level-headed and adult, as
they've again separated themselves from the crowd.
So, then
is postmodernism really dead?
Was it never alive? Was it simply a bastardization of a legitimate genre that
somehow weaseled itself into the annals of art history? None of the above! I
see postmodernism as a genre that is ever-present, and continues to live on in the
genres that it riffs upon. In this case, that genre is modernism. But the
people with the aforementioned attitude are always there, as they themselves
are the people who, hundreds of years ago, began the Enlightenment. The
people who detached themselves from the group and looked for answers outside of
social structures and discourse are not postmodernists, they are an ongoing
mindset that is only defined by the establishment that they tear themselves
away from.
And while
my tone towards these people has been slightly less than accepting, I do
believe that there are absolutely lessons we can learn from
these separatists, but all in moderation. Society as a whole can benefit
from the teachings of those who have dared to dream beyond the boundaries of accepted
discourse, and as evidenced by the Enlightenment, we already have. And we
will continue to do so, for as long as society exists. But what we want as a
society are truly unique viewpoints and attitudes delivered by scholars who've
separated themselves from society purely for the purpose of enlightenment, not
washed up existential cynicism from hipsters who thought their last clique
wasn't obscure enough.
Wow! Blogalicious, maybe? Your snark fits your approach which ultimately fits the irreverence play of post modernism. Certainly, the art/lit/etc world IS subject to fads, as we all are. Everyone trying desperately to be unique. And yet, you dignify modernism w/ a coherent world view, and I think pomo will also leave similar approach to ideas. We'll continue to use each movement as fitting. A really fabulous first entry.
ReplyDelete