See also:  [Feminism]
                  [Modernism]  [Modernism]
                  [Post-modernism]  [Post-911 Era
                  [Art Talk, by Cindy Nemser]


On this page: {Intro} {Stuff} {Post Appologist} {} {The Usual Suspects} (modernist terms)


One of the key ideas in our now, post post-modernist world is that we have (yet again) steped off the cliff of a previous reality. And of course THAT reality (ie, post-modernism) "should have" been enough -- and yet here we are again. Let's take a simple example: Say we are in a group of people - some of which we know (slightly) and some of which we "think" that we've seen before. It should be at some place that isn't really taken as a "social situation" (eg, a book store that we frequent). Someone begins acting odd (not quite hysterical but definitely odd). Now of the course being modern, we get a bit worried. But then the behaviour continues and a police officer is called and they (they always travel in twos) shows up and begins questioning the person. Their behaviour continues to be erratic - but *does* "connect" with the officer's (or officers' in the case of "tag team" operations) questions. Eventually an ambulence is called and the person is taken away. Now this scene has played itself out again and again in MOVIES and we (as viewers) take almost no notice of it - it is such a standard for plot exposition and development that we've almost come to expect it. And of course the people in the movie act in a certain (again expected) way. But. The reality of our experience in such a case is something that we rarely think about. That lack of introspection is what (i would say) is what post post-modernism is all about. {


In the introduction (actually the back-cover blurb - hmm, "blurb" IS a word isn't it? What about "blurble" as in "more of the same old blurble" ?; alas; i, digress.) The publication in France of Simacrula and Simulation in 1981 marked Jean Baudrillard's most important step toward theorising the post-modern. Moving away from the Marxist/Freudian approaches that had concerned him, earlier, Baudrillard developed in this book a theory of contemporary culture that relies on displacing economic notions of cultural production with with notions of cultural exdpenditure. Hmmm, from this my mind (see map) jumped to the idea of art, originality, and ownership. On the one hand i can't own the Mona Lisa (to a certain extent as an inhabitant of Space Ship Earth [Buckminister Fuller] i "own" it as much as any other entity - including the Louvre (or should it be "including La Louvre"?). Regardless, it enough for me to know that it exists, and (post-modernly; or at least pre-post-modernly) that "the Mona Lisa with the Moustache" exists. Thus, i can take a copy of an art book with the Mona Lisa in it and tear it out (or cut it out) and draw my own goatee and then i *do* own Duchamp's work. In fact, i would say that that is the *only* way that we can appreciate the *intent* (or what we wantonly presume to be THE intent (or at least part of it) of the work. So, again we return to the object as having value (even if it is "only" a copy) because of the IDEA that it represents. Thus, Guernika represents Guernica and vice versa. And the 9/11 towers represent the turning point in America's innocent entry into the 21st century, etc. So, how do i as an artist get paid? Where is the "production value" of even say a series of numbered and signed prints (refer to the example of Richard Serra's *update* re-print to one of his prints to which a collector objected (i believe *legally* - again with capitalism) and so Serra had a marksman shoot holes into the entire edition; or so i heard. So, now the original is the authentic. But, what if i post it on my web site and people download and print it on nicely textured paper? The moment of authentication occurs if they email me a picture of them next to the copy. Or an email to me about that. (You understand that i'm only using myself as an example of the artist.) And the original object - clearly scanned or photographed, pixelated, and posted and then transmitted via the internet, and then re-constituted onto paper (via either ink-jet (g;clea, pigment, laser?). And if that is then the intent of the art - is there any harm done? hmmmm... Art in a box. Instant art. Paint by numbers. Or the xerox, scan, etc. Or the artist at art school studying and consequently producing art based on those studies and exposures. START AGAIN But, again this idea of "consistency" of the created image/environment. For humans, we require (well, presently for the most part sticks-in-the-mud that we tend to be when not gad-flied into THINKING, etc) a "reasonable world", a set of predictable patterns. In fact it is this very supposed "predictability" that is the basis of both hope and frustration of the film "The Cube". We see patterns (not necessarily in the chaos), but we as pattern-using beings seek out to make sense of the real world. And of course most of the failures of that pattern matching and prediction process is due to aberent behaviours by either groups of people, or countries, their leaders, etc. This IS the political problem of survival. And yet, into that is (and i'm so tired of saying this) the 65 million year lottery of the next "dinosaur killer" meteror. But, to worry about that simply is beyond the capacity of those that wish to control the future and thence the fates of others. But, in the world of the simulated, there is no real need for any predictability - indeed we would probably agree that these surprises are the very essence of the charm of the world about us - and especially entertainments. But, again we "expect" a resonable explanation at the end of things: "Oh, that's what *that* thing meant, and that's why the 'story' turned out as it did." But, as to pure creativity, we know not from whence it comes. Chanse encounters, a small twiddle of the minor variables - and LO: Beethoven's 5th (we might have been able to predict the 7th and 8th from his going deaf), but how was he able to throw off that dispair -- he'd already composed his guernica (the 3rd/4th), and then that 9th - and no sign of stoping there. Thus, the creative act is in and of itself the modern. It has always been. And yet once cast into the "pool" of common experience, we find it difficult to consider a world without it. Thus, it is as if creativity is outside of any process that we might think of as modernisation, evolution, progress (whatever *that* means) - and yet it is the creative process that is (at times) modern, evolving, reactive, progressing (even when clearly de-evolving, anti-creatively, or anti-artly, etc. doing).

Post Appologist the main prob with backward looks is that stand on the other side of 9/11 -- so of course mcluhan's, piaget's, skinner's. meade's, etc etc etc views arent goint fit perfectly into our little world. (not to be too nasty about this, but i;m taking a course on (among other things) EDU theories. and people are crit'ing neg about the structuralists and such and no acct is taken of "but, that's all they knew" - and oif course just discovering that specific parts of the brain controlled/etc certain funcs (eg, "Broca's Region" - language) just about flkoored them, SO NATCH: there mifgt be a part of the brain where the soul is (say the Jesuit (etc) structuralist), etc etc etc everything in context. only a v. few scientists (philo'r's, etc) refused to finally accept new evidence when it fimnally was shown to have validity - one who didn't was Ernest Mach (ie, ach 1 = speed of sound) - he was so opposed to einstein's thry (1st one) that he SHOWED how it could'n be true (speed of light) his theory gaves us trans-sonic flight, mach cones, etc. Great thry for sound (needs a medium to move in), but not light alas, i digress. and my left hand is killing me, \ nigth all, frank


The Usual Suspects (modernist terms) -[]- -[Alienation]- -[]- -[Cropping]- -[]- -[Distancing]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[Shock]- (and shock-value, etc) -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]-