Postmodernism

[Josquin des Prez]

polystylism, which forces one to think about the very nature of composition itself (like that DB piece). I'm glad that you liked it Symphonien, and i'm also glad that Josquin has such an open mind and a sense of humour about music! I'm jocking Josquin - you can of course think what you like about it, but I don't think its trash, I genuinly enjoyed it.

There's a difference between having an 'open mind' and having your brain fall off your head altogether.

Also, there's nothing post-modern about polystylism. Inherent in post-modernism is a lack of respect for everything that came before, or anything at all. The post-modernist mind has to reject every value or belief and revel into pervasive relativism where all meaning is lost and all that remains is the outer shell of reality. People in the past have come to believe many things that may strike us as completely arbitrary or relative, but they gave those things meaning by actually believing in them. The post-modernist doesn't believe in anything, but he still has to go through the motions, not without a sense of artificial self-irony and mockery.

By definition, a true polystylist has to believe in the validity of the styles he chooses to employ, therefore there's nothing post-modern about artists like, say, Schnittke, they are actually quite conservative.

Post-modernism is nothing new, BTW. The Dadaists did the same thing back in the early 20th century. The movement has no solid intellectual base, it's merely an outgrowth of old socialist ideals about cultural deconstruction and the rejection of tradition. Sadly, the world has a never ending supply of 'useful idiots' for crap like this to make perpetual rounds in our intellectual circles...

[Maciek]

Sorry, but you're completely cofusing the meaning of the term as applied to philosophy and as applied to arts (and you're stretching the philosophical meaning too). Calling Dadaist postmodernists is completely absurd (not because of the anachronism but because the Dadaist's understanding of what they were doing was completely different). Linking postmodern art to socialism doesn't seem to make sense to me either. Postmodern philosophy is deeply rooted in marxism - I grant you that. But where's the connection with art? One of the first postmodern novels ever written was Valdimir Nabokov's Pale Fire. Are you going to connect him with socialism?? (And how??)

[Josquin des Prez]

Postmodern philosophy is deeply rooted in marxism - I grant you that. But where's the connection with art?

As they say, the apple never falls far from the tree.

Where's the connection with art? How about the video posted by Guido?

One of the first postmodern novels ever written was Valdimir Nabokov's Pale Fire. Are you going to connect him with socialism?? (And how??)

I never read Pale Fire therefore i cannot answer that. I'll connect anything with socialism if it carries extreme relativism, particularly when applied with the intent of undermining anything related to the west. A lot of contemporary 'art' falls into this category, starting with Dadaism, a movement which was a form of revolt associated with class struggle, hence, Marxism:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/dada-s18.shtml

'Progressive' art is a lie. The intent is not to push the envelope of what's been done before and create new forms of expression, but to destroy art altogether in an effort to destroy the society that produced it and thus paving the way for a socialist utopia. As is customary with socialism, many of the most ardent adherents have no idea whatsoever of the purpose of their work. Useful idiots, and all that.

Besides, i'd be a little weary of anything which involves extended doublethink in order to be enjoyed, wouldn't you say?

[Maciek]

Well, what I was trying to say is that I totally agree with you on postmodern philosophy. Most of it (perhaps all) is heavily influenced by Marxism and often has more to do with politics than philosophy.

But the danger is in oversimplifying things. I don't see any important connection between the art that is called postmodern and the philosophy. For one thing, art is "about" aesthetics (beauty), philosophy is "about" something else (I'm not sure what myself - maybe truth?).

This is difficult to discuss without examples and it's obvious that we would diverge here. I wouldn't call Dadaists postmodern (weren't they communists plain and simple?) - you would (or at least you wouldn't see much of a difference between them and postmodernists). I would call Schnittke a postmodern composer - you wouldn't. But we can always move towards literature, where I feel safest and most at home. I don't think writers like Nabokov, Barth or Pynchon, who are the epitomes of postmodernism in literature, are relativists in your sense. Or that they have no respect for what came before. Or that doublethink is necessary in order to enjoy their work. All they do is expose the "hidden" mechanisms of storytelling - but I wouldn't say they undermine the very idea of storytelling/literature (in fact, I'd say they reinforce it!). And that would also go for most of the composers that I'd call postmodern - they expose the conventions of music-making but they don't destroy them (only change their meaning perhaps).

Also, this isn't really important but I'll mention it anyway: I'm not all that sure that a polystylist has to believe in the validity of the styles he chooses to employ. Would he be dissecting them and using their elements against their rules if that was true? And you can't say that Schnittke doesn't do that - he doesn't use those old styles plain and simple, he turns them around, mixes them around, confronts them with one another, inflates them, deflates them, conflates them.

And yet another objection: postmodern philosophers are all against "progress". Most of them believe that the idea of progress is false. You can't be a relativist and believe in progress at the same time - that would be a contradiction in terms. Not that postmodern philosophers avoid that all that much. But in this case they do.

So, to sum things up: I agree with you re philosophy. Can't agree with you re art though.


Maciek

[Josquin des Prez]

And yet another objection: postmodern philosophers are all against "progress". Most of them believe that the idea of progress is false. You can't be a relativist and believe in progress at the same time - that would be a contradiction in terms. Not that postmodern philosophers avoid that all that much. But in this case they do.

Don't have time to address your post in it's entirety, just wanted to comment in this last point by saying that the idea of 'progress' is not something the post-modernists (or the socialist/communists) believe in, is the tool they use to justify their relativistic deconstruction. Nobody would take them at heart if they flat out stated the purpose of their ideas is to destroy western art (i'm not even sure most of them even know this). This is also the reason why nobody talks about socialism anymore, even though socialist ideals pervades many aspects of our society, particularly coming from the left (understandably). Political correctness, multiculturalism, feminism, naturalism, cynicism towards the establishment and a distrust for tradition. Because the entities involved in those obviously socialist ideas are in complete control of our educational systems (where gender studies are proliferating and the works of the 'dead-white-males' become deader with each passing day) and our entertaining industry (Hollywood above all), it's damn near nigh impossible for the artists produced by said educational institutions and influenced by said entertainment not to carry part of the ideological ideas of the entities that spawned them. 

[The Mad Hatter]

I think that the idea of progress is a dangerous one. It implies that, as music becomes more complex, it also becomes better. This leads to the conclusion that Boulez is 'better' than Mahler, and that Mahler is 'better' than Beethoven - and that's certainly not something I'd like to attempt to argue.

Art changes, it doesn't grow. Much of the twentieth century was devoted by composers and artists to finding a 'unique voice' - that idea being held above all others as the goal, in the same way that absolute expression was of the romantics, and I think that postmodernism is a reaction against this (again, in much the same way that classicism was a reaction against the complexity of baroque music).

One of the difficulties of postmodernity is that it is difficult to define beyond that. It is that which is not modern, and doesn't gel with the ideals of modernism. The literature is beginning to display some recurring characteristics: What Perry Anderson mentioned in The Origins of Postmodernity as 'an ironic sense of humor [and a] muted perfection in detail', as well as a sort of awareness that the reader is present. As regards music, I'm not so sure (though I consider myself a postmodern composer, or at least, I enjoy postmodern writing enough to associate myself with the school for the time being), but Philip Glass has been associated with it. Frankly I'd be quicker to point to Steve Reich, Brian Eno and Iain Ballamy.

Sorry, Josquin, I seem to be just the kind of person you dislike.

[Ten thumbs]

The aim of post-modernism seems to be complete freedom of expression. The problem with that is that without some degree of introduced discipline, a sense of purpose is lost, both by the composer and in his works. There seems here to be a tendency towards Anarchism, which is the direct opposite of Socialism.
By the way, there used to be something called Futurism!

[jochanaan]

...any discussion of postmodernism will sooner or later inevitably reach the point where nobody really knows what the rest is talking about...

Not only that; I've heard many discussions of postmodernism devolve to where nobody even knows what THEY'RE talking about.

I guess I really don't care about the philosophical underpinnings of postmodern music; indeed, I'm rather repelled by what seems to me a movement that defines itself only in negative ways.  "It isn't this, it isn't that, it isn't the other..."  What I love is the music itself.  Not all of it--there's inferior stuff out there just as there is in all musical genres--but enough of it is intriguing, challenging, beautiful, and well-made that I can't simply give up on it.  As with any music, I judge it on its own merits, as far as I can, and don't try to make it fit any preconceptions my subconscious may preconceive.

[Maciek]

Not only that; I've heard many discussions of postmodernism devolve to where nobody even knows what THEY'RE talking about.

I feel I'm coming dangerously close to reaching that (no doubt wonderful ) state...

[Ten thumbs]

I think if one backs off a little one might see the wood for the trees (or the orchesta behind the conductor). The whole concept of Modern in  the public perception is of a style that is stark and functional. to that one might add intellectually pleasing but not deliberately emotional. We've had serialism and musique concrète but we do seem to have moved beyond such styles to a time where the composer can appeal to the senses and can, thank goodness, provide decoration.
As to the so-called philosophy behind this, it is as old as the hills and the first composer to apply it was probably Greek.

[millionrainbows]

I understand postmodernism to be a new perspective that is "the end of history." Things are so instant, and moving so fast, that "history" no longer exists as we knew it. Therefore, history becomes a bunch of different things we can choose to "stake out" as our territory for art.

History, then, has stopped "progressing" or evolving through time, and everything is "now." There can be no more "greatness," no more "genius," just new players with new ideas.

[North Star]

I understand postmodernism to be a new perspective that is "the end of history." Things are so instant, and moving so fast, that "history" no longer exists as we knew it. Therefore, history becomes a bunch of different things we can choose to "stake out" as our territory for art.

History, then, has stopped "progressing" or evolving through time, and everything is "now." There can be no more "greatness," no more "genius," just new players with new ideas.

It's hard to see - and foolish to try to see - anything close with a telescope.

[millionrainbows]

It's hard to see - and foolish to try to see - anything close with a telescope.

So, Mister Magoo cartoons represent this dilemma very well. I'm sure McLuhan would agree.