postmodernism, art and science

[e_dog]

1. What is postmodernism?

A recent debate on the Visual Arts board that began about Nude Art led to this question, one long solution to which was provided by Zlatko who posted an article by Mary Klages to be found here:


http://www.studioeight.tv/phpbb/viewtop ... c&start=30

is this definition or characterization accurate?

i think it is a fairly good overview of the issues, but also somewhat misleading. first, the definition of Enlightenment thought used by Klages is a caricature at best. if that is true, then postmodernism as an intellectual mov't supposed to be premised on rejection of the Enlightnement may be facing a straw man. second, Klages contention that the rejection of postmodernism serves religious fundamentalism is very provocative but completely wrong. her position is just a reversal of a claim advanced by Jurgen Habermas, defender of the enlightenment, who said that postmodernism actually serves to support neo-conservatism, i.e. right wing movement, another example of which would be religious fundamentalism. Mary Klages asserts that the opposite is true and cites the persecution of Salman Rushtie by religious leaders as an example of the religious turning against a writer that she asserts is affiliated with postmodernism. but i submit that it is precisely the MODERNIST kernel in Rushtie and other critics of religion that offends the clerics. as Klages admits, postmodernism continues the trend of literary modernism, so one would expect some aspects of modernism to be present even in alleged postmodern works. critique of religious orthodoxy is a theme of the modern age; if anything, the valorization of cultural differences distinctive of postmodernism would lead to the compromise and submission to religion; the resistance to religion is modernist, and therefore if it is true that postmodern authors are at odds with fundamentalism it is perhaps the modernist remainder of thier outlook that is at work here.


2. this discussion of postmodernism led to another debate about the relevance of Marxism (and Darwinism) to the analysis of art. Abcrystcats argued that economics has little place in aesthetics, whereas Perezoso defended the position that art is a commodity or has ben commodified and is therefore subject to the critique of capitalism as in Marxist theory. (if i am representing each of your views, please correct me.)

I tend to think that economics, and politics, are very much relevant to understanding art and literture as social phenomena. how artistic movements form, how art is received by a community, are all connected. however, i completely disagree with perezoso's claim that it follows from this that art and literature are irrelevant and worthless in comparison with hard science. the reason for my skpeticism of his claim is, however, not any illusions on my part about the high value of art and literature but rather my skepticism about the value of science. n that sense, i suppose my position is somewhat postmodern. perezoso claims that the value of Steinbeck or Gary Snyder is nothing in comparison to the value of Human genome project or Keynesian economics. my question: value to whom? the inHuman genome project will perhaps be of great value to future technocapitalists in their efforts to engage in genetic engineering for profit, or the efforts of the military-industviral complex to create more biohazardous weapons. but does this really help humanity? at least Steinbeck is useful for mobilizing people for the struggle for justice; and poets like Gary Snyder as well as spiritual leaders have been very valuable in creating the cultural and subjective conditions necessary for a "green" environmentalist social movement which is need if real progress is to be made in the area of protecting the environment from human destruction; the wisdom of ecologists is nothing unless it can be actualized in practice, and it may take humanistic thinkers to accomplish that.

[perezoso]

.....that art and literature are irrelevant

I did not claim that, e-dog. I think Steinbecks and Snyders are relevant; they do indicate social and economic problems, but they don't really provide any solutions or in-depth analyses. THe absurdities of CA agri-bizness and really market and finance capitalism are not "curable" by literature or eastern mysticism; massive restructuring of the economy is needed. This is unlikely to occur by democratic means. Bakunin or his descendents--say Ed Abbey-- may be a better guide to political reality than beats or Gary Snyder. IM not as much a Luddite however as Abbey or Snyder were-- I think technology can be used as much by progressives and greens as it can be by the right wing.

Making people aware of the issues is admirable, though solving the problems is going to take much more information and data and know-how than novelists or poets usually possess.

I agree with your assessment of Klages' "Enlightenment Rationality for Dummies" by the way. Her slogans and little summaries are a complete mockery of western thought. But that's how most post-mod.s operate. I m not an expert in post-mod but I will admit to reading some Adorno and Jameson with interest, though I think they face the same problems that orthodox marxism faces ( ie. identifying all values with the proletariat and State for one). And Jameson, as an employee of the elite, private Duke University might be attacked for a certain amount of academic hypocrisy.

[e_dog]

certainly the academic left always risks being servants of power, unwittingly or not, allowed to talk radically but ultimately being ineffectual b/c captured by the system. this is as much a problem with employees of the state unies as with private universities. but then again, Marx didn't mind using the establishment's library in his studies, did he? i think Jameson actually started one of the few centers for Marxist thought in America, at Duke, unless the website is just for show.

Adorno may be a darling of post-modern writers, but i doubt he was actually a post-modernist himself. i'd classify him as a modernist, though such clasifications are worth much in any case.

do we really need more "data" and science to solve environmental issues, or do we really need political will and the social power necessary to curb the practices - already known to be harmful by existing data and science -- of industry? if that is so, what we need is to mobilize the political power of the people toward green politics. i don't see that science can do this. science has always been the servant of the powers that be, military, industrial, etc.

[e_dog]

(recovered from memory --which sometimes outlats the computer--lost on the "Miracle Jam")

for we moderns

science is the theology
technology the religion

the modem is your
totem

(postmodemism)