/lit/ - Literature

>>1737396

post-postmodernism?

there will be a backlash, eventually

maybe it'll be called post-premodernism

some pesky charlatans wanted to be given credit for being genuinely genuine apparently.

>>1737403
What about pre-postmodernism?

>>1737410
I believe that would be modernism

>>1737396

Society hasn't changed since the inception of postmodernism, therefore postmodernism is here to stay, at least until something major happens that changes how artists, writers and philosophers view our society.

>>1737419
post-modernist-pre-post-modernism?

hysterical realism

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue58/The_Death_of_Postmodernism_And_Beyond

why don't listen to him?

>>1737403

wouldn't the backlash basically act to preserve the status-quo postmodernism sought to disrupt in a post-ironic sense?

>>1737436

imma look it up

>>1737396
post-hipsterism

post-ironicism, AKA >>1737463

bump

a) Postmodernism isn't a movement.

b) Technically postmodernism allows other forms of thought to exist alongside it so to speak of a 'successor' is a little bit... misleading.

c) Ideology is dead. I killed it.

>is there an emerging successor to post-modernism

Rachel Haywire.

>>1737718
>c) Ideology is dead. I killed it.

NOOOO, damn you Dr. Cynicism!!

>>1737718
>Ideology is dead

This. Everything for the past 200 years has been an attempt to deal with this in some way.

>>1737737
What?
The Cold War, one of the fiercest battles of ideology, probably the one that aided most in its demise, was only 50 years ago.

>>1737724
>Rachel Haywire

Who's that?

>>1737744
The Cold War was hardly a battle of ideology.

Warholism. It's where fame is so easily gotten (think Beiber, Rebecca Black, William Hung) that people with true talent worthy of public acclaim shun publicity. Pynchon is the grandfather of this movement.

>>1737759
What!? Explain yourself.

>>1737752

>>1737771

Well, that didn't really clarify anything.

>>1737765

Actually I think you might be right

>>1737436
Yeah, i read that article a month or two back. Utter bull shit. The author gives an over simplified version of post-modernism and then defeats it. Hold on while I summarize some e-mail conversations I had about this article.

Also, Post-Postmodernism as a term has been around for awhile. No one really bought it. Ultramodernism is a term often used in architecture to describe a kind of over emphasized modernist look. Altermodernism is the pet theory of Nicolas Bourioud. Its largely over simplifies post-modernism as well, and would be indistinguishable from many other post-modern theories.

No I don't think post-modernism is over, in terms of historical eras. But its hardly a "movement". Plenty of thinkers from all sorts of disciplines could be described as post-modern. Many of them disagree about things.

>>1737744
Society is late modern, not postmodern.

>>1737790

http://www.mungbeing.com/issue_8_info.html?author=Rachel%20Haywire

>>1737769
Think more along the lines of economics. War (even the cold kind) is virtually never the result of ideology. The USSR threatened overseas interests that powered the US economy. If you want to find a democracy's motivations, follow the money. Early Soviet leaders might have been true believers in Russian communism, but no one who saw the state of that country after WWII could have been.

>>1737800

>>1737744
You're correct that the cold war was ideological. But it only ended 20 years ago. Here's a quote from Baudrillard's The Spirit of Terrorism

"The first two world wars corresponded to the classical image of war. The first ended the supremacy of Europe and the colonial era. The second put an end to Nazism. The third, which has indeed taken place, in the form of cold war and deterrence, put an end to Communism. With each succeeding war, we have moved further towards a single world order."

>>1737800

>>1737820
>>With each succeeding war, we have moved further towards a single world order."

>Just as planned

>>1737436
Here is are some selections from conversations I had about that article.

The intro is not convincing whatsoever. It essentially amounts to the critiquing of a single course on post-modernism and arguing that the post-modern "cannon" is old. Sure, why not. At this point the author hasn't touched any actual post-modern theories, and this appeal to contemporariness or lack thereof is meaningless.

The second section, Post Postmodernism, is a critique of Debords notion of the spectacle, but in a very dumbed down way. Debord wrote "The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images." Kirby says postmodern theory described “a spectacle before which the individual sat powerless”. Alan Kirby is trying to sell the TV as the birth of the spectacle, and thinks of the spectacle as the "TV Zombie" stereotype. The spectacle exists before TV, before radio, before phonographs even before printing presses. Image, in my mind, is a bad word for Debord to have picked. I would rather say "not a collection of images, but social relation mediated by representations."

>>1737847
continued

In the 20th century the spectacle got bigger, and got corporate. Prior to that, it was in the hands of government and religion. In the 21st century we should expect change as well, and many (Including Baudrillard) thought that the spread of the tools of production has changed the spectacle into a largely viral state. This is a tricky situation to define, at one time authorship went hand in hand with authority. No one without substantial, religious, corporate, academic or governmental power made representaions. Today's trend of "consumer as producer" is only made possible by the tools of production being in the hands of people that lacking these kinds of authorities. And so the notion of author and authority are changed today. This has been happening since well before the 21st century. With radio call ins and letters to the editor. TV and radio has long been responsive to public opinion, so responsive you could say that they are enslaved to it.
Here the simplistic read of Debord’s spectacle hits some problems. Do people sit powerless in front of television programming, or are TV producers powerless in the face of fashionable and ever-changing public opinion? It’s to easy to read Debord’s ideas as an argument that the spectacle is mind control.

>>1737849
Continued

The notion that user feedback is changing media is entirely correct, but I still think post-modern theory has a lot to say about this. Lyotard’s critique of knowledge and authority is still very relevant to situations like e-mails becoming part of the news. Because the authority of knowledge is so undermined (always the questions, “whose knowledge is this?”) we see the news reporting on media. The New York times talks about the Washington Post. The Huffington Post is just as likely a news item as it is a news source, same with Wikileaks. Blogging is the epitome of this situation, a huge library of citation and refrence, of who said what.

The idea that movies no longer take from reality is ludicrous. When has a film ever seemed like reality? The mechanism of photographic film is illusory, Avatar is no more real than Blade Runner. Furthermore if you really wanted to think and write about this topic, it’d do a lot of good to look at Baudrillard’s notion of the 3 levels of simulation, or The Precision of the Simulacrum. That the increased reliance on CGI has made film pseudo-modern is plain stupid.

The idea that digital media is hard to pin down is also stupid. E-mail archiving is very easy, and in many ways harder to forge than hand written documents, especially if one is using encryption, security keys and hashcode. The internet itself is easier to dig through than TV, with things like thewaybackmachine.org and google.
The notion of playlists and web browsing as pseudo-modern mediums is also stupid. Personal selection of media has increased, but has been around for a long time. You chose which paper to read, which book to buy, which radios tation to listen to, which TV channel to watch. Radio stations don’t play whole albums either, is the radio station pseudo modern? Kirby is trying to make a bigger deal out of these phenomena by making them seem like radical shifts, when they have been slow and gradual

the successor to post-modernism is Atemporality. it's designed to be the Last movement ever.

sort of like next wave.

>>1737847
>>1737849
Interesting
much obliged

>>1737854

Care to elaborate?

>>1737856
Thank you! ussually my discussion of baudrillard on lit just meets with people telling me to burn and die.

>>1737870

Yeah, pretty astounding that this thread hasn't turned into a "hurr-postmodern-hipster-derp-herp-pretentious-deconstructivism-philosophy"-shitstorm yet

Post-modernism is totally irrelevant to anything.

>>1737888
certainly not relevant to 4chan amirite

>>1737888
>implying anything bears relevance

>>1737870

What can you recommend as entry-level reading on Baudrillard? Should I just look him up in some philosophical encyclopedia, is there anything I should read before I read any of his works?
I haven't really read that much philosophy, just the basic stuff like Descartes and all those fellows. The most modern-day philosopher I've read about is John Rawls.

>>1737988
I'd start with Simulation Simulacra. I'ts probably his most pivotal work. It's dense, but it doesn't get much easier than that work. There is an illustrated "Introducing Baudrillard" by christopher horrcocks that isn't half bad, if a little cheesy.

Some of his shorter essays are also a good way to get into his mind set. The Spirit of Terrorism is a quick read, and makes very easy to grasp arguments. Also his book America, is probably his most popular amongst people who don't ussually read philosophy. It's short musings on his trip through america in a convertible.

>>1737988
I should add his work is widely (mis)interpreted. Although like any philosopher, interpretation of the reader is everything. I've just found a lot of rubbish about him.

>>1738046

Alright, I'll check it out.

>>1737724

Shut the fuck up, Rachel. I think I hear your mother calling you.

>>1737854
>Atemporality

wat