/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4733796]

>tfw you finally accepted postmodernism

[Anonymous No.4733798]

[Anonymous No.4733977]

[Anonymous No.4733988]

[Anonymous No.4733987]

Oh so that means you rejected it.

[Anonymous No.4734024]

[Anonymous No.4734032]

>tfw you recline in the face of the absent god

[Anonymous No.4734044]

>tfw you've accepted that the only sacred realm is the aesthetic
>tfw capitalism has so pervasively abused this realm through its application of instrumental rationality
>tfw you can still maintain some solace in the world through the recognition of the beautiful, agonizing screams of someone else

[Anonymous No.4734050]

[Anonymous No.4734055]

>>4734044

I like how you think.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4734058]

>tfw you realize God's existence is subjective

[Anonymous No.4734071]

>tfw you realize god exists, not ontologically, but asthetically

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4734078]

>>4734071
>ideas as aesthetic
2duchamp4me

[Anonymous No.4734081]

Anything with "post" as a prefix isn't a legit ideology.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4734088]

>>4734081
Postmodernism largely rejects ideology.

[Anonymous No.4734090]

>tfw you realize history is organic

[Anonymous No.4734091]

>>4734078
Never read him. Would I like it?

[Anonymous No.4734094]

>>4734088
My god! Is this not itself a perfect example of the way ideology renders itself invisible, and so on and so on.

[Anonymous No.4734095]

>>4734032
>not looking for the traces of the godhead

[Anonymous No.4734096]

>>4734091
He wasn't that good of a writer, I'd recommend studying his work and reading Calvin Thomkins' biography before going into his own writings

[Anonymous No.4734104]

>tfw you use postmodernism to score an A* on your Sociology A-level
>tfw you still haven't a clue what it means to be postmodern

[Anonymous No.4734108]

>>4734104
you don't become it, you just are or are not.

[Anonymous No.4734112]

>>4734104
>not knowing what postmodernism is
You're 2postmodern4me.

[Anonymous No.4734120]

>>4734104
>being postmodern without even realizing it.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4734121]

>>4734091
Couple of bits by him here, see for yourself
http://radicalart.info/things/readymade/duchamp/text.html

[Anonymous No.4734126]

If you google image search 'postmodernism' you get the plebbiest shit.

But really postmodernism is really interesting historically and philosophically and should be studied for its own sake, not as a part of any political motive.

i wish we could embrace it more

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4734131]

>>4734126
We can't embrace it because it's not finished developing yet. How can you embrace something that doesn't quiet exist?

[Anonymous No.4734134]

>tfw you make fun of postmodernism daily

The main theme of Hamburger’s critique of the posttextual paradigm of consensus is a self-referential whole. But Bataille uses the term ‘capitalist pretextual theory’ to denote the bridge between culture and class. Foucault suggests the use of the posttextual paradigm of consensus to analyse society.

“Sexuality is meaningless,” says Bataille; however, according to d’Erlette , it is not so much sexuality that is meaningless, but rather the stasis, and thus the paradigm, of sexuality. However, Lyotard uses the term ‘capitalist pretextual theory’ to denote the role of the reader as poet. If the textual paradigm of expression holds, the works of Joyce are not postmodern.

But capitalist pretextual theory suggests that the goal of the writer is deconstruction, but only if consciousness is interchangeable with truth; if that is not the case, Lacan’s model of neoconceptual objectivism is one of “the dialectic paradigm of context”, and therefore intrinsically responsible for class divisions. The subject is contextualised into a textual paradigm of expression that includes narrativity as a paradox.

However, Foucault promotes the use of prepatriarchialist capitalist theory to attack the status quo. The subject is interpolated into a capitalist pretextual theory that includes truth as a totality.

In a sense, the characteristic theme of the works of Joyce is not conceptualism as such, but subconceptualism. Several theories concerning the defining characteristic, and some would say the dialectic, of predialectic sexual identity exist.

However, the subject is contextualised into a textual paradigm of expression that includes reality as a paradox. The example of the cultural paradigm of reality intrinsic to Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake emerges again in A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man.

[Anonymous No.4734136]

anyone ever try to categorize the threads on here? like, is it post postmodernism? lol

[Anonymous No.4734137]

no, the secret is to NOT accept post-modernism

[Anonymous No.4734141]

>tfw you realise hipster runoff is the definitive commentary on postmodern society

[Anonymous No.4734143]

>>4734134
nihilst

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4734144]

>>4734136
You can't have post-postmodernism when most of the posters don't even know wtf postmodernism is.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4734149]

>>4734141
>arriving at knowledge through realization

[Anonymous No.4734150]

>>4734090
Spengler's rhythmic model was the wrong approach, history is a matter of chaotic complex systems.

[Anonymous No.4734152]

>>4734149
>arriving

[Anonymous No.4734156]

>>4734144
But most people don't even know what modernism is.

[Anonymous No.4734158]

>>4734126
Why the need for embrace when it's already the dominant mode of operating in contemporary society? Read some fucking Jameson and Harvey.

[Anonymous No.4734164]

>>4734158
Let me take you on a factory tour some time, chicken boning, or Foxconn, or Amazon fulfilment.

Then tell me we've exited Fordism. I dare you, I fucking dare you.

[Anonymous No.4734162]

>>4734136
just fuck you, man, fuck you.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4734161]

>>4734156
People here don't?

[Anonymous No.4734171]

>>4734161
It's like humanism without humanity, or something?

[Anonymous No.4734173]

>>4734164
Did I say we had?

[Anonymous No.4734172]

What is post-modernism?

[Anonymous No.4734174]

>>4734172
Realizing their are ways things are done, and then thinking you're clever for doing things like a jackass.

[Anonymous No.4734182]

>>4734173
>Did I say we had?
You'd suggested we had entered "post-modernity" in a Jamesonian sense.

[Anonymous No.4734192]

>>4734164
None of those are examples of fordism. Fordism does not only necessitate an assembly line manufacturing structure. Fordism meant economically providing your employees with the opportunity to purchase the products they produced and socially maintaining the cohesive structure of the family to secure and stabilize the labor force.

We're post-fordist baby and we have been since the 70s. The economy of the future is Information and Communications technology and the entire web of the service sector and such that system implies.

[Anonymous No.4734200]

>>4734172
'ironic shitposting' with added pretentiousness

[Anonymous No.4734206]

>>4734174

>vague, noncommital statements instead of a direct answer

If you're trying to be cute it's not working.

[Anonymous No.4734212]

>>4734192
Fucking arse. Chicken boning, Foxxcon and Amazon fulfilment all recapitulate the male dominated patriarchal family, all involve payment at levels identical to Foridsts plants such as BHP Newcastle prior to the 1940s.

The illusion that Fordism did not involve precarity is an illusion of your own belief in social democracy.

[Anonymous No.4734215]

>>4734182
Jameson doesn't argue for a break from Fordism, it's more about expansion, and the changes that have occurred within the Fordist system aren't universal or occurring at the same rate.

[Anonymous No.4734217]

>>4734215
So why is this sufficient to differentiate a "modern" and a "post-modern" moment. If Jameson is arguing a change in ideology has occurred, on what material basis does this change reset?

[Anonymous No.4734222]

>>4734212
Take a look at the feminization of the workplace in manufacturing sectors that were previously dominated by men. The 70s trend towards feminizing white collar work, while hardly progressive or anti-patriarchal, also had some significant effects on the early fordist family. There are some good studies on South Asia to that point.

The areas you mentioned are not the main sectors of growth either. They aren't going anywhere but they also aren't expanding and evolving as quickly as ICT and finance.

Manufacturing and services are also radically different from what they were previously. There is no one, stable subject to produce for anymore. Economies are less economies of scale and more economies of scope, producing for a fragmented subject.

By most observable metrics, we are hardly a Fordist society anymore.

[Anonymous No.4734231]

>>4734222
If you think there was one stable product in 1930 please check the tobacconist. You're producing material by creating false distinctions with a past you don't know or understand.

>By most observable metrics
By a fucking arse. Foxconn is the site of production of value for Apple. This is as simple as indian fucking cotton.

ICT is run as a fucking line with obligatory participation exercises much like the Soviet plants of the 1930s. Feminisation, much as with lolly production or basic clerical has increased the imposition of management control over skill—and this has expanded into small site service industries which work on the fordist model.

The most telling example, however, is the academy itself where the same process of deskilling, skills dilution and semi-skilled technicians are being used as in the 1960s.

Precarity did not exist for white males in the first and second world between 1945 and 1970. Your hallelujah chorus about precarity indicates you know nothing about fordism in the 1920s and 1930s.

[Anonymous No.4734236]

>>4734217
Offshoring, outsourcing, flexibility in manufacturing, partial automation, mergers, 'just-in-time' delivery systems.

[Anonymous No.4734244]

>>4734236
>Offshoring
What were the English Speaking Dominions, Algeria, Vietnam, Coastal China, South American production?
>Outsourcing
So firms have moved from centralisation to divestment, just like in the 1870s? And this is important how?
>Flexibility in manufacturing
Fucksake, actually read something about metal work in Fordism.
>Partial automation
What's a jigged lathe?
>Mergers
Tell me more about Standard Oil
>'just-in-time' delivery systems
I'll give you this. This didn't start until much later. Explain to me how JIT specifically produces the ironisation of culture? Fuck it, I'll be generous, explain how any of the above produce the ironisation of culture.

[Anonymous No.4734260]

YOU KANT KNOW NUTHIN !!!!!!!11

[Anonymous No.4734270]

>>4734244
>explain how any of the above produce the ironisation of culture.

Jameson and Harvey's account seems too causally simple for my liking. The 'ironisation of culture' looks more like a development of US consumer culture and counter-culture in the 50s and 60s rather than something caused by economic changes in the 70s. I don't know if J and H have revised their position though.

[Anonymous No.4734333]

>>4734270
So I think we can suggest, then, that Jameson and Harvey are working in an idealist mode, insufficient for making claims about movements in ideology rooted in the base. Modernism and Fordism are both far more supportable from present data than "post-modernism" and "post-fordism." One merely needs to point to Chinese culture and Indian cultures, production methods, labour resistances. And the continuation of Fordist production and serious proletarian cultures in the West. I mean, hell, "post-modernism" is more explicable as a vacuous idealist trend on the same level as Douglas Social Credit or Technocracy—it says more about the bourgeois' internal failures than changes in the state of material and social relations.

[Anonymous No.4734352]

>>4734333
Thanks for your responses, you've given me a lot of leads to investigate.

[Anonymous No.4734460]

>>4734144
>implying Yeezus isn't the first work of post-post-post-modernism

Jesus, you are dense for someone into literature. You're thinking on the surface level. You're thinking, "If Kanye says something that comes across as clever or insightful, it's deep." But that's such a pre-modern way to look at art. The way he interacts with the listener, building and subverting metamusical expectations, commenting on multiple metamusical, sociopolitical and personal subjects with single lines is brilliant. What work has played jump rope with the line between irony and sincerity as effectively as Yeezus? From the opening seconds of On Sight, to the chorus of I Am A God, to the final spoken sample of Bound 2, no other work of any medium has worked with such an ambiguity of awareness of its context. I'm not saying Yeezus is brilliant because it showcases great technical compositional proficiency or especially novel aesthetic innovations (though autotuned Chief Keef, Justin Vernon, '80s guitars and trap beats have never been fused so artfully), I'm saying its ability to project outwardly from itself and work in a space so self-aware (yet somehow sometimes simultaneously ham-handedly solipsistic) that it shatters any post-post-modern dichotomy between affectation and sincerity sets it apart from other works of art. The whole album skips back and forth over the "is dis nigga serious line," only for Bound 2 to answer with a resounding "we have no fucking clue." Where the recent metamodernists have decided that continual sinusoidal oscillation between critical points of intense sincerity and irony is a valid solution to the nihilism inherent in extreme postmodernity, Kanye instead manipulates for the oscillation of the listener's perception rather than affecting a self-defeatingly earnest oscillation of himself. In this way, Yeezus can be seen as a work of meta-metamodernism. To call the album "ahead of its time" would be a vast understatement.

[Anonymous No.4734466]

>>4734460


Youre taste is shit.

[Anonymous No.4734587]

>tfw postmodernism is really just running out of ideas so instead you perpetuate the same ideas ironically

[Anonymous No.4734826]

>>4734352
I hope that once you've followed the leads that your thoughts exceed my own and produce new and useful ideas to take to praxis to test.

I greatly enjoyed this conversation, and I realise that I need to write a journal article on it.

[Anonymous No.4735181]

I don't get what postmodernism is

Is it just based on being an ironic idiot all the time?

[Anonymous No.4735234]

>>4735181
ye

[Anonymous No.4735275]

>>4734460
>I'm saying its ability to project outwardly from itself and work in a space so self-aware (yet somehow sometimes simultaneously ham-handedly solipsistic) that it shatters any post-post-modern dichotomy between affectation and sincerity sets it apart from other works of art
Does this actually make sense, or am I more drunk than I think?

[Anonymous No.4735326]

>>4734460
Post-ironic rap existed before Yeezus, Kanye just tried to cash in on an emerging genre.

[Anonymous No.4735359]

>>4735326
confirmed for having no clue about anything

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4735380]

>>4734460
Doesn't Tristram Shandy do all that?

[Anonymous No.4736097]

>>4734460
this post is so meta modern i can't even tell if it's a joke or not

[Anonymous No.4736103]

>>4734460
Some skinny hipster wrote all of this about fucking coon tunes. Jesus christ.

[Anonymous No.4736148]

>>4735380

Pretty much.

[Anonymous No.4736189]

>>4735326
lel at lil ugly mane spammers on /lit/

I really like lil ugly mane myself but lel nonetheless

[Anonymous No.4736204]

>tfw you finally accepted modernism
my work here is done

[Anonymous No.4738593]

No, really. What the fuck is postmodernism? Is it being jaded/cynical about modern life?

[Anonymous No.4739111]

>>4738593
It's deconstruction of art.

[Anonymous No.4741605]

>>4738593