/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7258247]

So what comes after postmodernism?

post-irony? metamodernism?

[Anonymous No.7258254]

>>7258247
Postpostmodernism.

[Anonymous No.7258256]

>>7258247
fascism

[Anonymous No.7258259]

>>7258254
the naming don't work that way

I assume they'll pull a new name out of their ass

or maybe [something]renaissance

[Anonymous No.7258262]

>>7258247
Newsflash, postmodernism never even happened

>>7258254
Why do people solve captchas to post shit like this.

>HEY I CAN MAKE SOUNDS OUT OF MY FACEHOLE ON THE INTERNET NOW

[Anonymous No.7258264]

>>7258259
>the naming don't work that way
Yes it does. And Post-postmodernism is already an established thing.

[Anonymous No.7258266]

>>7258247
Neo-scepticism would be cool, but we're already too jaded for that.

Really, I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of revived romanticism take a bigger hold in writing, just something with actual fucking passion.

[Anonymous No.7258267]

>>7258247
>So what comes after postmodernism?

Death and chaos.

[Anonymous No.7258269]

>>7258247
"Postmodernism-was-a-mistake"-nism.

[Anonymous No.7258271]

>>7258262
I'd say the same to you, friend. Post-postmodernism is an established thing, not something I just came up with. Please be less wrong next time you post.

[Anonymous No.7258275]

Pepemodernism

[Anonymous No.7258282]

>>7258271
>covering up your ass this hard

You literally just read that as I did from that other anon who corrected your lexical error

[Anonymous No.7258284]

You must keep in mind that postmodernism is a rare case, something being born from academia. For most other literary epochs or movements, their cathegorisations occured long after their poets died. Sure, the term "romantic" was used during romanticism, or "expressionistic" during expressionism, but the modern coinings of those words are much younger. The romantic poets did not meet once a week in the Romantics Bar to write romantic poetry, they just did their thing and were later summed up as "romanticism". The names of literary epochs are highly artificial.

Modernism occured when academia asked itself "What are we currently in?" (hence the name), post-mopdernism occured when academia asked "What comes next?", as if literary history needs to be written anew constantly.

So take it easy. Analyze your grandparents, if you like, but don't analyze your grandchildren yet. What you can do is write, so that they have something to analyze.

[Anonymous No.7258285]

>>7258275

[Anonymous No.7258331]

>>7258262
>not having a pass

[Anonymous No.7258335]

>>7258284
Modernism already is "What's comes next?". It is not a thing "natural" as romanticism, that was labeled later when scholars indentified as a distintic art movement. Most modernists are already trying to "advance" art, to "finish" art. See all the self-declared movements with clear goals and an already stablished indentity in history since it's conception.

Post-modernism is "What's comes next to 'what's comes next?'". A thing that has no substance at all. A failed endeauvor to creat a distinct movement from something that already is incredibly diverse and sel-conscious. A thing that cannot exist apart from the history of itself. Its substance is, in a certain sense, the history of itself. A sculpture of a toilet is not a toilet only if it is accompanied by an understanding that localizes the piece of art in a historical context. In sum, Post-modernism is not exactly art, it is more like philosophy,

This is the reason why I don't accept post-modernism as the next step of modernism, but a new sub-genre of modernism. In the same way that post-rock is still a rock genre.

Academia should just accept that. Modernism is the end of art. Postmodernism is then just necrophilia.

[Anonymous No.7258348]

>>7258335
>Academia should just accept that. Modernism is the end of art. Postmodernism is then just necrophilia.
As the one you repied to, I agree with the rest of your post, but this is self-contradictory, seeing how academia also created modernism. Just a bit nitpicking though.

[Anonymous No.7258364]

>>7258247
>what comes after
The fact that the question is posed this way just means that modernism still reigns supreme in some new iteration of navel-gazing self-consciousness.

ie. When you ask if there is some "next thing" to witness or belong to, you are buying into modernism and making vain attempts to identify with what's "new"... relevant... possessing value.

[Anonymous No.7258373]

>>7258247
The Ubermensch

[Anonymous No.7258389]

>>7258348
It was just a rhetorical trick. I was trying to highlight the desperation of academia to "move foward". Since Modernism already questioned and broken all norms, you, as an artist, don't have anywhere to go.

This doesn't mean that art is dead, it is just that art's development when seen thorugh the usual historical framework has ended. Nothing can be so distinctive from what already exists to deserve recognition as new art movement. The framework is robust enough to classify everything that is called postmodern as a modernist sub-genre.

[Anonymous No.7258482]

>>7258335
>Modernism is the end of art.
I don't know about this.

I wonder if it isn't more just art reflecting the conditions and mythologies of Western Civilisation. The idea that everything is always getting better in a linear fashion (socially, economically, technologically) serves as the foundation for dynamics in business, industry, politics and media... such as the desire for buying products as long as they have the trappings of "new" and/or "better"... or to get people to vote for a candidate who has made promises that seem most likely to benefit them in the future. Note also that it is shameful to be someone who is "backward", rigidly set in old ways, and so forth (it almost rhymes with misguided Victorian era fears about literal evolutionary degeneration or "de-evolution" among the poor and criminal classes... instead we fear and hate that those who are behind the times socially will hold us back from achieving utopian futures).

Literary figures and movements under these conditions, then, could sensibly be interested in being new, different, or better.

Even the study of literature has had to adapt. In order to justify the relevance and value of old literature in a future-obsessed culture, English departments invent new identities and perspectives through which to read old texts... exploding them into "new" creative readings.

But my point is- I guess -what if the conditions or reigning mythologies of Western Civilisation change? They are sure to, eventually. And when that happens, what is "new", "different" and (allegedly) "better" may not be valuable to Power anymore... may not signify Status anymore...

[Anonymous No.7258487]

>>7258247
Nothing.

Of course that won't stop braindead faggots like you from asking this question or coining dumbass words for other braindead faggots to use.

[Anonymous No.7258494]

>>7258247
4th reich or Islam

[Anonymous No.7258545]

>>7258494
Neither of those are literary.

[Anonymous No.7258598]

>>7258482
Well,a cathastrophe could happen and, as a result, art could become something way more restrictive and standardized under a more authoritarian and conservative society. As Plato would like, art could become exclusively educational in this hypothetic cultural context. The rhetoric to explain already exists. It's out there. The scholars on this hypothetic world could call it "Purgationism"/"Purificationism"/"Neo Renaissance". You name it.

So I'm with you when you say society could head to new places and art could go with it becoming clearly different from what precedes it. But that would not be as interpreted as an progression from what came before in the current histography of art. It is too much liberal. It would be seen as an regression.

So I maintain my view that under current conditions art is finished. I also predict that if, indeed, liberal democracy is the end of history, then modernism is the end of art. It is not an exhaustion of creativity, but of the model to interpret the history of art. Modernism is something too broad to find something really different to the point of deserving a new name. Postmodernism is specially a bad candidate to it, since it relies to much on the current historiography of art. As I said in another post, some postmoderns works are history of art. They're philosophical arguments, like that pipe painting of Magritte. They make no fucking sense if you don't accept the history of art currently stablished.

Maybe the development of art will happen when artists discard completely this model and fucking forget history, or, at leart, ignore progression or development aspect of it. But this is paradoxical.

[Anonymous No.7258624]

this is right. there is no History (of any field/thing) since the human rights. this is the end goals. At best, we have history in science, since the classical liberals and their heirs still have faith in what they call progress (they have of course no idea what progress is beyond some word for some vague fantasy where everybody is happy (they have no idea what happiness is, beyond some fantasy belonging to the liberal having faith in progress)).

the sad thing is that there is no progress socially, nor even scientifically.

[Anonymous No.7258675]

I think there wil be a bubble or cloud of suspended judgement on all suspended affairs of utmost importance and probably a few dissidents and then maybe a ten or a two, but really the most important characteristic of our times is uncertainty and a lack of pressure or stress or necessity to act and react to situations as they progress but really the most important of our times is time the first maybe then the automatons will rule the earth in simulacrum style, because obviously american psychology is ruled subconsciously by japanese cartoons and ideals (sing "Turning Japanese I think I'm turning Japanese I really think so"—prophetic voice) and thus that americans really do lack private self-awareness on any level that is nonsocial providing a great deal of tension between countries that try to preserve their identities, the so called extremists, or those that are only now, by means of westernization, discovering what private identity and patterns of living are, say, for example african countries. What is happening is no more no less than a globalization of one the most inmost councils to pervert that end shall ever be our concern and make a heaven of out hell and a hell of out heaven, dyslexia might be explored by writers, maybe they will be exploring other movements too. Today I thought that pretentiousness might become a new aesthetic movement, or that automatic writing or creation might be a useful artistic form or means of expression, even if just to denounce the automatic mechanizations or behaviours or patterns of thought that we possess, they'd be exposed, and this mental fog would be shown as is and is as as, but really: americans are national schizophrenia, and the technologies that impose america everywhere else create tensions huge and grand that are really bad, like when the russians and the americans were fighting and the lol because it's all so backspace i wrote its instead of it's and erased it nevertheless probably the hugest thing to comes after postmodernism is the complete eradication of the audience as in the peoples who sit and listen or read and then, but not during, evaluate, you will experience, in literature, the equivalent of writing a book with the author, not by the author, so that you become involved in it as if you were part of the process of writing, maybe books will disappear, maybe the next ouevre will consist of several discussion-openers, maybe several aphorisms or ideas, so that the participation is done and the coverage is done exclusively by the peoples that read it, and so that the development is not contain'd in the book because there will no longer be availble the pretension that a book, a frozen artifact, can contain the uncertainties and the inclusions and exclusions and the dynamics and unexpectabilities of a a dialogue or say, that, we have to listen rather than hear, and participate, and, and, and, end, please my hands have not stopped typing furiously, the the the the the the speed has reduced som+

[Anonymous No.7258675,1]

Look at this: "New Sincerity"

It's a wiki link so probably edited by a bunch of wanky jargon addicts (see: this entire thread), but many critics suggest the end of potsmodernism is an attempt to recapture sincerity.

So basically, "back to romanticism."

It's the logical step between the 2000s and whenever AIs start producing books.

[Anonymous No.7258675,2]

^soz lol forgot link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sincerity

[Anonymous No.7258675,3]

throwing goons out of helicopters

[Anonymous No.7258675,4]

The arts are dead. The killer is liberal capitalism. Creation is, in a way, numbed by justice.