For all you poets.

Love this dude, all his videos are really interesting but I wondered what some of the poets on the forum thought about this.

 

God bless postmodernism, where anything makes sense if you want it to.

I leave you with a poem:

 

_______
____________
____________

 

We should post our poems in the Workshop and see what kind of responses we get.

 

.

 

@thirdwind that's not exactly how I'd describe "postmodernism" - you are of course alluding to commonly perceived randomness and subjectivism, but that always stroke me as a bit vulgar interpretation (if it is an interpretation in the first place) from the perspective of supposed late "neo"-modernists. Somehow, in my mind, the word "postmodern" itself has always been related to a particular Anglo-Saxon interpretation (or rather: unwillingness to seriously indulge in comprehension) of continental theory. Seeing how deconstructivists, for example, never used "postmodern" to describe themselves...scorned on the term, actually

 

I'm going with the definition put forth by Foucault et al.

 

@thirdwind I have a problem with the very first sentence from the source

"Movement" is a rather ridiculous term for something like postmodernism ...the source does get over it later, praise Jesus...

I just object to anti-objectivism being equalized with subjectivism - which is how most people see the idea of "Anything goes" in art.

 

Why? A lot of definitions of postmodernism, including those found on Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, and several university websites, use the word "movement."

 

Alone





​

 

@thirdwind well, for example, wikipedia says:

Which doesn't make sense. And is, simply put, wrong. It implies that, in a way, reaction to modernity didn't happen till the late 20th century. It implies organization, tendency towards a unison voice, etc. It implies departure. And it doesn't imply linguistics, anthropology and other humanities.

 

It makes sense to me.

If you're saying that it was a gradual process, then yes, I agree with you. But your issue seems to be with the word "movement," and I'm still not sure why you have a problem with that word.

Is this definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy better?

 

.

 

@thirdwind more or less
Yeah, I do have an issue with "movement", because it makes a curious leap between an actual late-20th century American architecture movement and goes back to Nietzsche... that's what makes little sense to me. Reminds me of the way they taught us about baroque or avant-guard in high school - I believed that Bach consciously belonged to a an actual school of thought, and that you could somehow talk about surrealism and futurism in the same sentence - a distortion of common sense to me...

 

M->o->v->e->m->e->n->t

 

OK, I see where you're coming from, though I would argue that movement is being used in a different sense when defining postmodernism. But that's not so important right now. I have an essay due tomorrow for class, and I still have a lot to get done.