Talk:Post-postmodernism

message: this article is shocking I havent learnt what post postmodernism is all about, it has one line stating it in a stupid quote. This post modern article needs to be modernised for the sake of the purpose of wikipedia.
Now shut up with the showing off of quotes and write about this bilgin theory so people can understand what the hell its about.
what a waste of time............
If you were trying to make a point, I'm sorry you didn't. In order to discredit someonelse's theory you better come with better ones. Watch your language.--Diego 14:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Post-postmodernism is actually a pretty simple idea. It says "Postmodernism is a real load of crap, but it did have some interesting ideas, so let's keep those that we like and incorporate them into a new version of modernism." — NRen2k5(TALK), 04:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Postmodernism is not a political platform.  It's an attempt to describe experience.  It's also a horribly abused concept, because of the glut of pretentious BA's.  A new version of modernism would be modernism, but you can't step in the same river twice.  Post-postmodernism is a marketing gimmick targeting the middlebrow book collectors.  It's pure folly.  Magmagoblin2 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  bilge sake 

message: The article currently includes two quotes from one critic who basically considers it a useless attempt to save postmodernism by stapling another prefix onto a pile of gibberish. While this is certainly one criticism, it's not the only one, or even all that interesting, since it's basically an extension of the criticisms of postmodernism, which are better covered there (with a brief mention here that the critics of postmodernism, especially in its academic guises, have generally the same opinion of post-postmodernism).
Somewhat more interesting would be coverage of people who either broadly defend the postmodernist project and consider post-postmodernism therefore unnecessary, or those who think some reaction is necessary but not this one. It'd also be nice if it focused more on the ideas rather than the term; there are disagreements over both, but we seem to mainly focus on the term.
Unfortunately I don't actually know enough about the above to write any of this. I just thought I'd note the things I was looking for in this article that I didn't find, in case anyone knowledgeable can expand it. --Delirium (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, my god you suck, Artisticidea. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism could be broader 

message: Taken this excerpt from an article about the Charlie Brooker scripted television programme Nathan Barley and wanted to propose it's inclusion...
Nathan Barley asks, ‘where do we turn, post-postmodernism?’, when we are all self-referenced out? Where do we turn when not only are all values bought and sold, but the observation that all values are bought and sold, are bought and sold? 
source  - http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/russellhope/entry/rise_of_the/ 92.236.96.124 (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nathan Barley quote 

message: "the dominant cultural force well into the mid-twentieth century" - This is not substantiated.  While I'd guess it's true for (what used to be called) high-brow culture in Europe and North America, that by itself hardly would warrant htis bald statement. Kdammers (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious assertion 

message: Both modernism and postmodernism are conventionally defined in terms of Western high culture (in its interactions with popular culture as well as with non-Western cultures) and it seems hardly necessary to reiterate this.  
   
--Hastrman (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree.  It is especially a problem or issue when talking about post-modernism, which works to break down the divisions -- as You state. Kdammers (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: A postmodernist would certainly refer to an irreducible plurality of decentered "others" to undermine dominant terms like "Western," "epoch," "dominant," "history," etc. However, I feel that an article about post-postmodernism must necessarily argue in the historicist terms alien to postmodernism (which has no way of explaining what comes after it in its own terms). It also might be more appropriate to discuss (or pursue) the postmodern deconstruction of Western high culture in the context of articles on postcolonialism or postmodernism itself. --Hastrman (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explication of the self-evident 

message: '
Polyconstructionism extracts the implications of Performatism, applies it to more than aesthetics, and then renames it something that sounds less like a synonym for "hypocrite."
Now that we've spent the last 60 years dismantling meaning, it's time to infuse constructs of meaning back into love, work, play." tHIS MUST BE CHANGED TO ENCYCL. STYLE.Kdammers (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unreferenced. I've removed the section. Ty 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: * Post-Postmodernism: "Post-postmodernism is a term applied to a wide-ranging set of developments in critical theory, philosophy, architecture, art, literature, and culture which are emerging from and reacting to postmodernism."
* Neomodernism: "is a term that has at times been used to describe a philosophical position based on modernism but addressing the critique of modernism by postmodernism."
(It's all meaningless, fluffy talk to me, but from an encyclopedia maintenance standpoint, it seems a merge tag may be in order here.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.187.132 (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: How does this differ from Neomodernism?

message: I don't think post-Postmodernism exists. Most of the traits these people are attributing to postmodernism are actually traits of modernism that they're reacting to like all the rest of the postmodernists. That means post-Postmodernism is effectively just more postmodernism. The fact that's in reaction to a percieved negativity is evidence that it's postmodernism. I think the 1980's were the height of modernism. The split from the past; the proliferation of suburbanism over the entirety of the 1900s is effectively a split from the past; a departure from the omnipresent urbanism of the Old World. New Urbanism and New Sincerity are firmly postmodern. The "anything goes" mentality is modernism, not postmodernism. Postmodernism takes the best features of modernism and the best features of older styles and incorporates them. Not out of irony but out of sincere (notice the word) appreciation. 
There is no such thing as post-Postmodernism. The people that thought there was just didn't have a good understanding of what postmodernism is and they got their dates wrong. The destruction of the WTC on 9/11/2001 -- the quintessential symbol of modernist architecture (built in the 60's-70's, by the way, not pre-1950) -- can be seen as the point in which modernism ended. 
This article should be deleted. 209.163.243.99 (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to ask this question, but you beat me to it: "Is there even the possibility of Post-Postmodernism? Since its eclectic nature allows for the integration of any idea, (old or new) aren't we doomed with an "eternal Postmodernism"? Isn't thus Post-postmodernism in fact Postmodernism as well? Are there any published opinions about this?" -- megA (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as there are serious third-party sources discussing post-postmodernism it doesn't matter whether you or I think it's a legitimate idea. There seems to be a number of sources that validate this and we can only report it as such. As for the argument as to whether post-postmodernism is really just postmodernism, well again if the sources discuss it, then that can be an aspect of the topic but it wouldn't in and of itself negate this topic nor require this article to be deleted (answering the IP's question above). Yeah, it gets convoluted but that's all we can do, I'm afraid. Let the academics fight it out. freshacconci talktalk 16:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The WTC was not the quintessential symbol of anything while it existed.  It was a big office structure.  Most people thought it was ugly.  Magmagoblin2 (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-existence 

message: From what I understand, modernism was a belief that the products of then intellect could somehow create a utopia. One big example would be technology. Post modernism was and is an attempt to say hold up, radiation can kill you and plastic ain't so great either. To bad we can't drink from the rivers anymore. Maybe what is next is to see these things in the great what was, is and will be. To be the moment for a while. Shane.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.247.178 (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let me get this right. 

message: As we can see from discussions above, the whole idea of postmodernism and modernism were controversial enough that "post-postmodernism" probably shouldn't be written up as a solid idea (as if it identifies absolutely some kind of definite epoch that we're in) but rather as a critical tool that has been fleshed out among academics and cultural critics. I think that the situation might be made a bit clearer if we add some references to Jeff Nealon's 2012 book "Post-postmodernism". I was just looking at this today and was curious about the status of the article, which is why I ended up here. It looks like most discussion and substantive edits to this article occurred prior to the publication of that book. The useful think about Nealon's approach is that it puts "post-postmodernism" in line with Jameson's definition of Postmodernism and Jameson's mode of critique. If this article is worth having (and I think it is) and if we're going to maintain Wikipedia neutral-POV and other standards, it makes sense to integrate in some references to post-postmodernism as a certain mode of relating structures of capitalism to what they permit within culture, which is Nealon's whole angle. Not to say we should go exclusive on that, but it might clarify some things about what post-postmodernism is as a concept. I don't have the time to make any changes or additions now so am just posting this for the time being until I do, partially to see if anyone else has any thoughts. Etherfire (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making this Article useful 

message: The terms "modernism" and "postmodernism" are being used here as they apply to literature and related cultural fields. They are used in a broad range of fields, most notably in architecture and philosophy. The problem is that that they are totally distinct concepts in each case. 
For example, modernism in philosophy is often regarded as having started in the mid-17th century, 250 years before this article says that "modernism" began. Postmoden philosophy can be dated as beginning as early as the late 18th century, depending on who you ask. Furthermore, in philosophy, modernism is not focused on authenticity or irony, but on securing authority for truth claims and epistemology.
I would recommend that this article is modified to either only address literature and related fields, or is expanded in such a way that the term is properly indexed to the various meanings it has across differing fields. Staplovich (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous terminology 

message: Hi everyone. I agree with those who comment below that this entry needs revising but don’t want to do it because I’m quoted in the article and think it would lead to thoughts about vanity or bias. But I have done a recent blog post (and video) on ‘Jordan Peterson: God, Post-postmodernism and Metamodernism’ (see http://www.landscapearchitecture.org.uk/jordan-peterson-god-post-postmodernism ) and it led me to re-read (and quote) the Wiki article on Post-postmodernism. My thoughts about it are (1) the declining use of the term ‘Postmoderism’ is proceeding and a recent Google search on “death of postmodernism” (in quotes) produced “About 607,000 results” (2) the range of ‘candidates’ for ‘what comes next’  includes (according to an article by Alison Gibbons  in the Times Literary Supplement https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/postmodernism-dead-comes-next/ ) ‘altermodernism, cosmodernism, digimodernism, metamodernism, performatism, post-digital, post-humanism, and the clunky post-postmodernism’ (3) since I can’t see any of these names becoming an accepted term in cultural or art history (and apperong on the list of  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periods_in_Western_art_history) I think ‘post-postmodern’ remains the best portmanteau term for the candidate group (4) at present ‘metamodernism’ is leading the pack of alternatives on the Ngram Viewer (5) a lot of people are scratching their heads to think of alternatives but agreeing what it will be is sure to take time (6) whatever you think of Jordan Peterson’s politics, he is a leading critic of postmodernism and as such deserves a mention in the Wiki entry on what may follow it (6) my personal view (not relevant to the entry on post-postmodernism) is that popular interest in the ‘grand narratives’ which postmodernism aims/aimed to ‘deconstruct’ was never much harmed by postmodern theory. For example, people love writing books about ideas etc ‘which changed the world’ (7) the current Wiki entry on Jordan Peterson notes his role as a critic of Postmodernism but not his role in thinking about what should/may come next (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson#Postmodernism_and_identity_politics )  (8) notwithstanding Peterson's enthusiasm for ‘myth’ he may come be be seen as another demythologiser, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demythologization) 
( TomTurner2 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible extra points for the entry on Post-postmodernism 

message: Should be included when discussing post-postmodernism 68.36.93.99 (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regressive Modes Of Being / Interacting