Talk:Postmodernism/Archive 3

message: As it is, there is no clear cut definition of post modernism.  You'd have to read the entire damn page as it is to get the gist of it.  There should be a very brief "crash course" in the introduction section. Michael.A.Anthony 00:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should say, there is no clear cut definition of post modernism ANYWHERE on this page.  It's all heaped in piles of subjectiveness and various extraneous crap that could really go.  Plus the wording in the introduction induces pain and vomiting like some kind of Grade A prescription drug. Michael.A.Anthony 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There really is no definition of postmodernism. It would be impossible for anyone to define it. It is basically a word in search of a definition. Bus stop 04:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that is what should be specifically stated, rather than the excuse we have for an intro at the moment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael.A.Anthony (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think postmodernism is a term that refers to the qualities of various aspects of the age we live in. But I don't think it starts out with a definition. Rather, it seeks out qualities that characterize the times in which we live. Consequently, it is constantly evolving, as a term. It's definition is more like a work in process. Bus stop 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could do better than this... i will try to get some reliable sources, it seems (in reliable on- and offline sources) that this should be about the art movement, and social events and the like belong to postmodernity. starting with indefinable, there are still some things one can say in a single sentence, artists, for one. and i believe that even academic online sources can be horribly wrong, or rather hastily written, mixing up postmodernist with postmodern. --FlammingoHey 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S.:I think this is going to be a great article! In time, maybe even a "good article"!!! ;-) FlammingoHey 22:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We need a simple no-frills definition somewhere on this page.

message: Arriving at this page for the first time, and with no concept of what post-modernism is, I found myself none-the-wiser after reading the introduction.
Do you not think it possible that in the desire to make the introduction as general as possible, it is now pretty much devoid of meaning. All it now says of factual relevence is that post-modernism refers to the period/label after modernism. well no shit? 86.3.34.97 03:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Thanks to Spencerk for making the changes to the introduction, I have changed the first point back to include the idea of "reaction to Modernism", "grand narrative" and "reason" which disappeared from your new sentence because I'd say these are central to the idea of postmodernism.
*Original: An overall negative reaction to Modernism, which emphasized of grand narrative of "progress", "objectivity", and "reason" (see Counter-Enlightenment). In contrast, postmodernism rejects the validity of these values.
*Change: The continual skepticism of grand ideas of progress, objectivity, certainty and personal identity. </br>(see Counter-Enlightenment)
*My change: A continual skepticism towards the ideals of Modernism, especially the ideas of progress, objectivity, reason, certainty & personal identity, and other grand narratives in general (see Counter-Enlightenment).
Someone should note that wikipedia is postmodern...it would be a very postmodern thing to do.
Most of the article is clear and informative. The "Development of postmodernism" section in particular is helpful. The "Overview" section has less clarity. The biggest problems are in the first paragraph:
The first sentence is not true. Something along the lines of "Post modernism can either be seen as a movement of ideas contrary to modernism or as a continuation of modernism" might be better. That's a bit clunky, but you get the idea. Modernism is not defined until the "Development of postmodernism" section though, and ideally the "Overview" needs to be more general, introducing the reader to ideas that will be more fully elaborated later. I take the point about modernism's interest in what lies below the surface, but the list of influences (Freud, Marx, Einstein) is misleading, partly because postmodernists have also been influenced by Freud, Marx and Einstein. The "Developments" section makes the point much more clearly, describing Marxism etc as "master narratives". The last sentence doesn't make sense, grammatically or philosophically. Grammatically, no obvious "ideals" have been given in the preceding sentences, so the word has no reference. Philosophically, Freud, Marx and Einstein are not "ideals".
I think the first paragraph should be cut. Then, the "Overview" would be a quick description of the "postmodern" world, and the relationship with modernism can wait until the "Developments" section.--Ethicoaestheticist 11:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to introduction 

message: Hi Stirling, you've made huge changes to the vary contraversial article on postmodenrism without any discussion on the talk page. Much of the content you deleted has been added after much discussion, and I definitely feel that you have changed the way the article presents post-modernism, rather than removing possible POV sentences. In addition, some of your sentences are very clunky, and will need to be rewritten for easier comprehension, and I'm not sure that its worth the effort, when I don't even agree with half the changes. In the first paragraph alone:
*You've written: postmodernism is a "movement or condition supplanting modernism". Supplanting doesn't sound very NPOV to me. 
*You should not have the following as one sentence:
Post-modernism is most commonly held to be a movement or condition supplanting modernism, and countering basic assumptions held to be part of modernism, including ideas of rationality and objectivity held to be rooted in The Enlightenment and in positivist and realist movements from the late 19th century - as well as an extension of liberating trends in the modern period. However a large number of thinkers and writers hold that it is simply a period or variety of modernism, or a reactionary movement against the modern project and is not, therefore, properly a separate period or idea.
:I count 5 ideas, which technically means 5 sentences, but it should be at least 2 or 3.
The rest of your edits are the same. I would like to suggest that you specifically detail what was wrong with all the sections that you deleted (ie. bit by bit - simply claiming that it is POV is not enough), and justify why your edits make it more NPOV? Otherwise, I will revert it and then go and try and include relevant points you've made into the earlier version.
JenLouise 04:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge rewrite of aticle 

message: A lot of people are coming to this site to find out something about postmoderism, and, as one can see from this discussion page, they dont find any satisfaction here. Why? 
Here is one attempt to answer that question: One thing is well known about PoMo, they reject universals. And why is that? Its because they oppone to the usage of a lot of words, words that they think are being used in a stupid, unreflected way, both in philosophy and in general (that you can distionguish clearly between subjects like that is another one that is questioned) Its in many ways a lot like what Wittgenstein says in the "Philosophical investigations": a lot of our problems are caused by our use of words, if you realize this a lot of problems will disappear. (§116-->) PoMo is a lot like that, they try to build a philosophy around insights like that about language, even though they go a long way beyond Wittgenstein. So please dont try to understand postmoderism in it self, that would be like trying to understand the world by reading just the frontpage of the New York times. Headlines dont say a thing. 
And the political? What is left if all these categories and words, values and norms get a bit "shaky"? Are the marxist and other critics right when they say that there is no possibilities for politics and engagement in the world with a such viewpoints? Because, as Derrida says, you can always put footnotes on every single word you write (meaning that there is always something to say about the meaning of a word). In other words, you could spend all you time investigating how the meanings and values crack up at close scrutiny, and of course that would keep you from taking any real standpoints to events in the world. And this is the point where PoMo gets pragmatic, one has at some points go with what you got, forget the insecurity for short whiles to act. But never get stuck in one single viewpoint. Its like the paradox that european christians faced when they explored the world and met people that werent christians, but just the same, good caring people. It was what Spinoza was so eager to insist upon, heathens can also be good people. Sorry for the digression, but I hope you see the point. Just because people designated PoMo reject universal values and categories, doesnt mean that they are not able to take up positions in very concrete cases. Rejection the one, single ("true") perspective is NOT (please get this!) saying that all perspectives are equal. There are ways for judging several perspectives against each other, but these ways are not universal, but must be found in each concrete situation. You can not be completely sure, but then again, it might just be that you always have to be just a bit pragmatic. And in such a perspective its all you can do, but that doesent have to be so bad. 
If you want to know what postmoderinsm is, forget it. Why would you want to know? Do you want to know what I mean with the word følsdgdkndsuoø? Rather go to a single author and read. Use introductions with extreme caution. It is hard, but it will be understandable (it really is, despite all claims otherwise)It might just be great and constructive, and not nihilistic and negative and all.
:So we can never understand postmodernism, because it's a word and, like every other word, its ultimate meaning will escape us.  Okay, I'm with you.  But then you tell us we can understand a particular author if we just read him or her.  Not only that, but we should avoid those pesky introductions, because we don't want to be led astray by someone else's interpretation.  Hmm... sounds like somebody's a bit old-fashioned in priveleging the "original" text.
:And your idea that rejecting a single correct perspective doesn't mean that all perspectives are equal?  Sure that gets tossed around all the time nowadays by people like you, who like to call themselves postmodernists while pretending they can still make definite statements.  But come on.  Look at what you're actually saying.  "There are ways for judging several perspectives against each other, but these ways are not universal, but must be found in each concrete situation."  Okay, then give me one "concrete situation" where one perspective is better than another.  Just one.  And I'll show you an absolutist stance you've just taken, and ten ways to call it into question.
:Nothing is understandable--neither postmodernism nor any particular author.  Postmodernism is inescapably nihilistic and negative. It's just that "nihilic" and "negative" happen to bleed into "great" and "constructive," when you look hard enough.
*This talk section is filled with uncredited essays. Brilliant.
--Post-modernist ideas, when looked upon from a great height or perhaps a soggy below, express man's acknowledgment that we are a part of a un-sensed but not unknown,- process.  Talking, ideas, clothing, ideas, entertainments, ideas, buildings, ideas, - Post -modernism will seem in it's most objective way, to be an injection of truth into these processes of man's invention and knowledge and communications and doubt. Hence the actor who looks at the audience and refers to a past role or non-fictional mishap from the actor's life. Regard the museum which to every side of it's outside- being of a totally different style, regard the on-line encyclopedia that let's it's users/readers mutate evolve process the text itself. Brilliant.
Post-modernism- A little fun truth of uncertainty into the inventions of men who cannot stay in rooms, with thier hands upon their laps.Book M 10:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  making up problems... 

message: I see that there are big debates going on here, and possibly some rewrites in the future, so although I consider this a minor change I thought I'd ask first. 
I had to read this sentence several times before I got the gist and would like to make some minor punctuation repairs to clarify, as follows: 
Original: 
Postmodern scholars argue that such a decentralized society inevitably creates responses/perceptions which are described as post-modern, such as the rejection of what is seen as false, imposed unities of meta-narrative and hegemony, breaking of traditional frames of genre, structure and stylistic unity, and the overthrowing of categories which are the result of logocentrism and other forms of artificially imposed order.
Proposed change:
Postmodern scholars argue that such a decentralized society inevitably creates responses/perceptions which are described as post-modern, such as the rejection of what are seen as the false, imposed unities of meta-narrative and hegemony; the breaking of traditional frames of genre, structure and stylistic unity; and the overthrowing of categories which are the result of logocentrism and other forms of artificially imposed order.
I would also change the two "which"es to "that"s unless the author is British or Queen's English–educated? 
I'll make the changes if no one objects; please tell me if rewrites are imminent and there's no point. 
Thanks, 
Grammargal 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's really no need to ask about changes this minor -- go ahead and fix it!  Someone who disagrees can always revert your edit. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (GrammarGal raises her hand timidly...) 

message: What's 'mic'ed'?
Out of context I'd guess it to be a misspelling of miked, to feed through a microphone. Tell me where you find it in the article and I'll change it. TheScotch 11:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: The article's full of passages like this:
"Instead, they value the collage of elements, the play and juxtaposition of ideas from different contexts, and the deconstruction of symbols into the basic dynamics of power and place from which those symbols gain meaning as signifiers. In this it is related to post-structuralism in philosophy, minimalism in the arts and music, the emergence of pop, and the rise of mass media."
I'm not denying that such language has some meaning to whoever was responsible but things need to be clarified. The Van Piercy quote uses deliberately obscure language and it's not a notable source. The language elsewhere isn't so much difficult as weird (words like "connote" and "commodified"). An article about post-modernism that didn't read like it's been written by post-modernists would be an improvement. --Lo2u (T • C) 00:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no thank you, please  :)  --Buridan 01:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscurity 

message: I am having issues grappling with the difference between these two terms. What seems to be the case is that Postmodernist thought is the larger frame, which includes Post-structuralism. Still, can someone elaborate on this? Kaloyan* 04:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... none of these terms are very clear cut.  But in general, when people talk about "post-structuralism," they're talking about a group of French thinkers who were big in the 60s and 70s: Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze, Julia Kristeva, etc.  These thinkers are also certainly leaders in "postmodern" thought, but postmodernism gets used much more broadly--a label that can be appplied to virtually anything that's happened since WWII. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.58.237.227 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-modernism and Post-Structuralism 

message: "Most" agree? First paragraph.
I'm sure the article is riddled with these. {Slash-|-Talk} 06:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasels 

message: The "weird for the sake of weird" line from the Simpsons is funny, but taken out of context doesn't mean much. And as someone said in the edit comments, the quote could easily be about Modernism (or plenty of other things for that matter). It doesn't add anything to the understanding of Postmodernism. Freshacconci 16:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least it states its source.--Ethicoaestheticist 18:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Moe Szyslak]] quote 

message: The most obvious and simplest problem with this article is that, as far as I can tell just skimming, it never says who coined the term postmodernism. Start with that. TheScotch 11:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now there's a can of worms. I wouldn't know where to begin. Charles Jencks is one of the first, but I have no idea if we can really say it started with him. Freshacconci 17:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution

message: I've reverted to this as it is obviously better written, and explains the whole idea much better than what was before.  edward (buckner) 10:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion to Newberry's version 

message: This article is hilarious. I've read it three times and still don't have a clue what post-modernism is. 
Does "Postmodernism" mean anything? Is this article an example of postmodernism?
Domminico
:I don't find the article funny. Excuse my observation which may seem uncivil, but it seems, in spite of your expertise, you speak as a novice to the study of postmodernism. I'm sure you realize it is a very difficult concept to discuss in a way that is comprehensible to those new to the topic. This is not eletist, it is just an unfortunate fact. I have not contributed any substantial edits to this article but I think the other editors have done a fairly good job. Sounds like you are looking for Wikipedia to produce a "Postmodernism for Dummies," but those who have studied postmodernism should know that any effort to produce such a thing in something as short as an encyclopedia article will inevitably be inaccurate. Its a no-win situation for you editors, so I accept the current form as a legitimate choice.Will3935 01:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of postmodernists who would say "postmodernism" is meaningless.  In fact, one key postmodern idea is that words have no meaning in the sense that you say a word and you have this separate entity floating in your head called meaning (see W.V. Quine).  Instead, postmodernists tell us, all there is to know about words are how they are used in particular communities.  In your case, I'm guessing "postmodernism" is not used in the community in which you live, except by perhaps an occassional intellectual outsider on TV or the internet or something?  If that's the case, "postmodernism" really is quite meaningless to you--or, at least, it means little more than that its speaker is a pretentious asshole who's in some way excluding you from his/her rhetorical games.  However, I can also say, with a fair level of confidence, that if you were in the right context--say a college class on philosophy or architecture--the word could become quite "meaningful" in that you could use it to proper effect.--BrownApple 02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that postmodernism gives one plent to laugh at. You guys may be interested in a satirical piece I wrote for my userpage (a little too long to post here) "Seven Easy Steps to Becoming a Postmodern Scholar." Its a work in progress so it will probably be longer in a day or two.Will3935 12:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the article Postmodern?

message: Apart from the quotations section and two block quotes the article is lacking in in-text citations. I think this is a  deficiency in an article of this sort.Will3935 01:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I have some concerns involving the reference of Foucault as a Post-Modernist. While many individuals who read his work see a postmodern twist in his writing, Foucault himself renounced the title (and the post-structuralist title as well). I have the references in regards to this and will look them up. In addition, though the contributors to the article may have postmodern sentiments, the article in its form/style does not have to reflect the content matter that it describes. I believe that the best way to describe this concept is in the most academic of ways by properly referencing key sources and by elucidating key areas of importance. To do this, we should approach this article in a more universal manner in keeping with other posts dealing with philosophical concepts. [afakirani] 15:14, 13 April 2007
:In spite of his aversion to the term, he's certainly lumped into the category of postmodernist poststructuralist often enough... to the point that he's almost one of the defining members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.58.237.227 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foucault

message: Well, my edit tonight was maybe no real improvement, but the ip adding the tag "article has too many weasel words" was right. I tried to find some "Many say"-s and "It is argued"-s where other editors may have books that support the claims. It's not that bad, actually. And readers may notice that some information needs to be varified first, especially who these "some" and "many" are. --FlammingoHey 23:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  weasels 

message: The article leads with how Postmodernism was coined as a term to describe the architectural reaction against Modernism in the 50s and 60s, yet the images accompanying this part show Frank Gehry's Stata Center and Jorn Utzon's Sydney Opera House. Gehry is definitely deconstructivist and the Sydney Opera House isn't really iconic of the movement (compare Saarinen's TWA terminal.) 
Definitive Postmodern architecture reacts against the big monumental structures of Modernism and returns to historical reference and explores the taboos of Modernism, like color and iconography. These movements opened up the range of architectural explorations that enabled deconstructivist architects like Gehry, and it is that reaction that should be represented here. For this reason I nominate works by Robert Venturi and Michael Graves to be far more representative of postmodernism.
Perhaps the best solution would be two contrasting photos showing Modernism and Postmodernism, like juxtaposing the Seagram Building and Citigroup Center, or more famously Farnsworth House and Vanna Venturi House. This would allow readers to understand, at a glance, the physical manifestations of objective Modernism and Modern architecture and subjective Postmodernism and Postmodern architecture. Since Postmodernism is meaningless without the understanding of its reaction to Modernism, this kind of comparison is important to the article's context.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Galemp (talk • contribs) 20:23, 2 May 2007
:This sounds really great, and shows the article is only scratching the surface of what it could tell. Please weave it into what is already said, which I right now don't dare do to! --FlammingoHey 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I added a section on Postmodernism's origins in architecture, and uploaded the seminal photo of Venturi's mother's house which is mysteriously absent from Wikipedia's archives. Since I originally came to this page having heard about the evils of 'postmodern society' from preachers and evangelists, I also linked to some relevant content for that under the 'Criticism' section. Galemp 20:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gehry and Utzon as postmodern architects? 

message: The sections on philosophy and criticism are about philosophers etc looking at society, which is part of the topic postmodernity, while postmodernism is necessarily a movement; the article should distinguish more clearly whether those really talk about the perspective of thinking (-ism) or the state of culture and society. I am not sure right now, as the adjective in THIS article should ALWAys be "postmodernist", not "postmodern", and that distinction is - quite commonly, of course - forgotten at some points. This is not about the terms, but whether the quotes are really about the philosophy/art or the state of society. That said, the term is eg. "postmodern architecture" although the -ism is meant... the question is whether both articles should be merged instead.--FlammingoHey 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but I think one of the ideas in this movement is that there's really very little separation between thinking and the state of a culture and society.  They really do go hand in hand in a way you can't really parse out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.58.237.227 (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In examples, postmodernism would include not doing something the modernist way, but to find a new way doing something in an art based on something traditional (cf Britannica/M-W definition of, relating to, or being any of several movements (as in art, architecture, or literature) that are reactions against the philosophy and practices of modern movements and are typically marked by revival of traditional elements and techniques), and postmodernity, on the other hand, includes reevaluation of the entire Western value system (love, marriage, popular culture, shift from industrial to service economy) that took place since 1950/1960, with a peak in the Social Revolution of 1968.--FlammingoHey 18:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early May: Still mixing postmodern and postmodernist