Talk:Postmodern art

message: There is no post-modernism.  It would only be tradition to accept 
this as a period in art.  From a modern viewpoint this would
be unacceptable, therefore, it does not exist unless we abolish 
the ideas and concepts behind modernism.  Tara Zacharias
tara_z@hotmail.com
The word "post" in postmodern art should be included because it implies that there is there is a stage after modern art. Modern art is dependent upon the period in time so I don't think that something port modern is appropriate. Both of these things should be inclusive because they don't stop and the other begin, instead they are continuous in time
:At the moment that interpretation is not valid under Wiki NOR (no original research), as it is a personal interpretation. Wiki's policy is to show the range of existing attitudes to a subject, and there is a large body that subscribes to Postmodernism. If there is a source that does put forward the view above, then it can be quoted and referenced. This would then be NPOV (from a neutral point of view). I often put things in articles that I personally might not agree with, but it is part of objective knowledge.
:Tyrenius 16:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Postmodernism

message: This comment was moved from the main page by Thaddius
Modern comes from the french 'moderne'. In the period of the 1930's the label of "modern" was used with the then contemporary art meaning that the art conveyed something of the spirit of the future as much in the spirit of the 1939 World's fair in Paris. The problem with the label of modernism happened when art history became more and more independent as a discipline from philosophy. Art historians confusingly saw the works of the Impressionist as separate from the arts of Van Gogh and Gaugain and named the latter as post-impressionist artists, even though Picasso experimented with the impressionist technique early in his career. So once the tag of "post" this or that became more disseminated by universities formulating art history departments with curriculums, art historians did not perhaps have the time to reflect on these divisions or call them into question - until now. As the discipline of art history matures, adjustments will be made, and slowly, the rest of the public will be better informed. By then we will have left the "posts" well behind. Perhaps a better distinction would be to divide the period of modern art into its CLASSICAL phase, its CONCEPTUAL phase, its CONTEMPORARY phase, and its INTERNATIONAL phase. Art4Humanists 05:35, 17 December 2006]] (UTC)
The proposed taxonomy, of course, is so utterly blunt, simplistic, generalizing and down-right-irrelavent to what has actually gone on in the last 100 years, that one would be hard pressed to conclude that Aristotle himself hadn't devised the categories... (CBK, 01/23/08)
:Just as the other person who made the same point, you fail to realize that, despite some poeple believing that post-modernism doesn't exist, there are those who do for certain reasons. It is the same reason that there are articles on God when there are those who do not believe it exists. This is not a debate, it is a statement of an idea\view that is shared by a significant number of people. I do agree that is was naïve for people to label things with 'posts' but it still has just as much reason to be here as any other article. Also, do not post a comment in the main article. --Thaddius 22:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please place the  tag on your user talk page. Wikipedia has a learning curve and you are not quite ready to edit. —Viriditas | Talk 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, Bus stop.  See WP:HA.  I asked you to place the helpme tag on your talk page for your own benefit, as I would like to see you keep editing.  Many of your edits have been reverted by other editors, and I've had to fix errors you've introduced and violations of Wikipedia policy you've made.  I don't want to harass you in any way, but you need to change the way you edit.  Please place the helpme tag on your user talk page so that other editors (and admins) can help improve your Wikipedia experience.  You asked me not to edit your talk page so I am using the article talk pages to communicate with you.  In this instance, you are adding comments to the main article space when they should be placed on talk instead.  You also require help with citations.  Using the helpme tag will bring experienced Wikipedians to your talk page and they will be able to help you implement your edits.  —Viriditas | Talk 01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, Bus stop. I gave you the link to WP:HA because you expressed interest in the policy.   You made it clear that you didn't want me to edit your talk page.  And, I've never edited Michael Richards, I just asked you a question about your edits.  I've repeatedly asked you to use the helpme tag in order to attract other experienced Wikipedians who can help you with some of the problems you are encountering.  I have no interest in any "vendetta" of any kind, nor is there any basis for one.  All I would like for you to do is learn how Wikipedia works.  Take the tutorial, find a mentor, request "adoption", or just review the policies.  I have no interest in a content dispute with you.  As you can tell, I disagreed with your edits to hippie but I did not revert them.  As for your edits to this and other articles, you aren't following style guidelines and policies.  There's no need to respond to this comment.  Just place the helpme tag on your user talk page, and an uninvolved editor will help you with any questions. —Viriditas | Talk 02:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the "Post" in Modern Art 

message: The link goes nowhere and googling her name just comes up with pages and pages of this quote about everything being done before. Since the statement could have been said by anybody, perhaps somebody can find something similar ascribed to a more significant authority (Baudrillard, Lyotard ...?).--Ethicoaestheticist 01:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is Alison Letter?

message: The tag at the top of this Talk page requests "a photograph or photographs" of Postmodern art. The article says "Postmodernism is, by its very nature, impossible to define clearly." Is Postmodern defined by a point in time? Would a photograph of a work of art produced after a point in time be Postmodern? (Or is it only certain works of art, produced after a point in time, that are Postmodern?) How would one know that a work of art was Postmodern? Are there any examples of Postmodern works of art, whether we have photographs of them or not? Maybe I misunderstand this article, but how come it mentions no works of art? Bus stop 18:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What would be a photograph of Postmodern art? 

message: Can anyone point to even one artwork as an example of Postmodern art? If not, shouldn't this article be nominated as an article for deletion? Bus stop 00:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trolling the article? The article happens to contain no pictures of examples of "postmodern" works of art. The article does not say when "postmodernism" begins. And the article does not mention even one artist who is a practitioner of this category of art. What does neutral point of view have to do with anything I've said, anyway? Aren't these talk pages for raising such concerns as I have raised? Bus stop 02:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, the link you provide above is just one artist's advertising site. It is not an authoritative source. Bus stop 15:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You are being non-conversational. I don't think an article should be a repository for hot air. If the article has something to say, I think it should get to the point. What is the point to having an article that nobody can understand? I would be glad to say I understood something from the article as it now stands, but I simply do not. Wikipedia does not need an article that fetishizes over nothing. Other articles on visual art, most anyway, make a reasonably successful attempt to define their subject matter.  I am not accepting of vagueness. I am challenging the editors to get to the point and nail down the subject matter. As it stands I think it qualifies for deletion. Bus stop 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How am I acting in bad faith? Bus stop 04:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that you have called other people trolls in this article's history. How do you know that I am not qualified to edit this article? On the article page you are removing things that other people put up. I did not add the tag saying that the article did not adequately cite it's sources. And I did not add the tag requesting that editors please help in trying to expand the article. You are removing the tags that other editors put up. Even your reference to "revert war" is backwards since you just initiated that revert war. I have been discussing this on the Talk page. You initiated the making of changes to the article. Bus stop 08:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea -- don't get involved in a "screaming match." It is far better to try to address one another's concerns in a respectful way. Since you are calling me a "troll," it is you who is preventing civil discourse. Disagreeing about the substance of an article is normal among editors; it is acceptable. That is how the article is produced -- by editors talking about their differing points of view. What is not acceptable is name calling. And if you are going to assert that that I am pushing a point of view ("POV"), or acting in "bad faith," you should explicate on those things. You really should expand upon those ideas. I don't mind being criticised in these respects. But when you fail to explain what you mean by such terms, those terms sink to the level of little more than name calling. Name calling puts an end to discourse. I can't respond to dense and impenetrable names. I wouldn't mind responding to criticism. But I don't even know what "troll" means. Bus stop 17:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples? 

message: If we are talking about postmodern art, shouldn't we be citing exemplary instances of this phenomenon? Shouldn't we be pointing to the last great modernist works of art? Shouldn't we be pointing out the first great postmodernist works of art? Isn't the important thing about postmodernism it's distinction from modernism? An article on postmodernism should go into describing, using examples, how postmodernism differs from modernism. Or, it should just be saying that it finds no distinction between postmodern art and merely modern art. Bus stop 23:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't we go out on a limb? 

message: Can we discuss, rather than revert? Bus stop 19:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss, not revert 

message: It says in the article, Postmodern art uses a vocabulary of media, genres or styles as parts of an extended visual language that is seen as going beyond the boundaries of the modernist vocabulary. I'd like to know how this thing called postmodernism uses a vocabulary that "goes beyond" the "vocabulary" used by so-called modern art. What does that mean? I asked for a citation. But even a citation would not suffice. It is meaningless unless explained. Does postmodernism use materials and techniques that for some reason are not used by mere modernists? Bus stop 02:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beyond? 

message: Greenbergs essay was published in the 1930s and he made absolutely no reference to Pop art, (which didn't exist), Dada, Duchamp, or any particular fine art movement as being kitsch, and his ideas may or may not contradict ideas today, so what. Modernist 12:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Greenberg included Jazz in Kitch, I believe. Just because Clement Greenberg said it doesn't make it so. Greenberg is referring to what Jeff Koons eventually made art. Bus stop 23:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Avant-Garde and Kitsch

message: *Ethico- Although I think this article is perfectly good, because there is a strong and important linkage between modernism and postmodern art I'm beginning to wondering if Radical movements in Modern Art should become its own article. I think for now the interconnection between the modernist roots and the postmodern response are important. What do you think about that? Modernist 16:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Modernist, I'm glad you've raised this, because I've been thinking about the place of this section in the article as well. I've got no objection to a new article being started if you think there's a place for it. Or, perhaps some of the content could be added to High modernism or Late modernism, given that the Modernism article gets a bit skimpy after WWII? I definitely think the modern movements should have a place in the article (after all Duchamp, Pop and Minimalism are a bit more interesting than neo-expressionism!). As for how I see this section in the article these are my thoughts:
#Renaming the section something like 'Transitional movements between modernism and postmodernism' (a bit long winded but you get the idea). The fact that some of the movements might be considered wholly modernist can be included to introduce the section.
#Remove Abstract Expressionism, or at least edit it down to cover just Pollock and Process Art. Krauss reinvents Pollock as a 'postmodernist'. Frustratingly I can't find her applying the actual term to him, but it's quite clear what she's getting at.
#Edit the other sections so that they provide a briefer description of each movement. The whole history doesn't need to be included, just those parts that are relevant to whether or not and why they are considered to be postmodern.
#Put the sections into (roughly) chronological order.
Apologies for the long response to a simple question!--Ethicoaestheticist 18:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two articles

message: I just made a new article, Done. I'll gradually change it (wean it away from this article). Modernist 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking forward to seeing it develop.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Radical Movements in Late Modernism

message: This article seems to present Dada as the primary precursor for postmodern art. I'd argue that Surrealism is more directly significant influence on postmodern art, specifically abstract expressionism and pop art.  Surrealism lasted longer (well into the fifties) and Surrealists had more direct contact with later artists.  Dada was a brief, highly-influential movement.  Surrealism built on that, gave it a positive direction (instead of just being destruction).  Many of the postmodern techniques are in evidence in Surrealism: Max Ernst's drip paintings for example prefigure Jackson Pollocks.  Also Jackson Pollock and many of the Abstract Expressionists had direct contact (when many surrealists escaped to New York during WWII, many of whom stayed in the US).  Arshille Gorky is often seen as a bridging figure between the movements.  Rauchenberg is seen as a bridging figure to the Pop Art scene.  Much of the Pop Art aesthetic is prefigured in surrealism also: Ernst's collages, Dali's engagement with popular culture images (the Shirley Temple sphinx painting, for example).  Much of this attitude is a hold over from Dadaism, granted (Ernst was also a dadaist, for example), but more direct influence is owed to Surrealism which was still present and highly influential during the shift to postmodernism.
F. Simon Grant 17:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrealism as most important precursor to postmodernism

message: The image :Image:Sandback.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:File:BrechtViolinSolo.jpg
*:      File:AB-Abstract Painting for People 4 LM9869.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both removed..solved..Modernist (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Sandback.jpg

message: Why are the painting examples of postmodern art the exact same ones used for modern art? How can they be both?  Moonraker0022 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Often images are used in order to clarify and describe certain points and aspects of the subjects..In the case of these subjects the imagery defines similar sub-texts in both articles; only in a slightly different context. Basically both articles discuss Pop Art for example, and the illustration used for Pop Art might be the same picture although a different one can be substituted. Although in the case of Abstract Expressionism, which also is focused upon in both articles, the Jackson Pollock is required because Pollock's work is specifically discussed in both articles...Modernist (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures 

message: Since "Postmodernism" is clearly in its end phase, and there seems to be an increased interest in the ideas of Remodernism and Neomodernism, it would probably be a good idea to incorporate this into the article.
Arturobandini (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, not a bad idea, although frankly modernism never really ended; it continues and postmodernism was always a misnomer...Modernist (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think finding sources will be a problem. Neomodernism isn't often applied to the visual arts, and remodernism is a self-created art movement with little coverage in secondary sources.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The End of Postmodernism

message: The article has two "See also" sections. --Keith111 (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: Does anyone know of any postmodern memes?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.204.64 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postmodern Memes 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: This article covers modernism to a large extent. "Avant-garde precursors" and "Radical movements in modern art" can be mentioned in one paragraph or two, but they belong to modernism and are covered there, they shouldn't be here.Sourcerery (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your opinion. They are in fact the roots of 'Postmodern art' and they absolutely belong here...Modernist (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't deny they are roots, that is why I said they should be mentioned. But they are widely covered on modernism, and shouldn't be repeated all the same here, when focus of this article should be postmodernism. There is in fact more about modernism on this article than topic of the article. All of this should be summed up in origins section like one on modernism page.Sourcerery (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large focus on modernism  

message: Confusing section, not because it's unclear in what it's saying, but because it makes no clear connection with postmodern art. When citations are added since it's also lacking it would be good to expand or rewrite section so they have clear relevance for this article. If we can't establish that, we should remove them.Sourcerery (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical movements in modern art 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion