Is postmodernism useless? No. Exmaples:

Example from just a few minutes ago:
I saw this political picture. This would be modern. Logical and straightforward. It’s mathematical even:

But I saw it in a postmodern way. Skeptical eyes with lateral connections and looked at what might be happening outside of the frame and within it:

cmnl_8jukae-qwf

 

This was my postmodern interpretation of the above meme. It’s also logical but it challenges certain assumption within it, such as the perceived stability of the tree itself, or what’s happening outside of the frame.

 

===

trump_resultsz

=====

 

It’s useful. I wouldn’t say that expressions are “mere”: Structure matters. But it’s also important to look at structural integrity from time to time.

=====

Postmodernism can mean slightly different things depending on the field. I’m no expert, but apparently I’ve been ‘breathing it’ for a long time as it ‘seems’ natural to me.

For example, in architecture, postmodern looks not only at the style or the function, but rather attempts to blend the two.

Or it could be seen as “structure rests upon style”.

Image may contain: text

It can be. For some people, post modern can be annoying, for how often can you “challenge authority” before becoming the authority?Some good examples are here http://www.onpostmodernism.com/moviesThere’s a lot of bad examples of postmodern as well.

=====
 I like Derrida and Foucault, the little I’ve read. Derrida just liked being a contrary thorn in everybody’s side imo, which amuses me. Foucault though, one thing I admired is how he describes our “lens of reality” while making grids with his hands to show how light can pass through from one view yet when another layer is added and/or a lower one removed, more light shines in previously obscured areas but THEN it occludes other areas that were once well lit.So, “through a glass dimly” as it were.

http://www.onpostmodernism.com/terms Here’s some post modern terms. You may be partially post modern and not even realize it.

 You’re more of an in-depth reader than I. I’ve never read any of these guys in the original. I just receive “impressions”. I read these guys through the minds of other people who _have_ studied them in depth and then compare their perspectives to help shape my own.

I find when I get too close to the source materials, I find myself losing my sense of objectivity, as each of these brilliant individuals are extraordinarily convincing in their rhetoric / arguments / logic / etc. It’s not that knowledge can be dangerous per se, but the manner in which knowledge is presented *can* potentially be dangerous in swaying thought in a way that it becomes difficult to disentangle one’s self from within the web the knowledge provider created.

But, that might just be me

=====

Attachments

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


9 + = sixteen

Leave a Reply