Postmodernity

Humans are not equipped with the will to live. They dragged kicking and screaming to life by gross biology. Everybody is wishing for a savior, and getting themselves ready to let go by making themselves despise life.

>>1742325
Why are you reifying "modernity" and "postmodernity"?

>>1742376
Because those titles encapsulate the ethos of the periods they have been ascribed to?

>>1742325

Just because something is created without a moral or without an inherent meaning doesn't mean that one can't be gained from it.

There is value in deconstruction, and it is possible to deconstruct with a purpose in mind. What you're essentislly saying is the constructs of the art forms of the past are the only way to do it "properly" and I find that idea inherently antithetical to the concept of art in the first place.

Evolution is a core part of every aspect of humanity. Postmodernism is just another step. There are valuable things to be learned from it, even if what many of us take from it is a rejection of the idea entirely. Sometimes it takes a valley to recognize a new peak.

>>1742411
[citation needed]

>>1742517
>What you're essentially saying is the constructs of the art forms of the past are the only way to do it "properly"

Not necessarily - it just seems like a shame that so many artists, philosophers, architects, writers, etc, worked so hard to bring rational highpoints to their work, only to have the constructs bashed away from under them. You are implying that new modernism can be built on top of the ruins - that new constructs can be built. I am saying that we should continue to grow from the ideas we have already developed.

Postmodernism even attempts to prevent any constructs from being raised anyway. It immediately questions, in a socratic way, the point of trying to evolve any idea beyond the concept. It questions "but why though? but why though? but why though?" until no rational decision can be found at the bottom.

>>1742325
>We live in an age now where anything is acceptable.
Postmodernism spreads eclecticism, which is the death of science.

File: Abstract Entities.jpg (315KB, 1536x1024px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1536x1024px

The biggest point for post modernism is that there can't be intellectually honest modernism positions in modern age. Any kind of the greater narrative is limited by knowledge of person who claims it, but there is no one who could know all relevant views, facts and thoughts that modern world contain and with enough time, your grand meaningful narrative always evolves into conscious ignorance because this is only way to defend it from your own lack of vision. Dialogues between various points of view is much more useful instrument, when nobody really can even come close to the universal truth. In that sense post modernism makes you free from petty artificial limitations that people impose on mind or their ideas for a sake of false clarity and certainty. I fail to see how it's inherently bad thing to be able to choose relevant perspectives outside of a grand narrative instead of going with one and only single stagnate paradigm.

>>1742574
> death of science
It isn't. The science never operates in the one set of assumptions, that blindly applied to everything in the world. It's pretty eclectic by its own nature.

Postmodernism is the abomination spawned from westerners trying to incorporate creative chaos into philosophy.

try to take it less seriously anon, post-modernism is one branch of thought, both philosophicaly and artistically, and like anything else in art it can have its own merit and enjoyable aspects,
if you like other artistic movements concentrate in exploring them,post-modern aesthetics are not even close to be the dominant form of art today and classicism and modernism are not going to lose their audience any time soon, as they have their own merits.
in simpler words be chill nigga to each his own.

>>1742727
((Westerners))

>>1742325
monarchy sought to bring order to the world. modernism is more a kind of self-determined order, and when you remodel nature from the ground up there's no real guarantee you'll get things right. consider the -isms of modernity: capitalism, colonialism, liberalism, nationalism, communism, fascism ... how many have died in these movements to violently reshape human society based on the answers science has given us? but modernism is not inherently bad? what does that even mean, anyway?

>It looks to find beauty in juxtaposition, in the abstract, in the ugly

but these are the features of modern art rather than postmodern

>It seeks to create stories without a defined end point

it doesn't seek to create stories at all. it is distant, removed, academic, intellectual, turning supposed logic inwards so it destroys itself. if modernism cannot support itself in its own logic, why then is it not inherently bad? it is unsustainable, and both internally and externally destructive

although both are intrinsically related, you need to better separate modernism and postmodernism

>>1742526
all i can say is "no it doesn't" -- i have no idea what you're talking about. maybe you should supply examples

>>1742827
would you consider Huxley's Point Counter Point modern or post-modern?

>>1742574
it's really a grander science. science is a process of record-keeping, and record-keeping has become such an important part of the everyday person's life -- that and the access to information -- that a single human subject doesn't give an interpretation of objective data, but that interpretation is the data itself to be studied. there are no rogue scientists unlocking the mysteries of the world, just individuals contributing to a greater, self-referential and autocritical conversation

since the humanities are primarily concerned with studying texts, they are closer to the sciences than is often believed. and science, and religion, and philosophy too all textual studies, and linked accordingly. for centuries we have been studying ourselves, but for even less time actually understood that we were doing it

>>1742842
i haven't read it but probably modern from what i read of it. i'm not sure about literature but in the visual arts there are a number of conditions that allow post-modern art: proliferation of image-based mass media (television, photography), a loss of urgency in formalist concerns (medium specificity) and other dissatisfaction with the art world (commodification, commercialisation, leading to an interest in conceptual and performance-based art, especially after the renewed interest in duchamp)

>>1742857
and increased globalisation