Atdtda22: [42.1i] Modern poetry, 607 - time binding! ricken racken !@#$

[David Morris]

On Nov 14, 2007 8:43 PM, Mr Haney <bonhommie-man at live.com> wrote:
>
> Modern means, like, up-to-date, ya know? and that is so obviously a moving target!  If you stick I-dunno-1880-to-1950 with "modern" for all time, then obviously you're stuck with "postmodern" for what comes next.
>
> And then after that you're just stuck -- in fact, this may be the damn problem with literature these days.

I seriously doubt the "problem with literature these days" has to do
with a labeling crisis.

> are there really any good reasons for calling _any_ given period or school of lit, "modernism" --- Please let me know if there is even 1 !!!

I can't vouch for the rationality of labeling a period of literature
"modernism," but I do know that architecture and the visual arts can
be justly thus labeled [and I didn't know the term "postmodern" was
first coined for an architectural movement until finding that Wiki
description - maybe we architects really are at the forefront of
breaking zeitgeists after all.   ;)   ].  In the art/architecture
context, "up-to-date" isn't a very good description of the intentions
of the modernists.  They were seeking a radical break from the past,
willfully rejecting all prior styles and genres and "forging" (Stephen
Dedalus?) a brand new aesthetic for an anti-historical, "Modern
World."  The particulars forms this aspiration took were many,  as
were the "modern" societal forces inspired this it.  But it was more
than a desire to be "up-to-date,"  as in wearing the latest fashion.

David Morris