PoMo Studies Hoax (gets taken seriously)

[David Morris]

Has PoMo become the new ISIS?  Really?: "postmodernism is both very
troubling and absolutely
of our times."

I think I've been speaking another language re. PoMo than everyone here.
For me PoMo was a blip, a ripple. It has passed.  Polemics make shitty art.
   Please let art be art.

For me, PoMo's too-seriousness doesn't fit with Pynchon's hilarity.

DM

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 4:42 PM John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:

> When I first studied a smattering of pomo theory at university I found
> it a wonderfully useful way of sidestepping a bunch of power
> structures that otherwise seemed unchallengeable in our society.
> Later I taught a course in it and found myself much more ambivalent
> about that usefulness.
> A long while later, today, I think the best thinking on postmodern
> theory remains Fredric Jameson's Postmodernism, or The Logic of Late
> Capitalism (which also popularised the term itself). Jameson's was a
> very critical analysis of a network of cultural artefacts he thought
> said something about late capitalism, ie postmodernism is the cultural
> face of hyper-capitalism. I haven't found anything to refute this and
> it's why I think postmodernism is both very troubling and absolutely
> of our times.
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 1:32 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > yes.
> >
> > I like the word "real' here in its straightforward, hard-working way.
> Some
> > say Reality, a real conception of it as real,[sic] so to speak, has been
> > weakened in our understanding because of Po-Mo. I can't judge.   I do
> like
> > this nuanced statement and only want to accent Kafka on the 'art' of a
> > 'book/novel':  It must be like an axe to crack the frozen ice within us.
> >
> > "The real issue with all arts is the degree to which it generates genuine
> > awe, insight, laughter, enjoyment, and the degree to which it stirs the
> > waters and compels us to think and question and see in fresh ways."
> >
> > And I think talking about any work of art clearly and with whatever
> > intelligence we can bring to it is what criticism is--or should be.
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 10:41 PM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> >
> > > While I find Morris's insults juvenile and unnecessarily troll-like. I
> > > remember when I first joined the list and Post Modernism was used by
> most
> > > participants as hip and insightful and descriptive of Pynchon.I was
> openly
> > > dubious. I tried to get a grasp on what it was and found strains of
> thought
> > > that were important: cultural and personal context as needed to
> understand
> > > a phenomena, deconstrution as a tool, the rejection of isms you
> mention,
> > > and to a lesser degree the difficulty or in some arguments the
> > > impossibility of all communication mediated by language or symbols. I
> just
> > > never saw the value or intelligence of the term itself, which seemed
> mostly
> > > a way to seem hiply contemporary. It has the same obvious flaw as the
> term
> > > modernism; it just can’t last. It also became obvious that people meant
> > > different things when they used it.
> > >
> > >  At the time I had come to the conclusion in thinking about the labels
> > > applied to art history that there was something misleading about these
> > > labels. Can a “modern” artist be inspired by ancient tribal arts? But
> more
> > > than such anomalies it is the individual nature of making art, the
> > > uniqueness of artists and their work that is the problem. Often a
> single
> > > one or 2 two artists or artist fit the label  and others are ineptly
> > > crammed into the package. If these labels were really needed and
> helpful
> > > they would be more justified but they seem to be a by-product of a
> cultural
> > > obsession with labels rather than a clarifying and informing use of
> > > language. Some such terms are more useful than others. Art nouveau was
> a
> > > style movement affecting many products and buildings and evokes a
> useful
> > > image to anyone who has seen some of the work. Of course if you
> tranlate it
> > > into English it would be called new art and no-one would know what you
> are
> > > talking about.
> > >
> > > For me the problem with these “conservative” thinkers is that they
> apply
> > > what could be called post modern analysis to Post Modernism but they
> refuse
> > > to apply this same critical thinking to their own meaningless labels
> and
> > > cultural blind spots. They themselves want to be associated with
> > > “traditional” values, but they are not Christians, they are not
> > > capitalists, they are not constitutionalists, they despise other
> people’s
> > > “freedom”, and it is virtually impssible to tell what the fuck they
> want to
> > > “conserve”. Do they really love the flag in some bizarre symbolic
> > > relationship or is it the ultimate representative of their violent
> embrace
> > > of conformity and the identity politics they claim to despise?
> > >
> > > The real issue with all arts is the degree to which it generates
> genuine
> > > awe, insight, laughter, enjoyment, and the degree to which it stirs the
> > > waters and compels us to think and question and see in fresh ways.
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Oct 5, 2018, at 1:24 AM, Matthew Taylor <
> matthew.taylor923 at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You: David Morris
> > > > Me: Matthew Taylor
> > > >
> > > > (Did I do that right?)
> > > >
> > > > My point was that postmodernism is as misunderstood as it is
> denigrated,
> > > > and Jordan Peterson—who is (unfortunately) extremely popular and
> > > > influential right now—has popularized the term as a bogeyman among a
> > > bunch
> > > > of people who have confused and contradictory ideas about what it
> means.
> > > > You can't really talk about contemporary popular understandings of
> > > > "postmodernism" or "myth" or "archetypes" without at least mentioning
> > > him.
> > > > I was responding to John Bailey, agreeing with his point that it is
> now
> > > the
> > > > "catch-all term encompassing everything despised by the conservative
> > > > neolibs who follow Jordan Peterson and the like."
> > > >
> > > > Peterson himself politicizes the term, trying to associate it with
> things
> > > > like Marxism. My post also argued that whatever postmodernism may or
> may
> > > > not be, it sure as hell *isn't* that. I wasn't talking about
> politics to
> > > > "ignore" postmodernism, I was saying that a great deal of the popular
> > > > discourse about postmodernism politicizes it in a way that is
> flat-out,
> > > > demonstrably wrong. I think any discussion about contemporary
> > > understanding
> > > > of postmodernism has to contend with Jordan Peterson—he is a force
> to be
> > > > reckoned with even if he's a dummy. Writing a bestselling book and
> > > getting
> > > > ~$80k/month on Patreon means he has a hell of a platform, and I
> think a
> > > lot
> > > > of the misunderstanding of what postmodernism might mean can be
> > > attributed
> > > > directly to him.
> > > >
> > > > "Like" it or not, I think it's probably important to at least have an
> > > > accurate understanding.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:24 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> You: I genuinely don't know what you mean by saying that my post
> > > "confirms
> > > >>> PoMo school to be drowning in politics."
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Me: your post focused on a political asshole, and ignored anything
> about
> > > >> what PoMo is/was.
> > > >>
> > > >> David Morris
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > > --
> > > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > >
> > --
> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>