h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A546626

I want to come back to this article tomorrow after I've had some sleep, but I wanted to tell you that I had seen it and I am very interested in your subject.

Barton

So basically its the same thing as relativism? If so it might be an idea to give relativism as another name for it, if not then I'd be interested to know the difference.

There's certainly a connection between relativism and postmodernism... If there was a difference, I'd say it had something to do with the rise in mass communication, whereby the ideas (which are still relative and subjective) are now expressed and evolving at a much faster rate.

Put another way - it's the ideas of relativism in a society where change is REALLY speeding up.

I like what you have here but you may be spending too much time on previous movements and not enough on he philosopy and practice behind Postmodernism. I think that you would be safe simply to state how the recognition of the acceptance of the validity of relativistic viewpoints seen first in the impressionists and expresionists and later reinforced by the abstract expresionists and pop/kitch movements have lead to the forthright recognition that art is free to accept the personal and individual truths as seen by the artists without necessary recourse to representation or the lack of it.

I too have generalized the concepts of relativism from physics and take it as a significent effect on our culture. You can find relativistic thinking starting as you say as early as the Renaissance. We can seek for causes and point fingers but it seems clear that the discoveries made by use of the scientific method put us on the path to the recognition that there may be no Absolute Truths to be found.

This can be seen as relativistic thinking in biology (from evolution), in psychology (almost from the beginnings of Freud's speculations), in philosophy (since Decarte as you suggest), in physics (most obviously since Einstein), and in nearly every other formal branch of science.

I have been studying aesthetics as a performance artist now for the last 35 years and I have come to an understsanding that the art object stands outside culture no matter how affect the artist is by it. In this sense each piece of art informs and instructs its audience in the semantics of a language which is specifically designed and required to enable it to express a truth that can be spoken in no other way. Each piece of art then is a device that involves our senses in learning a new language which has elements plucked from the spectrum available to the artist and expresses something that the artist himself may not truly understand that he has recognized but which grows out of his recognition that there is something *there* that he can present.

So long as an artist is bound by external ideas of truth, or worse of Truth, his vision is restricted to the use of those tools that embody those ideas. Once an artist is free to work from his only his own persective his choices are magnified immensely and his vision can be expressed both more tersely (Some of Rauschenberg's work never had to actually be set on canvas except to say, 'I had this vision.') and more precisely.

In this sense, art becomes one of the few ways that we can communicate a personal truth in a format that does not ignore the experiential aspects of reality. In short, it is an honest expression that can be shared

What I would like to see in your article is a bit more of transmodernism as a movement and a little less of it as a result or reaction. obviously it is impossible to describe it without reference to the past, but I think you are safe to exclude most of history of art movements with the expectation that these previous movements will eventually have articles of their own to fill in the blanks that yours defines.

Try to give examples where possible or compare and contrast a bit more explicitly how (and which) subjects might be handled. (Thinking about how to do that scares me too.) You've given us a start at the theory but now I think you might try to show us some of the practice.

Barton

Hmmm... I've studied a fair bit of postmodern theory, so I'm going to ramble on at some length here, I'm afraid. You seem to have the basic idea, and you give a fair definition and overview 'the postmodern', although I think you could make things a little clearer generally. Unlike Barton, (see the last post above) I liked the general background that you give to the subject, because I think it sets the scene well and helps to define the terms that you're using. I do agree, though, that you could also do with spending more time talking about the contemporary debate around postmodernism itself. And, yes, a few examples would be useful.

First of all, Duma, some basics. Avoid the first person - the editors don't like it... watch your spelling / typing - 'Descartes' not 'Decarts'; 'Renaissance' not 'Renascence', just to take two examples... also proof-read for syntax - one or two of your sentences are incomplete and don't seem to make much sense.

I would also suggest organising your headings inside , to improve readability.

Now some more in-depth stuff...

1 - I don't personally see Jameson as one of the 'name-callers'. I think he gives one of the more comprehensive accounts of postmodernism... and actually, although he's constrained a little by his insistence on adhering to the tired old mantras of Marxist theory, he gives a far more even-handed account of the postmodern than most that are given by people working in the old grand narrative traditions such as Marxism, Christianity, liberal humanism, etc. Most of those people, as you rightly say, just sort of reject 'postmodernism' as a frivolous, nihilistic, flash in the pan, and set it up as a straw target to be knocked down. I think Jameson is one of the few who has tried to understand 'the postmodern' on its own terms, but without surrendering a sense of critical detachment on the subject.

2 - I disagree that we started thinking in terms of the 'Grand Narrative' around the time of the Renaissance / early Enlightenment. I would say that the urge to make great, all-encompassing stories is a basic human trait - look at Christianity, for example, or go back even further than that - and arguably this kind of myth-making is something we find it difficult to survive and prosper without. I think one of the reasons for all the hand-wringing around the idea of the 'postmodern' is the sense that, in a globalised multi-ethnic mass culture, such over-arching stories don't seem available to us any longer.

3 - As Barton suggests above, in a way the rise of the relativist, 'postmodern' sensibility is a natural development from the Enlightenment - ie, 'modernity' really has contained the seeds of its own undermining. The sceptical, self-questioning rationalist of modern times only has to keep asking questions for so long until s/he starts questioning rationality itself. And there's no rational answer to a question like 'What is the rational basis for rationalism?' ... ( I think ) ...

By the way, Barton, I think your comments about the importance of the artist's independent vision are interesting, but I don't agree that the artist ultimately 'stands outside' of his / her culture. While it's true that we have the critical intelligence to exercise free will, it's also true that our thoughts are significantly shaped by the culture we grow up in. I think you undermine your own argument, actually, when you observe that the very concept of relativism is something that you got from science in the culture around you. If it weren't for those influences, we wouldn't even be discussing the concept of relativism, because we wouldn't have the language to frame the discussion.

This is where a guy like Jameson comes in handy, in spite of his Marxism. He's one of the few who has tried to understand the 'postmodern' in a wider social / cultural context, rather than as something which is only of relevance to aesthetics.

4 - "The problem is either you BELIEVE in absolute right and wrong or you don't. There isn't really any middle ground that I'm aware of."

But isn't the whole point of the postmodern to try to find some way past this dualistic opposition between 'absolutist', on the one hand, and 'relativist' on the other? I'm thinking here of writers like Thomas Pynchon (see the 'In the Zone' section from 'Gravity's Rainbow', for example)... the 'deconstructionist' literary criticism inspired by people like Derrida and Gayatri Spivak - the emphasis on marginality, on writing from the edges rather than from the centre... also, I'm thinking of the way that Humanities scholars have tried to grapple with the cultural implications of new scientific ideas like complexity theory, which seems to undermine the 'order' / 'chaos' opposition by postulating the existence, in nature, of something like the Taoist concept of 'not-order' - that is to say, neither order nor chaos, precisely, but something somehow between or beyond them both.

5 - I agree with your comments about the previous Guide entry on Postmodernism, although I don't think it's really appropriate to make those comments in your own article - they would most likely be deleted by the editors. But the earlier piece is woefully inadequate (standards were a lot lower than they are now, in the early days of h2g2) and hopefully if you / we get this one right it could replace the old entry altogether.

As I say, Duma, you have the basic material for a decent article for the Guide. But I think it could be better, and a lot more interesting, with a wee bit more work. I'm quite happy to offer more input if you want to take it further - you might even consider collaborating?...

All the best, Lear

When I wrote: ". . . I have come to an understanding that the art object stands outside culture no matter how affected the artist is by it" (with the two corrections for my poor typing), I had hoped that I was saying the opposite of what Lear has accused me of. I, too, see no way that an artist or anyone can set aside the influence of the culture that surrounds her or him. But the art object, by defining implicitly and explicity the circumstances within which it is intended to be experienced, stands outside of culture or else fails as art.

This is why, inspite of our changed perspectives and cultures, that we can view art created witin an entirely different culture and be moved by it's truth (little t). Art which has not transcended its culture may still inspire us with its craft but it does not speak to us. For us to understand it's message it must be translated into our own context or we must train ourself into its. The first is doomed to failure since science has shown us that aesthetic content is lost (to some very great degree) in the translation process (See Abraham Moles "Information Theory and the Esthetic Message" or nearly that, the book is not near to hand but it is in my library, I'll be happy to dig it out if you are interested. My terms follow his definitions.)

The second can succeed only insofar as we are willing and able to set aside our current viewpoint and immerse ourselves in that culture. This leads to what I call museum art or art that can be stockpiled and cherished but not experienced except from that ancient and virtually extinct viewpoint.

Enough of that, the mention of Jameson is one of the problems with this article. You cannot simply throw his name out without somewhat objectively stating his case. In fact, that is one of the general failings here in that you spend some time identifying that an opposition exists yet you do not present their position, throwing them aside as if they have no philosophical case but are merely of the rank and file who 'don't know what art is, but know what they like' and who definitely don't like postmodernism.

Also, if you are going to present a contrast and instances, you might want to pick certain artists who began in one philosophy but transitioned to this new one or some artist who's work clearly serves as an exemplar if not a definition of the movement.

As far as using tags, the look of your article suggests that you have not used any GuideML. If so, please ignore comments about formatting, the sub-editor will take care of that. I think your intended headings are clear and can be clarified further if necessary. It is important at this stage to keep this article in a form that you can edit easily, because the suggestions are going to come flying shortly.

Barton

You make some very intereseting points here. I should point out that my aim in writing this entry was to supply a "beginner's guide" to postmodernism. I wanted to avoid writing a dense academic treaty because I was worried about losing the reader.

The points you made about avoiding the first person and so on are fair. Pretty much the same points that were made by my tutors in my final year at university, actually. I'll have to keep an eye on that.

1. Jameson. I call Jameson a 'name caller' because, at least in "The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism", he has a nasty habit of referring to advocates of postmodernism as 'appologists'. Things like that. I think he's a poignent writer, but his language does border in the insulting from time to time.

2. I didn't mean to imply that we started thinking in terms of a Grand Narrative during the Renaissance. having re-read the entry, I can see that's what I've done, though. What I meant to say was that the way we thought of Grand Narrative changed drastically at ths time.

3. Yep. Fair point all round.

4. Again, Yep. Well spotted, and sneaky . I think postmodernism's greatest strngth is the way it leads us away from dualistic thinking, and I'm a little shocked to find myself thinking in such "either/or" terms there.

The points about syntax and spelling are spot on. Partly due to a mild case of Dyslexia (which is a horrible word for me to have to spell ) and partly due to the fact that I wrote the article after getting back from work. About 2 am. Night person though I am, I suspect my writing powers were well below par.

Both you and Barton have given some things to think about. Collaborating sounds like a very interesting idea, as I have a tendency to stay near my field when discussing postmodernism, so I'm liable to miss something.

I'm beginning to think that I might have to take Jameson out of the equation completely here... I can see what you mean about simply dismissing the arguments against postmodernism without giving them any chance to defend themselves, though that wasn't my intention. I was trying to write a definition of what the tenents of Postmodernism are, not making a case for postmodernism as being The Way.

That's why I didn't spend any real time on the arguments for and against; I wanted to say "this is postmodernism" not "postmodernism is a great idea, and here's why."

Fair enough about wanting to avoid being too dense and academic. The Guide isn't really intended for that kind of writing, and besides no one would really read it anyway if it was too intense and involved. But the editors do require that articles should be balanced, and therefore I think you need to give a fairer account of the arguments against postmodernism. Think of it as strengthening your own position - if you demonstrate an understanding of opposing views, and rebut them effectively, it makes your own argument more credible.

I'm still not sure what you mean about Jameson. I have a copy of the 'Cultural Logic' book here with me (ah, the trappings of studenthood) and looking at it again I feel that, while Jameson is a little withering about the more extreme, nihilistic incarnations of postmodern theory, he also tends to criticise people who would rather react against it or ignore it altogether. He specifically says that he's not calling for a return to an old-fashioned aesthetic such as realism, and that - let me quote from the text - art today needs to "hold to the truth of postmodernism... at the same time at which it achieves a breakthrough to some as yet unimaginable mode of representing this last." (p.54 - the last page of ch.1) I interpret that as meaning, something like, there's no point in trying to get to the future by denying the reality of the present.

Barton... my mistake - I interpreted your post as saying you thought the *artist* can stand outside time and culture, when of course you specifically wrote "the art object." That's me jumping to conclusions too quickly - apologies.

(I still don't actually agree with you, by the way - I don't think any work of art can fully transcend its own time, although naturally it can still speak to us in some respect through the ages. But when we're moved by the 'message' of art from another age, I think we are actually in some sense 'creating' this message ourselves - we're redefining it according to our own concerns and preoccupations. Think of the way that we read classic literature today with reference to Freud and his notion of the unconscious. It provides a profoundly different perspective on the text, and makes for a very different kind of 'truth' to be found in it. But never mind - that's another argument...)

Anyway, it's a little late here too, and I'm starting to see stars on my monitor screen.

Stay healthy, Lear

Duma,

Actually, I would suggest that The Grand Narrative actually began to change later than the Renaissance, but it was because of the changes that began then that it was possible for the change to happen. The changes of that period really represented a great optimism that with the new intellectual tools, man would finally be able to prove the Truths that had been previously only asserted. Even then many of the facts that were coming to light might have been supressed had not protestantism and other Catholic Church schisms begun to erode the hold the church's theologists had up till then maintained.

I think your instincts were correct when you felt that to explain what postmodernism was you needed, to a certain extent, explain what it is not. If you don't want to write what would amount to a manifesto then, by all means, do not.

This is your article and you are free to set its scope. Just let people like Lear and me natter on as we will and go on about your life. However you are also free to pick and choose among the vast amount of verbiage for the stuff you like, too.

I, personally, am always in favor of completeness which is why I tend to go on and on to the point that I understand that some people are considering marketing my writings to help insomniacs.

Please be sure to post here when you have made changes so that we can come back at you again.

Lear,

Since you are a student, you should have access to a good library. Look up Moles (Information Theory and Esthetic Perception,1966. I looked it up.) and read through it. He is one of the prime sources of thinking that lead to positivism.There's a lot of math, the man was into information theory after all, but you can safely skip past that. I like his definitions which are fairly straight forward but well thought out. Consider the difference between what he calls semantic information and esthetic information. Also be aware that when he says information, means what we would commonly call 'new' information.

Much of what you speak of as being culturally specific falls into the class of semantic information, which CAN be translated. Esthetic information is conveyed through the arrangements of the elements rather than from the elements themselves so translation inevitably must disrupt that arrangement. Still, it is plain that if the medium is language and you don't speak the language that you may not stand a chance of understanding the esthetic message anyway. However, I still remember a performance of Hamlet in Polish which still sends chills up my back. And I directed a production of Artaud's "To Have It Done With the Judgement of God" the largest part of which consisted of nonsense words yet which received a very favorable reaction. Theatre, however, is something of a special case in the arts since what comes down to us, playscripts and descriptions are not the art objects but rather, loose directions on how to make one. (I don't want to hear angry replies from musicians or other performance artists, these things apply to them as well. )

Barton

OK, here goes...

I've read through your entry and this thread. The entry itself is pretty confusing. Here are my main quibbles:

-It seems to dally around the point a bit too much, discussing peripheral ideas in too great a depth. Needs to be a bit more focused I think.

-You don't seem to give Postmodernism a single, easily understandable definition at all. Most people reading this entry will be absolute beginners (like me ) and will be deeply confused. People need to understand what they're reading about before they jump in at the deep end.

-You mentioned earlier that you wanted to set this up as a sort of 'beginners guide'. I don't think it really works in this role because firstly, you seem to assume from the start that the reader knows at least something about Post Modernism, which as a beginner they wouldn't. Secondly you go into far too much depth, which is liable to either confuse the beginner or put them off completely. You either need to condense the entry and change it to 'words of one syllable', as it were, or rethink its intended audience.

-I think even the most hardened Sub Ed is going to have quite a task to edit this without at least some form of Guide ML formatting. Putting the headings in would definitely be a good start. If you intend to keep the final version as lengthy as this you may even want to consider using subheaders.

These are all things you will definitely have to consider if you want this to become part of the edited guide, as it is in no fit state for recommendation at the moment.

As for this thread, it seems to be 90% philosophical debate, which is not what the Peer Review is for. It's liable to disuade other researchers from making what may turn out to be valuable comments. Might I suggest moving your discussion to a new forum in the entry itself?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on all this, as I think this entry shows promise.

Barton

Postmodern theory is a branch of philosophy, Mr D'eath, so it doesn't take an excess of imagination to see why we might be discussing philosophy here in this thread. We're helping this nice researcher to do precisely what you're asking him to do - that is, define his terms and make his writing a little more focussed. The only stuff here that isn't directly relevant to the article in question, is the side-debate that Barton and I got involved in (and, actually, that also has a connection with the subject - the question of the authenticity of aesthetic representation, and the possibility of objective knowledge, is central to the postmodern debate).

Barton... I'll check that reference over the next couple of days, and get back to you... (It might be an idea to start another thread off the article, if it gets any more involved. )

See ya, Lear

I wasn't questioning your discussion's relevence to the entry, I was questioning its relevence to Peer Review. If Postmodernism is such a contentious issue and can be interpreted completely differently by everyone maybe it is not suited to inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Is this what you are suggesting Lear? I'm sure the Guide wouldn't want to accept an entry that, by its very nature, can only offer the viewpoint of a handful of people.

The issue of validity in the Arts has been contentious since the earliest records which go back to Aristotle.

The guide has entries on many contentious subjects and there is no reason why it should not if the article is structured fairly and in a balanced fashion.

Philosophy is necessarily based in opinions which in turn try to be based on illustrative incidents.

The postmodern movement is still defining itself so there is likely to be debate no matter what is written,

Duma has said that he/she is just trying to be descriptive and we are just trying to comment on the correctness of that description.

Consider two things: No one else seems to be interested in commenting on this article and other articles on more generally known issues tend to be equally contentious. Consider almost any thread on programming related issues like the recent one on search algorithms. This thread has been quite tame so far and is likely to stay that way since the three of us are basically in agreement and only haggling over the equivalent of the debating the value of hexadecimal notation over octal or some such and we are likely to settle in the same way that that kind of discussion would settle that both notions have their time and place.

After all, our basic postulate is that there is no such thing as Abosolute or Final Truth.

I would hope that other researchers will come into this discussion on this article and say whatever they feel is necessary for it to be ready for editing.

Lear and I seem to enjoy debating the whichness of what and you are right that if what we have to say doesn't matter to this article then we should take it somewhere else.

The topic of aesthetic content applies to any discussion of art but it is too deep a subject for what Duma has said he is trying to do. Still it is significant to allow Lear and myself to avoid dragging Duma back and forth by our suggestions.

It seems that Lear and I have similar concerns to you about what would improve this article. So there is no real contention between us. We will take the deeper discussion to another thread, either on my home page or his as soon as he has something to say.

Meanwhile, I, at least, will continue to keep an eye on how this article develops and will stay ready to help if I can.

Lear has offerd to collaborate and Duma has said that it might be a good thing, so I expect that we will continue to see Lear involved as well.

We're all happy!

Except that we definitely want and desperately need to hear from other researchers.

So, y'all come on down! Y'hear?
(Oops, that's that other thread. )
We're sure not going to bar the door.

Barton

Hmm.

Well, I confess I didn't understand postmodernism before, and I don't understand postmodernism now. This is likely because I'm stupid, but there you are...

Stuff which might help:

- snappy definitions of postmodernism in a single sentence. Preferably given by famous people. Give me lots, not just the One True Definition, please

- typically postmodern sayings, contrasted with their modern counterparts. EG:
"it's all relative" vs "it's all absolute"
"communication is fast" vs "communication is slow"
"society is all" vs "the individual is all"
(or whatever is actually true).

- HEADERS! Gimme some headers to hang onto, and I'll be doing a lot better. If you don't want to use GuideML, make your headers stand out by doing them in caps and using ______ to underline them or >> and << to draw attention to them.



And now for something completely different. This is an update to http://www.h2g2.com/A99119 - therefore it is not suitable for Peer Review. Check out Jimi X's Update HQ at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A496451

As a result, I'm afraid this thread is likely to be moved out of Peer Review and attached to A99119. Sorry - but them's the rules!

I'd like to agree with Lucinda on the last bit -- this definitely seems to fall under the category of an update, rather than an entry on a previously uncovered topic.


Mikey

Hoi there Lucinda.

You said you didn't get postmodernism. Well basically it's a general label - it's not a specific philosophy - its used like an adjective.

So you could apply it any subject you wanted - people talk about 'postmodernist art', 'postmodernist literature' etc etc

In general it means that one believes that there is no 'objective' standards for the subject you're talking about - you're talking about the subjective side of things.

(Where 'objective' is defined to mean existing external to the human mind)

So for postmodernist art, for instance, a supporter would argue that beauty is not something which exists external to the human mind but is instead 'in the eye of the beholder' - and so there is no absolute right and wrong way to do the art.

That's fair enough as a general illustration of the 'postmodern' mindset - the idea that everything is relative, there are no absolute values and therefore, as you say, 'no absolute right or wrong'. But the question of whether we should think in 'relativist' or 'universalist' terms, obviously has important implications for the kind of view one takes of the world, and the way one decides to behave in it - and, as such, it's clearly a fit subject for philosophy.

Actually, postmodernism *is* a specific philosophy. There are underlying principles behind this body of thought, and these are quite well-established and easy to read about for those who wish to do so. Looking at this article, I think the author was attempting to tackle the subject in more detail than simply saying 'It's about relativism' - he / she was trying to dig a little into the roots of the subject and trace the development of a postmodern sensibility, and its relationship with (and criticisms of) Enlightenment thought. I tend to agree with people above that the article is a little convoluted as it stands at the moment, and that it doesn't really achieve what (I think) it is attempting to do. But basically I think the author is on the right lines - it would be nice to think that they might come back and finish the job off, one day...

On another subject... I suppose it's probably true that this should, as Lucinda points out, really be a (much-needed) update to the existing Guide article on postmodernism. I guess this thread ought to be moved somewhere else really...