ITT, recommend some postmodernist films.
Wikipedia page about postmodern films is some total bullshit, it even lists matrix trilogy as postmodern film.
Last 2 good postmodernist films i remember were in the loop and 4 lions.
It can't, though. Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments, not just "any form of expression". Art is a concretization of metaphysics. Art brings man’s concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts.
As a re-creation of reality, a work of art has to be representational; its freedom of stylization is limited by the requirement of intelligibility; if it does not present an intelligible subject, it ceases to be art.
>That post in your pic and the buzz over it is rubbish
>Its like fucking news to everybody that any form of expression can be art
But the content of the message in that post doesn't matter at all. I would put it this way. It's a story of 2 unknown fagets trying to be witty.
This is pretty much a masterpiece of po-mo filmmaking.
Literature deals with concepts, the visual arts with sight and touch, music with hearing. Each art fulfills the function of bringing man’s concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allowing him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts. (The performing arts are a means of further concretization.) The different branches of art serve to unify man’s consciousness and offer him a coherent view of existence. Fact is, Anon, whether that view is true or false is not an esthetic matter.
1) how does literature "bring man's concepts to the perceptual level"? As far as I can tell literature is fundamentally conceptual
>The different branches of art serve to unify man’s consciousness and offer him a coherent view of existence.
Then why does physical art tend to focus on single aspects of perception rather than unify them? Gesamtkunstwerk is the exception, not the rule, and the prevailing view today seems to be that unified works like films with supporting scores and artistic design are lower forms of art
Art is not the means to any didactic end. This is the difference between a work of art and a morality play or a propaganda poster. The greater a work of art, the more profoundly universal its theme. Art is not the means of literal transcription. This is the difference between a work of art and a news story or a photograph.
matrix is totally a modernist piece, mate. The humanity is good, the agents are evil. Not even beyond good and evil is accounted for. In postmodernism there are no good or bad sides. Take a look on postmodernist view on how history should be taught in classes
Oh, and as for your first point, that's about one of the most ridiculous things you could argue here; the bulk of classical painting was portraiture done on commission or religious
>In postmodernism there are no good or bad sides
this is prescriptivist and inconsistent with the current use of the label. postmodern film often draws from traditional good guy/bad guy stories
Isn't postmodernism just "there are no values, make your own"? I can't see how you can really specify movies as "postmodern" other than the time period they were made in, because the whole point is that there is no defining characteristics.
The most hard to understand about postmodernism is that it claims to be very political. Like art for the sake of politics, existing only because there are conflicts between groups of people separated by some interests. But then there are those painters drawing random shit and selling it for big sums. And they are supposed to be postmodernists too. How does one understand this conundrum?
Well can we say that modernism has defining characteristics? Then postmodernist films are those that aren't modernist. But then postmodernist films will be all sort of shit. Is it possible to determine a worth of postmodern piece of art, like just 2 hours of black screen film would be kind of lame.
Well, the idea is that in the past, the current culture as gathered around a set of ideas, everyone would be saying "lets all take inspiration from the Greeks" (neoclassicism), or "lets all try and make the most complex works we can" (mannerism), or "lets try and make a new a new set of values that represent our current culture" (modernism). Post-modernism is saying "lets not agree on doing anything in particular, everybody just do what you want". So it encompasses everything, including taking inspiration from the modernist works, and everything before it, as well as new innovations and creativity. I think it's easier to tell when something isn't postmodern, like for example if I was doing something with the intention of creating a uniform movement, maybe I choose to adopt modernist values and embody the principals of the modernists, now my shit is modernist not postmodernist. It sucks.
Uh, no, not at all. Modernism was about not using inspiration from the past. You were allowed to do anything, AS LONG AS YOU DID IT IN AN EFFORT TO CREATE A NEW 'STYLE'. There are clear bars on what you can and can't do. This was an attempt to CREATE A NEW SET OF VALUES THAT REPRESENT THEIR CURRENT CULTURE. That's were the name modernist comes from. They're trying to be modern.
Rubber is one of the best examples of post-modernism in modern film
It's certainly entertaining but you can't watch the trailer. The movie is a bit of a one trick pony, so the trailer completely ruins it.
But with all that said, I watched this film with my Dad without knowing anything about it and it was one of the most entertaining film experiences I have had.
>Modernism was about not using inspiration from the past.
it often was, modernism is often intimately linked with neoclassicism. you can say this was the failure of modernism, but ultimately no modernist works were composed in a vacuum. James Joyce's Ulysses is a retelling of the Odyssey for chrissakes
yes i watched that one, and i see now, i dont want any postmodernist movies, i will need to try more to look into what kind of movie i want more deeply to formulate additional filtering conditions in my request
You're failing to make the distinction between what it was about and what actually happened.
If I define my movement as trying to make things red, and everything I do turns out green, what defines my movement is still trying to make things red. It also would be defined as a failure, but it doesn't change the intention.
you're imposing an artificial idea of what it was meant to be about. joyce didn't base ulysses on homer by accident. modernism was about making new stuff, yes, but that's true of any art movement. it was NOT characterized by a universal disdain for and avoidance of the old
Inspiration is in reference to style, as a opposed to content. For example, they still painted naked females, which has been done since the dawn of time, but that's not what they were attempting to avoid was painting from a certain style of the past. They were looking for their own style.
Notice how I mentioned 'style' specifically.
Michael Mann films feature some postmodern elements. The protags are almost always very strict professionals who define themselves according to professional ethics and related rules. But these clash with modern urban society, and often lead to their downfall.
>as well as new innovations and creativity
Are you a goldfish?
Postmodernism is about not having a unified intention, other than the intention of having no unified intention. If a PoMo creates a new style, good. If he rehashes an old style, good. If he does both at the same time, great.
verb: rehash; 3rd person present: rehashes; past tense: rehashed; past participle: rehashed; gerund or present participle: rehashing; verb: re-hash; 3rd person present: re-hashes; past tense: re-hashed; past participle: re-hashed; gerund or present participle: re-hashing
put (old ideas or material) into a new form without significant change or improvement.
"he contented himself with occasional articles in journals, rehashing his own work"
consider or discuss (something) at length after it has happened.
"is it really necessary to rehash that trauma all over again?"
noun: rehash; plural noun: rehashes; noun: re-hash; plural noun: re-hashes
a reuse of old ideas or material without significant change or improvement.
"the spring show was a rehash of the summer show from the previous year"
> there is no clear consensus on what exactly constitutes neo-expressionist art, or who exactly is a neo-expressionist painter
>give me one example of such a rehash from a significant postmodernist artist
please, be specific. also be sure to state which old form the new form is insignificantly different from.
hint: just because some critic labeled it "neo" at the beginning doesn't mean it's old hat. neoclassical music is EASILY distinguishable from the music it attempts or is claimed to emulate
the form of the whole object is definitely not "a reuse of old ideas or material without significant change or improvement". structural work is repurposed as facade, and collage. the mixed column types and geometric abstraction further this difference.
The work uses identical and purposeful rehashes of old styles. That's all it has to do. I said they rehash old ideas, just because that building isn't a direct copy of a classical building does not mean it's not rehashing old ideas.
To expand on one specific object, take the pillar. The architect clearly said "I'm going to directly copy that old style identically and use it". In what fucking universe is that not rehashing old ideas?
the dadaists, cubists, and surrealists all re-used other people's ideas. collage is not unique to postmodernism. style is not the single unifying aspect of every art movement.
let's look at music. many tunes are copied wholesale and referenced in myriad classical works. stravinsky quoted and mixed up russian folksong, mozart and beethoven quoted folksong. many church hymns were mixed up into classical compositions, dies irae is a popular one. were all these people post-modernists? NO! is this a "rehash"? Well, let's look at the definition!
>verb: rehash; 3rd person present: rehashes; past tense: rehashed; past participle: rehashed; gerund or >present participle: rehashing; verb:
>re-hash; 3rd person present: re-hashes; past tense: re-hashed; past >participle: re-hashed; gerund or present participle: re-hashing
>put (old ideas or material) into a new form without significant change or improvement.
>"he contented himself with occasional articles in journals, rehashing his own work"
>consider or discuss (something) at length after it has happened.
>"is it really necessary to rehash that trauma all over again?"
>noun: rehash; plural noun: rehashes; noun: re-hash; plural noun: re-hashes
>a reuse of old ideas or material without significant change or improvement.
>"the spring show was a rehash of the summer show from the previous year"
I don't care! If you argue "yes", they're a rehash, then modernists like stravinsky were perfectly willing to "rehash", as you put it. If you argue "no", they're not a rehash, well then I say neither is your goddamn column! But since you seem to care about my opinions, I think it is absolutely ludicrous to label something as a rehash without regard to overall form.
>collage is not unique to postmodernism
I'm guessing you meant modernism here
>style is not the single unifying aspect of every art movement
I never claimed that, I said it was for Modernism. Modernism is the rejection of the traditional, and an attempt to create new styles that better represented their MODERN culture.
>let's look at music etc etc
You're missing the point of what I'm saying again. They created a complete division of music in an attempt to escape traditional music. It was something they were actively trying to do. Postmodernists don't care if they are recycling old styles, because postmodernism doesn't care what you do.
You're in this retarded cycle of "if every aspect of what happened in this time period doesn't perfectly line up with the definition of modernism it's wrong". Modernism is a descriptive term to capture the general attitude of a period, often categorized after the movements over by historians.
Will old things end up being in modernist works? Obviously, that's pretty difficult to avoid. But the point is that they were TRYING to move away from those traditional things. Postmodernists are NOT trying to do that.
>I'm guessing you meant modernism here
no, I meant postmodernism. Your thesis was that modernism differs from postmodernism in that it's unwilling to "rehash" (read: reuse) old elements
>Postmodernists don't care if they are recycling old styles
if that were true they would be willing to copy old things wholesale, which they're not. the re-use in postmodernism is often humorous and characterized by jarring juxtaposition with very different styles. i.e. the reuse of old material is FUNDAMENTAL to the postmodernist's intent and artistic message
> they were TRYING to move away from those traditional things
that's completely untrue, the use of old material was deliberate and fundamental to the new styles established. notice a pattern here?
>Modernism is the rejection of the traditional, and an attempt to create new styles that better represented their MODERN culture.
that's what the textbooks say. that's not what the art bears out.
That's exactly what the art bears out. They made a big deal of challenging the traditional standards, just look at the change of perspective, color, music theory itself took radical shifts in the name of 'the new'. It's pretty clear the modernists were obsessed with originality.
>They made a big deal of challenging the traditional standards
so did the postmodernists. you never saw anything like what the postmodernists made before the postmodernists came around and made it. the postmodernists are just as obsessed with originality as the modernists, they just take a slightly different approach -- and there is a BIG overlap
I agree that they are obsessed with originality and that the ideals of modernism do have great overlap. I see modernism as freedom, but with a unifying directive, which is creating an original, modern style which shunned traditional values. There was a universal attitude of defiance directed at something.
I see postmodernism as the unleashing of freedom completely. It doesn't shun traditional values, it often encourages them a la 'jarring juxtaposition' as you mentioned, it is just complete freedom to the point of losing our grasp on knowing what can even be art. I don't mean to say that they are specifically going out there way to rehash old ideas, I'm saying that the complete freedom means that postmodernism can include it, it doesn't go against postmodernism, because postmodernism is complete freedom. That's why I included every combination (new, old, newold morph), anything goes.
>creating an original, modern style which shunned traditional values
that's where we disagree, lots of modernists referenced traditional material, in fact one of the key processes in creating a new art was researching old art further. an interest in poetic meter took poets back to the greeks, an interest in nontriadic music took musicians back to the roots of polyphony and to a closer examination of the vernacular
I'm not sure it's legitimate to talk about postmodernism subsuming modernism when the two styles are de facto so distinct
Postmodernism is fucking cancer. I'll enjoy my traditional ideas of beauty and humanism while you wank off to your self-aware genre pastiches.
What you research and what you produce are two different things entirely. If my objective is not to draw a dog, you would be damn sure the first thing I would be studying and trying to understand is a dog. My objective is still to reject the dog.
>the styles are de facto so distinct
modernists drew on their early art research, though. satie, debussy, ravel used modal ideas and drew on early church music, rodin attempted to emulate donatello and michelangelo, joyce modernized mythology. modernism was characterized by a rapid flowering of ideas but it owed a great debt to the past.
I guess you've got me there, neither movement has a completely unifying ethos