Log in

so here's the deal: i have this idea in my head of what "post-modern"… - Infans Jesu invidit assini [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tizzy and P-Dawg's Sanctum of Doom

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Feb. 29th, 2004|05:59 pm]
Tizzy and P-Dawg's Sanctum of Doom


so here's the deal: i have this idea in my head of what "post-modern" is. I tend to waver back and forth between loving it and hating it, with almost no rhyme or reason. actually, no rhyme at all, i don't tend to do that often. but very little reason. here's the thing -- i love things that are post modern "art" such as dance (like merce cunningham), or in garygetsnolove's case, a tupperware flour sifter. perhaps it's one of the only genres which inescapably coexists with the art that directly preceded it, but that makes me think of neo-classicism, which i appreciate in a completely different way. but i really hate postmodernism when i see it fetishized for stylistic purposes, such as at the Prada store. the prada store is so in love with itself, so in love with the idea that it is "more" than just a retail store, and so concentrated on being "different" from the "norm" (now i'm starting to sound like a zagat's review) that it just comes off as silly. placing rows of mannequins in the window, displaying clothing in cages hanging from the ceiling, that really weird valley-type dip in the floor....ick. anyway, i'm wondering if someone who reads this can maybe shed light for me on what their idea of post-modern is -- when it's good, bad, beautiful or ugly. i have to admit i've never studied art or dance or architecture, i just happen to be judgemental. also, about when would you say post-modernism started to come into existence? and do i just resent prada for being out of my league? who knows?

also, phil is a sexpot.

[User Picture]From: greendaze
2004-02-29 07:01 pm (UTC)
Well, I don't really know much about post-modernism, but I view it as those things that attempt to counter the counter-culture, which to me seems like it's being done more for the sake of progress than anything else. (Because modernism was essentially a turnabout from previous ideas about art/architecture/etc and where else can you go once you've rejected that?)

In anthropology, the tenets of post-modernism are that "all truth is relative; all perceptions are mediated by one's cultural and sexual identity." So if that same concept is applied to art, we begin to see the outline of the idea that in the right context, anything could be considered art. Therefore, there should be no true boundaries as to what is and is not art. So it's pretty much just a big free for all and I think artists (at least in our society) are responding to that by trying to bend people's perceptions as much as they can by creating deviant art.

I haven't really answered any of your questions, but hopefully this was somewhere along the lines of what you were looking for. I certainly agree with you about Prada being very pretentious about the whole po-mo thing, but I think most high end fashion places are like that because they're trying to be cutting-edge. And I'm sure there's also a bit of conspicuous consumption thrown into the mix, too, since they want to attract customers who are as wealthy as they are, hence the creation of hugely unnecessary slide-like dips in their floor just for shits and giggles.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: greendaze
2004-02-29 07:29 pm (UTC)

P.S. I believe this is yours:

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)