"Postmodernism"
 

Everyone who has fucking used this word to rationalize your bullshit opinions raise your hand so I can existentialize my post-structural foot in your deconstructed ass.

My opinions rationalize themselves.

I would but how do I know it's really your foot? I think that the notion of the 'foot' as an objective truth is antiquated and totalitarian.

What's postmodernism?

A brilliantly nifty joke that's been bastardized and taken too seriously by certain artists who don't really know what they're talking about. You know the kind you'll see making outlandish hand gestures in front of their paintings and using big words to confuse art appreciators, the only audience that can be fooled by 'em.

This thread should go into the countless men and women among that list.

I'll start: Vyvian Blackthorne circa 07-08

My post came after your post, so my post is more modern than yours.
This should be self-evident and reveals the hang nail in the structure of Alan's big toe. I felt it break off in my ass.

You mean like Andy Warhol and Damien Hirst?

Post-Modernism is joke so bad that when I did an Art History parody paper on "Pre-Futurism" in Modern Art 101 (In which we wear berets and annoy the over-educated), it was not recognized as such.

Either they were too ignorant or too afraid to call me out. Best 'A' I ever got.

Quintessential.


Molly: That's priceless. Education all the way!

postmodernism-



Post- is after (as i understand :notice i only have a half assed 10th grade public high school education)


Modern - refers to a trend of the moment ( as i understand : Ect..


ism - a way of thinking ( Ect....





= thinking after the trend of the moment???

I find people who use the word "postmodernism" to be almost as pretentious as those who use the word "rationalize".

I've always wanted my ass deconstructed. Where do i sign up? *raises hand nervously*

I don't use big words I don't understand... I'm feeling kinda discombobulated at the thought.

There's nothing pretentious about the term 'postmodernism'. If anything, it's the least pretentious of all the words that could be contrived to describe the intellectual and artistic movement that succeeded modernism.
To feel deconstructionism or the other trends that characterize postmodernism are pretentious is your prerogative, as idiotic as you might be in exercising that prerogative. However, you can't deny that those trends are perceptible and invite discussion-- they need to be called something, 'postmodernism' is as good a name as any.

I didn't say I find the "word" postmodernism pretentious. Rarely do I see it used in reality where the person using it doesn't seem pretentious.

The problem is that it's a buzz word people like to pull out of their pocket, and maybe around ten percent of the people who use it actually understand what it means. It's used as a hipster art-tard word. "Oh, Jacob's work is so postmodern, it has leanings of existentialism whilst retaining the horrors of every day life in a cubicle working for Durex under the rule of Jesus." Only, Jacob swallows food colouring and pisses on canvas.

Linguistically, what would the difference be between "postmodernism" and "futurism?"

A bunch of pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

Not really. There's a lot of difference linguistically.
Futurism by virtue of its word is a glorification of modernity and a search for further progress.
Postmodernism is a state of being that is past that stage of modernity and progress.

But of course, the real importance is historical, not linguistic, but even only linguistically they are actually clearly opposite sides of the modernist line.

Could you provide an example please? (sorry alan half asleep)

There are no examples; we're just talking about the words themselves.
Futurism is a glorification of the future; or modernism.
Postmodernism is the non-intended future; modernism is an anachronism.


Examples would be for the historical differences between futurism and postmodernism, which are way more obvious than the differences in the words themselves.

thank you (10 space limit)

This. Without post-structuralism, broadly speaking, we wouldn't still be studying Shakespeare in any sense that managed to transcend the Elizabethan context or "universal" (generic) assertions of universality on very basic themes such as jealousy, passion, love & hatred. Oedipal-libidinal interpretations of Hamlet, feminist readings of King Lear, and the awareness that Richard III's "Now is the winter" monologue is themtically and imagistically akin to Richmond's public wank in the name of victory (the latter being the grandfather of S's dominatrix queen) would be heavily diluted to say the least.

Post-structuralism isn't the hallmark of thinking outside the box, but it did help to advance the cause rapidly. It's no coincidence that it can be correlated with social change on a global level.

I think that's deconstructionism.

Deconstruction is a derivative concept. It's a chicken-makes-egg situation (as opposed to a which-came-first kind of deal).

Not really. Deconstruction is a method of Derrida way before post-structuralism, which is a trend from structuralism and phenomenology, influenced by people like Derrida, who himself began to write on post-structuralism.
They are very close together, but a husband and a wife are not a chickend-or-egg kind of deal.