Alright, I'm going to be the third one here to say I'm a bit confused. Before I read the last few posts, what I got out of the piece was that to be Modern, something has to be orderly and unified ("...call for order, a desire for unity...." (40)). So, postmodern, I believe is not orderly, as we have seen in postmodern architecture. By "not following the rules" something can also be postmodern. So this is kinda-sorta what I have gotten out of this.
Then, I came onto here and the latest blog stated, for something to be modern, it has to be postmodern first. I understand it the other way around...for something to be postmodern; it has to pretty much come from being modern. Maybe taking away aspects of the modern this makes it postmodern. Post modernity allows us to fill in gaps...Makes a little sense if what I am thinking here is right.
So, something that is post modern makes reality more clear to us by letting us fill in gaps by ourselves. By doing this, we understand the world around us better because we are solely educated? Am I way off or is this making sense to anyone else?
No comments:
Post a Comment