He offers a slew of definitions in this article, one important to understanding postmodernism is the term "modern" in itself. He states "I shall call modern the art which devotes its 'little technical expertise' as Dederot used to say, to present the fact that the unpresentable exists" (43). He refers to the example of modern painting to draw out the clarity in this definition. A modern painting is stating a message that is not supposed to be clear to the eye, that one has to dig to find, and that is simply not visible. Lyotard provides Kants take as something that is formless or something that has an "absence of form" (43).
In attempt to explain what is postmodern, Lyotard informs us that "a work can become modrn only if it is first postmodern" (44). This concept seems simple enough to grasp as postmodernity is even further forward thinking than modernity itself. Finally, he states in attempt to give us the clearest definition that he is willing to provide "the postmodern would be that which would make it possible to share collectively the nostalgia for the unattainable; that which denies itself the solace of good forms, the consensus of a taste which would make it possible to share collectively the nostalgia for the unattainable; that which searches for new presentations, not in order to enjoy them but in order to impart a stronger sense of the unpresentable" (46).
From the last quote, I gather that the distinct difference between what is modern and what is postmodern, according to Jean-Francois Lyotard is the deep sentiment that which is postmodern is capable of evoking. Modernity brings in new ideas, but postmodernity has the power to bring in a profound passion and bond to the work.
2 comments:
Okay, now after reading your post, and Taylor's I have lost hope.
Where is a brilliant post from Brian when you need one!
Lyotard was tough for me. I spent a lot of time breaking down and analyzing this piece. Here is what I got from it:
The Sublime Sentiment:
This is the relationship between what is conceivable by the human mind, and what we can actually present (or that which is presentable/un-presentable). The presenting the un-presentable is the object of modern art. Lyotard says that the only was to accomplish this is through allusion via negative presentation. He also talks about the sublime as a combination of pleasure and pain.
The Pain:
The pain is derived from focusing on the powerlessness of the faculty of presentation to present that which we can conceive.
The Pleasure:
The pleasure is derived from focusing on the limitless human ability to conceive and conceptualize.
He also claims that postmodernism isn’t the end of modernism, it’s the beginning. Both seek to present the un-presentable through negative presentation, however:
Modernism puts forward the un-presentable in terms of content, but not in terms of the form of the art. The form’s recognizable consistency (“consensus of taste) allows viewers to cling onto the pleasure derived from the nostalgia of the concept of the unattainable.
Postmodernism on the other hand, puts forward the un-presentable by searching for a new presentation (in terms of form AND content), not to enjoy them, but to impart a stronger sense OF the un-presentable. The content is no longer the work alone. The form of the content is now part of the work.
In essence, Postmodernism isn’t governed by rules and can’t be judged by them. Post-modern artists work without rules in order to formulate the rules of “what will have been done.” This is how postmodernism is the beginning of modernism:
The work of the post-modern artists is to work without rules in order to formulate and define the rules of their work.
Sounds contradictory, but also makes perfect sense… and hurts my brain… a lot…
Post a Comment