What do you think?
Rate this book
Introducing Graphic Guides
Introducing Postmodernism: A Graphic Guide
What connects Marliyn Monroe, Disneyworld, "The Satanic Verses" and cyber space? Answer: Postmodernism. But what exactly is postmodernism? This graphic guide explains clearly the maddeningly enigmatic concept that has been used to define the world's cultural condition over the last three decades. "Introducing Postmodernism" tracks the idea back to its roots by taking a tour of some of the most extreme and exhilarating events, people and thought of the last 100 years: in art - constructivism, conceptual art, Marcel Duchamp, Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol; in politics and history - McCarthy's witch-hunts, feminism, Francis Fukuyama and the Holocaust; in philosophy - the work of Derrida, Baudrillard, Foucault and Heidegger. The book also explores postmodernism's take on today, and the anxious grip of globalisation, unpredictable terrorism and unforeseen war that greeted the dawn of the 21st century. Regularly controversial, rarely straightforward and seldom easy, postmodernism is nonetheless a thrilling intellectual adventure. "Introducing Postmodernism" is the ideal guide.
196 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1995
334 people are currently reading
1223 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 138 reviews
June 28, 2017
تا حالا چند كتاب از مجموعه ى "قدم اول" خوندم و هيچ كدوم راضى كننده نبودن. مؤلفان تصور كردن اضافه كردن چند تا نقاشى و چند تا ديالوگ طنز به كتاب كافيه براى ساده كردنش.
كتاب هياهويى بود از اطلاعات بى شمار و گنگ. پر بود از اطلاعات جزئى و شلوغ، بدون ارتباط مناسب، بدون نخ تسبيحى كه به هم مرتبط شون كنه. علاوه بر اين تقريباً تمام توضيحات گنگ و نارسا بودن و به زحمت مى شد چيزى ازشون فهميد.
كتاب ميشل فوكو از همين مجموعه رو شروع كردم. ده صفحه خوندم و ديدم همين وضع داره تكرار ميشه، گذاشتمش كنار. ديگه سراغ كتاب هاى اين مجموعه نميرم.
كتاب هياهويى بود از اطلاعات بى شمار و گنگ. پر بود از اطلاعات جزئى و شلوغ، بدون ارتباط مناسب، بدون نخ تسبيحى كه به هم مرتبط شون كنه. علاوه بر اين تقريباً تمام توضيحات گنگ و نارسا بودن و به زحمت مى شد چيزى ازشون فهميد.
كتاب ميشل فوكو از همين مجموعه رو شروع كردم. ده صفحه خوندم و ديدم همين وضع داره تكرار ميشه، گذاشتمش كنار. ديگه سراغ كتاب هاى اين مجموعه نميرم.
September 3, 2015
The End of History ?
29 January 2014
The title of the book that I read was called 'Postmodernism for Beginners' but it appears that this is the same book, though the edition that I read was published in 1995 and I suspect that there are a number of differences between the two editions. The problem though is that this book was published 20 years ago so, surprisingly, it has become dated. What the book is actually exploring is what the thought pattern of the Western World was at the time, and the thing is that during the 90s the Western World was existing in some form of dream and the question being raised 'have we come to the end of history?' This I will explore a little later in my exposition, however what I will do first is look at how this book show how we reached this point in history, and the nature of the world as it was at the time (and in many ways it has not changed, but in many other ways it has).
The term post-modernism is actually a term that really doesn't describe all that much because even though we now have an idea of what modernism is, modernism was actually be a term that has been thrown around since the middle of the Roman Empire. Basically, the term Modernism is a term that refers to something that is new or different, so when an architect in the 12th century started designing cathedrals in a new style to what was being designed at the time, his style was referred to, at the time, as modern. However, as time progressed, the style ceased to be called modern and started to be called gothic. Yet in our age this attitude has changed because the style that is referred to as modern has now been left at the period around the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.
The term modernism came about through a number of changes during the period, the most significant being that of the camera. Prior to the invention of the camer, if one wanted to capture an image, or a person, one had to hire a pretty good artiso tp paint the picture. What the camera enabled us to do was to capture an image without the need of the time, and skill, to reproduce the image on canvas. Within a blink of an eye the artist had suddenly become obsolete. As such, to succeed as an artist, you no longer were able to simply paint a picture as perfectly as possible, but rather you had to experiment in ways such as this:
or this:
or even this:
Thus what we have is a movement away from the realistic toward what could be termed as the perspective. For instance we have artists like Monet who will paint the same scene multiple times, but at different times and emphasising different things. Instead of trying to paint a painting a realistic as possible, the realism retreats to the background and instead he emphasises other things such as colour. Other painters, such as Picasso, would paint in a way where they would perceive different things and different ideas.
Another change is that the world suddenly became a lot smaller. The telegraph and the the telephone, as well as the aeroplane and the automobile, meant that we could travel vast differences much quicker, and much less time was spent sitting around doing nothing. Basically the world had changed and the people of the world were forced to change with it. We had become industrialised and the machine had come about to assist us in our household chores. Suddenly we have a lot more spare time, but also we have become a lot more wealthier, and a lot more literate. Things such as the television meant that we could have access to stories. The world had changed and we had to change with it – this was the essence of modernism.
However, this book is about post-modernism, that which had come after this period in the later part of the 20th century. The authors seem to put the beginning of Post-modernism in the 70s, and one of the big events that we see around that time is what can be termed as the 'collapse of the western narrative'. What had changed was that people were no longer going to church. The 60s had brought about a social revolution in the Anglo-European sphere which resulted in people choosing not to go to church, and choosing not to believe in Christianity. Granted this was nothing strictly new, but what Christianity gave the Western world was a meta-narrative, namely the Biblical view of history in that the world was heading towards a point where Christ would return, judge the world, and all those who reject him would go to hell, and all those who accept him would go to heaven. However people were now throwing this narrative away and creating their own narrative, which was supported by evolution. Evolution had come front and centre but what evolution does not offer is a proper narrative.
What evolution provides is a mechanical understanding of the world in which we exist, but it does not actually provide a narrative beyond us being born, living, and ultimately dying. What we are thus given is the need to develop our own narrative which gives rise to individualism. However there was a reaction against this in the form of the Thatcher/Reagan/Right Wing Christian alliance attempt to drag the narrative back to that of Christianity. Their method: the 'red terror'.
After the end of World War II the world had sunk into a cold war between the capitalist liberal democracies of the west and the totalitarian planned economies of the east. While there was panic and paranoia during the fifties with McCarthyism, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, after Kennedy the world simply settled down into a status quo with bush wars occurring on the fringes of the empires. When the Americans finally withdrew from Vietnam it pretty much looked like the way the political sphere was structured was going to remain as it was, and thus the narrative of the good empire vs the evil empire was going settle down into a status quo. This changed when Thatcher went to war against Argentina over a couple of lumps of rocks in the South Atlantic (and won, as if the result was beyond doubt). This small war gave legitimacy to Thatcher, and in turn it supported Reagan, and all of a sudden the cold war heated up again which in the end brought about the collapse of communism and the victory of the capitalist liberal democracy.
Thus we come to the 90s, in which the enemy had been defeated and capitalism reigned supreme. What we had was no enemy and no way to focus our energies. We had won and we were now in an era where the United States reigned supreme. Thus we enter into the period in which I call 'Classic Postmodernism', the period on which this book was written.
It seems that up to this point I have been writing from an historical point of view, but that is not surprising since I think along the lines of a historian. However it appeared in all intents and purposes that we have reached the end of history. Looking back from this point it very much appeared that history was defined purely by conflict and now that the conflict between the Stalinist meta-narrative and the Western lack of narrative had been resolved in favour of the West we were looking at a blank slate, a canvas in which each and every one of us as free individuals living in a wealthy liberal democracy could paint the way we wished.
This creation of our own narrative was aided by the development of another very important technological advancement: the computer. What the computer enabled us to do was to create our own world and to immerse ourselves into it, and this has only advanced over the twenty years since this book was written. When the book was written the internet was still in its early stages, but now we can fully immerse ourselves in artificial worlds of our choosing, create our own identities (known as avatars) and interact with people through our avatars. We have in effect become like gods, being able to act out godlike abilities within these artificial worlds. The question arises as to whether these worlds are truly artificial because if the Christian meta-narrative is true, as I believe it to be true, then this world in which we live is little more than an artificial world created by a higher being in which he plays god. Thus we can create an infinite number of artificial worlds – the game within the game, or as can be seen within Shakespeare, the play within a play (and the artificial worlds are nothing new because writers have been creating these worlds for centuries, it is just the the computer enables us to add much greater definition to these worlds).
The other proof that we had reached the end of history is that technological development had effectively stopped. Without an enemy there was no need to create military apparati to attempt to beat the enemy, and there was no need to progress beyond that of the other enemy. As such, what we had was a stagnating society in which advancement only meant better designed products for us to purchase. A more stable house, a more reliable car, a faster computer, better internet speeds. Technology had stagnated. We had become trapped in our own worlds, being bombarded by the news media and the apostles of consumerism.
The internet has changed that though. No longer are our worlds dominated by the media moguls. The internet has enabled us to publish our own views, and to respond to other people's views. Computers and cheap digital cameras, and websites like Youtube mean that we can create our own content, and the internet allows us to choose our own content. We can now choose what we want to watch as opposed to relying upon the media to tell us what we want to watch. We can now respond to news articles, and the rise of social media means that we can produce content for those of us whom we are connected with. As the media moves online, we can now comment on articles and actually create a discussion across the wider community rather than within our own little circles. We can now reconnect with friends of our youth as opposed to being trapped within our own circle of friends.
Yet there was one event that suddenly woke us up out of that dream world: the events on the morning of September 11th, 2001. Some writers have suggested that that event was not all that significant, but I would disagree. It is actually incredibly significant. Granted the conflict between the Islamist meta-narrative and the Western lack of a narrative had been going on for centuries, and the conflict had also arisen during the 90s with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and various terrorist attacks against American targets, but what September 11th represented was a surgical strike against the heart of American capitalism in a way that could not be ignored. What it did was brought conflict back to the front and centre. However, what it also did was to wake up the post-modern world – we were not going to immediately rally behind George W Bush: we were going to hold him to account. The conflict was not just between secularism and Islamism, it was between Capitalism and Socialism and Totalitarianism against the liberal democracy, however this conflict was actually going to arise within the United States and the Western world, with the people rallying against the decisions of the government while the government and the corporate interests attempting to return the world to the two coloured world of history. This was not going to happen.
Now we have entered into a new phase of history, and another event has arisen to progress us further: the stock market collapse of 2008. What that did was knock the United States off of its economic pinnacle. The United States is no longer the economic super power of the past. A new power, China, has arisen to attempt to take control of that mantle. Once again, even as the phoney war with Islam dies down, the struggle between the liberal democracy and the totalitarian state one again arises. However with the internet the era of Orwell's 1984 has now past. No longer are we bombarded with one thought and one view, but we are bombarded with many different views. There is the external cold war with China, and the internal cold war between the people and the corporations. The world has changed once again, and while many of us flee into our artificial realities that we have created on the internet, others of us are doing the best we can to make ourselves heard, because now we have the power to do so.
29 January 2014
The title of the book that I read was called 'Postmodernism for Beginners' but it appears that this is the same book, though the edition that I read was published in 1995 and I suspect that there are a number of differences between the two editions. The problem though is that this book was published 20 years ago so, surprisingly, it has become dated. What the book is actually exploring is what the thought pattern of the Western World was at the time, and the thing is that during the 90s the Western World was existing in some form of dream and the question being raised 'have we come to the end of history?' This I will explore a little later in my exposition, however what I will do first is look at how this book show how we reached this point in history, and the nature of the world as it was at the time (and in many ways it has not changed, but in many other ways it has).
The term post-modernism is actually a term that really doesn't describe all that much because even though we now have an idea of what modernism is, modernism was actually be a term that has been thrown around since the middle of the Roman Empire. Basically, the term Modernism is a term that refers to something that is new or different, so when an architect in the 12th century started designing cathedrals in a new style to what was being designed at the time, his style was referred to, at the time, as modern. However, as time progressed, the style ceased to be called modern and started to be called gothic. Yet in our age this attitude has changed because the style that is referred to as modern has now been left at the period around the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.
The term modernism came about through a number of changes during the period, the most significant being that of the camera. Prior to the invention of the camer, if one wanted to capture an image, or a person, one had to hire a pretty good artiso tp paint the picture. What the camera enabled us to do was to capture an image without the need of the time, and skill, to reproduce the image on canvas. Within a blink of an eye the artist had suddenly become obsolete. As such, to succeed as an artist, you no longer were able to simply paint a picture as perfectly as possible, but rather you had to experiment in ways such as this:
or this:
or even this:
Thus what we have is a movement away from the realistic toward what could be termed as the perspective. For instance we have artists like Monet who will paint the same scene multiple times, but at different times and emphasising different things. Instead of trying to paint a painting a realistic as possible, the realism retreats to the background and instead he emphasises other things such as colour. Other painters, such as Picasso, would paint in a way where they would perceive different things and different ideas.
Another change is that the world suddenly became a lot smaller. The telegraph and the the telephone, as well as the aeroplane and the automobile, meant that we could travel vast differences much quicker, and much less time was spent sitting around doing nothing. Basically the world had changed and the people of the world were forced to change with it. We had become industrialised and the machine had come about to assist us in our household chores. Suddenly we have a lot more spare time, but also we have become a lot more wealthier, and a lot more literate. Things such as the television meant that we could have access to stories. The world had changed and we had to change with it – this was the essence of modernism.
However, this book is about post-modernism, that which had come after this period in the later part of the 20th century. The authors seem to put the beginning of Post-modernism in the 70s, and one of the big events that we see around that time is what can be termed as the 'collapse of the western narrative'. What had changed was that people were no longer going to church. The 60s had brought about a social revolution in the Anglo-European sphere which resulted in people choosing not to go to church, and choosing not to believe in Christianity. Granted this was nothing strictly new, but what Christianity gave the Western world was a meta-narrative, namely the Biblical view of history in that the world was heading towards a point where Christ would return, judge the world, and all those who reject him would go to hell, and all those who accept him would go to heaven. However people were now throwing this narrative away and creating their own narrative, which was supported by evolution. Evolution had come front and centre but what evolution does not offer is a proper narrative.
What evolution provides is a mechanical understanding of the world in which we exist, but it does not actually provide a narrative beyond us being born, living, and ultimately dying. What we are thus given is the need to develop our own narrative which gives rise to individualism. However there was a reaction against this in the form of the Thatcher/Reagan/Right Wing Christian alliance attempt to drag the narrative back to that of Christianity. Their method: the 'red terror'.
After the end of World War II the world had sunk into a cold war between the capitalist liberal democracies of the west and the totalitarian planned economies of the east. While there was panic and paranoia during the fifties with McCarthyism, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, after Kennedy the world simply settled down into a status quo with bush wars occurring on the fringes of the empires. When the Americans finally withdrew from Vietnam it pretty much looked like the way the political sphere was structured was going to remain as it was, and thus the narrative of the good empire vs the evil empire was going settle down into a status quo. This changed when Thatcher went to war against Argentina over a couple of lumps of rocks in the South Atlantic (and won, as if the result was beyond doubt). This small war gave legitimacy to Thatcher, and in turn it supported Reagan, and all of a sudden the cold war heated up again which in the end brought about the collapse of communism and the victory of the capitalist liberal democracy.
Thus we come to the 90s, in which the enemy had been defeated and capitalism reigned supreme. What we had was no enemy and no way to focus our energies. We had won and we were now in an era where the United States reigned supreme. Thus we enter into the period in which I call 'Classic Postmodernism', the period on which this book was written.
It seems that up to this point I have been writing from an historical point of view, but that is not surprising since I think along the lines of a historian. However it appeared in all intents and purposes that we have reached the end of history. Looking back from this point it very much appeared that history was defined purely by conflict and now that the conflict between the Stalinist meta-narrative and the Western lack of narrative had been resolved in favour of the West we were looking at a blank slate, a canvas in which each and every one of us as free individuals living in a wealthy liberal democracy could paint the way we wished.
This creation of our own narrative was aided by the development of another very important technological advancement: the computer. What the computer enabled us to do was to create our own world and to immerse ourselves into it, and this has only advanced over the twenty years since this book was written. When the book was written the internet was still in its early stages, but now we can fully immerse ourselves in artificial worlds of our choosing, create our own identities (known as avatars) and interact with people through our avatars. We have in effect become like gods, being able to act out godlike abilities within these artificial worlds. The question arises as to whether these worlds are truly artificial because if the Christian meta-narrative is true, as I believe it to be true, then this world in which we live is little more than an artificial world created by a higher being in which he plays god. Thus we can create an infinite number of artificial worlds – the game within the game, or as can be seen within Shakespeare, the play within a play (and the artificial worlds are nothing new because writers have been creating these worlds for centuries, it is just the the computer enables us to add much greater definition to these worlds).
The other proof that we had reached the end of history is that technological development had effectively stopped. Without an enemy there was no need to create military apparati to attempt to beat the enemy, and there was no need to progress beyond that of the other enemy. As such, what we had was a stagnating society in which advancement only meant better designed products for us to purchase. A more stable house, a more reliable car, a faster computer, better internet speeds. Technology had stagnated. We had become trapped in our own worlds, being bombarded by the news media and the apostles of consumerism.
The internet has changed that though. No longer are our worlds dominated by the media moguls. The internet has enabled us to publish our own views, and to respond to other people's views. Computers and cheap digital cameras, and websites like Youtube mean that we can create our own content, and the internet allows us to choose our own content. We can now choose what we want to watch as opposed to relying upon the media to tell us what we want to watch. We can now respond to news articles, and the rise of social media means that we can produce content for those of us whom we are connected with. As the media moves online, we can now comment on articles and actually create a discussion across the wider community rather than within our own little circles. We can now reconnect with friends of our youth as opposed to being trapped within our own circle of friends.
Yet there was one event that suddenly woke us up out of that dream world: the events on the morning of September 11th, 2001. Some writers have suggested that that event was not all that significant, but I would disagree. It is actually incredibly significant. Granted the conflict between the Islamist meta-narrative and the Western lack of a narrative had been going on for centuries, and the conflict had also arisen during the 90s with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and various terrorist attacks against American targets, but what September 11th represented was a surgical strike against the heart of American capitalism in a way that could not be ignored. What it did was brought conflict back to the front and centre. However, what it also did was to wake up the post-modern world – we were not going to immediately rally behind George W Bush: we were going to hold him to account. The conflict was not just between secularism and Islamism, it was between Capitalism and Socialism and Totalitarianism against the liberal democracy, however this conflict was actually going to arise within the United States and the Western world, with the people rallying against the decisions of the government while the government and the corporate interests attempting to return the world to the two coloured world of history. This was not going to happen.
Now we have entered into a new phase of history, and another event has arisen to progress us further: the stock market collapse of 2008. What that did was knock the United States off of its economic pinnacle. The United States is no longer the economic super power of the past. A new power, China, has arisen to attempt to take control of that mantle. Once again, even as the phoney war with Islam dies down, the struggle between the liberal democracy and the totalitarian state one again arises. However with the internet the era of Orwell's 1984 has now past. No longer are we bombarded with one thought and one view, but we are bombarded with many different views. There is the external cold war with China, and the internal cold war between the people and the corporations. The world has changed once again, and while many of us flee into our artificial realities that we have created on the internet, others of us are doing the best we can to make ourselves heard, because now we have the power to do so.
January 16, 2020
This book is a post-modern introduction to post-modernism. The least I can say is that the author tries different approaches to tackle the question: etymology, relationship to “modernism”, history of art and aesthetics (from Duchamp to Warhol), political ideologies, linguistics and structuralist semiotics (Saussure to Lévi-Strauss), psychoanalysis (Lacan et al.), philosophy (Lyotard, Foucault, Baudrillard, Derrida), feminism (Irigaray, Kristeva), science (quantum physics), architecture (from Auschwitz to Disneyland), virtual reality and cybersex, Robocop, Madonna, Salman Rushdie, Francis Fukuyama and the “end of History”, 9/11, and so on.
In the end, this little book is a compilation of odds and ends, an eclectic salmagundi bundled into this unattractive format where every page is a chapter, and every quotation is a comic panel. In short, “po mo” about “po mo”. Apart from a vague sense of an ever-present pan-scepticism and pan-nihilism, mostly framed by French intellectuals born before WWII — that is to say people who were old enough to see how the former generation (the “modernist” ideals) had ushered in the Third Reich —, I’m still not sure what po mo refers to. Perhaps it is too early or too late to know.
In the end, this little book is a compilation of odds and ends, an eclectic salmagundi bundled into this unattractive format where every page is a chapter, and every quotation is a comic panel. In short, “po mo” about “po mo”. Apart from a vague sense of an ever-present pan-scepticism and pan-nihilism, mostly framed by French intellectuals born before WWII — that is to say people who were old enough to see how the former generation (the “modernist” ideals) had ushered in the Third Reich —, I’m still not sure what po mo refers to. Perhaps it is too early or too late to know.
July 22, 2016
I recently read and enjoyed Introducing Philosophy but Introducing Postmodernism was awful. Maybe it's postmodernism itself that's awful but I suspect it's this book. To be fair, the first third of the book discusses postmodernism in art; where it came from, how it evolved, how it fit in culturally in the US, Europe and Russia (although it's supposed to be a global movement, apparently nowhere else in the world produces art). That was fine, it was well explained and fairly interesting. Knowing a little about the history was helpful.
The rest of the book was kind of a waste of time. I kept putting it down out of irritation with the nonesense printed within. I kept checking the publication date because so many of the ideas and explanations of them seemed horribly out of date - but it was originally published in 1995 and I had been guessing more like the late 70's. This part of the book covered postmodernism in culture, in politics, in science and so on. It contradicted itself a lot and I came away with the idea that postmodernism isn't actually a thing.
Terms are regularly introduced without definitions too, which given that this is supposed to be an introduction seems a bit daft. It came across as being written for someone who had already studied postmodernism and wanted to congratulate themselves for being so clever that an introductory text contained things they already understood. I couldn't help wondering if the book itself was intended to be a postmodernist work.
Then there's the subtitle, "A graphic guide to cutting edge thinking." Well, ok, it's graphic in that it has lots of illustrations and is kind of laid out like a comic book. It's not a guide because so much of it was impentrable, self contradictory guff. It's not cutting edge because postmodernism has been around since around ~1921. It's not thinking either. I recognise thinking when I see it and this is not it.
The thing that possibly annoyed me the most, though, was that the author could not bring himself to remain impartial. He had an opinion on everything and felt his job was to share it. It isn't. When you're introducing a subject you shouldn't be telling people what to think about it, you should be giving them the information necessary to make up their own minds.
It's the worst book I've read this year.
The rest of the book was kind of a waste of time. I kept putting it down out of irritation with the nonesense printed within. I kept checking the publication date because so many of the ideas and explanations of them seemed horribly out of date - but it was originally published in 1995 and I had been guessing more like the late 70's. This part of the book covered postmodernism in culture, in politics, in science and so on. It contradicted itself a lot and I came away with the idea that postmodernism isn't actually a thing.
Terms are regularly introduced without definitions too, which given that this is supposed to be an introduction seems a bit daft. It came across as being written for someone who had already studied postmodernism and wanted to congratulate themselves for being so clever that an introductory text contained things they already understood. I couldn't help wondering if the book itself was intended to be a postmodernist work.
Then there's the subtitle, "A graphic guide to cutting edge thinking." Well, ok, it's graphic in that it has lots of illustrations and is kind of laid out like a comic book. It's not a guide because so much of it was impentrable, self contradictory guff. It's not cutting edge because postmodernism has been around since around ~1921. It's not thinking either. I recognise thinking when I see it and this is not it.
The thing that possibly annoyed me the most, though, was that the author could not bring himself to remain impartial. He had an opinion on everything and felt his job was to share it. It isn't. When you're introducing a subject you shouldn't be telling people what to think about it, you should be giving them the information necessary to make up their own minds.
It's the worst book I've read this year.
December 22, 2015
I've heard said that styles recycle themselves, and to a degree there's truth in it. In the realm of ideas, art, architecture, fashion, music...I think there's evidence (one example, my young friends are often obsessed with the eighties, which seems strange to me, having lived through them. And there's a whole slew of bands who sound like they're trying to get back there via technologized whining, a substance that can apparently be, recorded, distilled, teased and/or feathered and used for time travel.)
But when "modern" is used to describe both the here and now as well as classic styles that seem perennially modern, what can we use to describe something that rejects modernism, transcends it, or somehow results from it? Postmodern! Though its meanings are many and always a little beyond grasp.
What this book does is introduce some of the key players and events that fall loosely into the form of postmodernism. They offer something of a timeline. In 1939, conceptual artist Daniel Buren created an exhibit with no art. Or, invisible art. Or, whatever you'd like to call it. The walls were bare. That is where the book starts. And then it goes back in time to discuss the idea of modernism and modern-ness. And then returns to Picasso, photography and the crisis of representation.
Once painting was no longer needed to catalog time and place and event, painters ventured into new territory, trying to get past or through or underneath the image, somewhere beyond it. In a way the arrival of photographs challenged artists to find new meaning in representational work and as a result perhaps it shifted, dissolved and re-choreographed the relationship between artist and the art object.
Here we hear briefly from Walter Benjamin (someone I've always been fascinated by) and Lyotard and arrive at the question: not just what can be represented, but what can't be represented through representation (of a thing and of not a thing?) Questions of art and the sublime. Where thingness ends and begins, and experience of art, too. And how much if at all art should have anything to do with life.
Something next about "Machine Aesthetic Optimism" and architecture that we apparently thought we would like but instead we don't like because it's perhaps more about function than form?
Then:
Constructivism
Stalinist Totalitarianism
DADA
Warhol
Duchamp
The artist makes the art or the art makes the artist?
The simulacrum and questions about borders between art and reality.
And apparently that's the end of part 1
Now for part 2! A genealogy of postmodern theory, and linguistic theory, semiology, structuralism, structural anthropology - Claude Levi-Strauss, post-structuralism -- Roland Barthes, the death of the author, deconstruction, and so, we have Derrida and differance
Structures of power and knowledge, Foucault (power as narrative -- not something we have, but something we live).
And finally, a female-bodied person in this book who isn't the subject of a work of art. Luce Irigaray and Julia Kristeva and an address of postmodern feminism.
Lacan - "the fiction of the self."
There's even more. Some mention of WWII, though I would think not quite enough about the effects of the war on theorists and theory (not much mention of folks of the Frankfurt school aside from a brief mention of Benjamin and a quote from Adorno.)
By part 3 we get into cyberspace and the questionable future of physical reality. Some interesting stuff in there. It is a this point it starts to feel a bit dated, and probably more of it is dated, except that I studied all this stuff in the 90s when it was first published, so really it's just a nice though at times overly-quick review of a whole lot of stuff.
Hopefully this rambling review will help me remember a bit of it. I am enjoying reading the "graphic guide" books and look forward to reading more.
But when "modern" is used to describe both the here and now as well as classic styles that seem perennially modern, what can we use to describe something that rejects modernism, transcends it, or somehow results from it? Postmodern! Though its meanings are many and always a little beyond grasp.
What this book does is introduce some of the key players and events that fall loosely into the form of postmodernism. They offer something of a timeline. In 1939, conceptual artist Daniel Buren created an exhibit with no art. Or, invisible art. Or, whatever you'd like to call it. The walls were bare. That is where the book starts. And then it goes back in time to discuss the idea of modernism and modern-ness. And then returns to Picasso, photography and the crisis of representation.
Once painting was no longer needed to catalog time and place and event, painters ventured into new territory, trying to get past or through or underneath the image, somewhere beyond it. In a way the arrival of photographs challenged artists to find new meaning in representational work and as a result perhaps it shifted, dissolved and re-choreographed the relationship between artist and the art object.
Here we hear briefly from Walter Benjamin (someone I've always been fascinated by) and Lyotard and arrive at the question: not just what can be represented, but what can't be represented through representation (of a thing and of not a thing?) Questions of art and the sublime. Where thingness ends and begins, and experience of art, too. And how much if at all art should have anything to do with life.
Something next about "Machine Aesthetic Optimism" and architecture that we apparently thought we would like but instead we don't like because it's perhaps more about function than form?
Then:
Constructivism
Stalinist Totalitarianism
DADA
Warhol
Duchamp
The artist makes the art or the art makes the artist?
The simulacrum and questions about borders between art and reality.
And apparently that's the end of part 1
Now for part 2! A genealogy of postmodern theory, and linguistic theory, semiology, structuralism, structural anthropology - Claude Levi-Strauss, post-structuralism -- Roland Barthes, the death of the author, deconstruction, and so, we have Derrida and differance
Structures of power and knowledge, Foucault (power as narrative -- not something we have, but something we live).
And finally, a female-bodied person in this book who isn't the subject of a work of art. Luce Irigaray and Julia Kristeva and an address of postmodern feminism.
Lacan - "the fiction of the self."
There's even more. Some mention of WWII, though I would think not quite enough about the effects of the war on theorists and theory (not much mention of folks of the Frankfurt school aside from a brief mention of Benjamin and a quote from Adorno.)
By part 3 we get into cyberspace and the questionable future of physical reality. Some interesting stuff in there. It is a this point it starts to feel a bit dated, and probably more of it is dated, except that I studied all this stuff in the 90s when it was first published, so really it's just a nice though at times overly-quick review of a whole lot of stuff.
Hopefully this rambling review will help me remember a bit of it. I am enjoying reading the "graphic guide" books and look forward to reading more.
May 3, 2018
This is a review both of the book, and also of Post-Modernism.
The book is OK.
As for Post-Modernism;
To begin with, Saussure was wrong - language does not permit thinking, merely sharpen or refine it and along only one of its many axis, the image, space, body, movement, music and pure emotion all do the same.
Dual-axis signification is STUPID
The relation between signifier and signified is never arbitrary, but organically ordered rather in in a systematic mechanical. In the same way that the branches and leaves of a tree are never arbitrarily placed or the sandbars of an estuary are predictable as a mass but never as individual elements. Human culture is not a machine and the mind is not a computer
The binary model is dumb. and metaphor works in a much wider, more global way and ins much more deeply intermixed with real-life experience in the actual world.
Semiology should not exist as a subject, it's tea-leaf reading or, more appropriately, self-cold-reading. (Also remind myself to re-read and review that book on cold reading).
Levi-Strauss was obviously and massively wrong THE. MIND. IS. NOT. A. MACHINE. Binarism is FUCKING STUPID
"The human mind functions in model binary sets"
No it fucking doesn't, only in laboratory conditions or a theoretical ideaspsce THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST. The conditions of everyday life are MUCH more complex. The mind is not a machine, measuring it like one is dumb.
Pft, now fucking Derrada has turned up.
"Derrida is outraged by the totalitarian arrogance implicit in the claims of Reason. His anger does not seem so eccentric when we recall the shameful history of atrocities committed by rationalist Western cultures - the systematic "rationality" of mass extermination in the Nazi era, the scientific rationalism of the A-bomb and the Hiroshama holocaust..."
Welcome to postmodernism shitbag tactic B12 - the facile as fuck pseudo-deep political comparison that draws dark water from a well it won't gaze too deeply into it. The Nazis were occultists, the Japanese government that started the Pacific war with the U.S. (thanks btw) was fully fucking mental.
"It was incorrect to assume that anything reasoned is ever universal, timeless and stable."
Great, so put a fucking pin in your eye Derrada.
Even anti-story is a story
Foucalt now, just when you think things can't get any worse. Ok, so bang on and on and on about the power structures in knowledge. But what is it like to be without knowledge, without structure, without self? And who dominates and takes advantage of such people. No victims there. And nothing else either.
"He showed how power and knowledge fundamentally depend on each other, so that the extension of one is simultaneously the extension of the other. In so doing, the mad, criminal and deviant against which to define itself. It is thus sexist, racist and imperialist in practice."
I mean, except when imprisoning rapists, racists and going after war-criminals I guess? Are schizophrenics mad? Are rapists bad? Are people who fuck their pets deviant? Pathetic.
Yes all theory is local and regional, apart apparently from yours.
God this is hard to read. The horror of it is that by hacking away at all the cultural elements that support consensus, solidarity, moral action and any concept of good beyond the immediate they create these terrible neurotic shell-people who are easily knocked-over by the first passionate idea that enters their carved-out-pumpkin heads.
Now Lacan - it actually gets worse - this is some serious Ron Edwards shit. The sense of self doesn't come from fucking _mirrors_. This is so bad, so, so bad.
Ok, on to feminism. Ladies you thought you were safe but it seems there is nothing that post-modernism can't somehow fuck up so here we go;
"Male theories of sexuality - Freuds or Lacan's - literally cannot think of women except as negatively imaginary, incomplete, an empty signifier (the vacant womb)...
That leaves only two possibilities...
EITHER - there is no feminine sexuality except as men imagine it
OR - feminine sexuality is a schizoid duality
(a) subordinate to the needs and desires of men
(b) autonomous and explorable only within a radically *separatist* womens movement"
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRR - POSTMODERNISM IS SHIT AND NONE OF THAT SHIT IS TRUE AT ALL????
If there was any gender less likely to be radical gender separatists, its women. Men will be outta here in large numbers as soon as the sex-bots get good enough.
It's still not over.
Scepticism towards all metanarratives falls back so quickly into brutal glib narcissism. When asked the question of what should be done the only response is a glib and silent smirk. being a puritan about
The sane aspects of postmodernism are just small-c conservatism, which post-modernists would probably be aware of if they ever read anything outside their tiny fucking left-liberal bubble, which I don't think they did
"The scientific method is little short of myth" WHAT THE FUCK
"In place of unilateral 'glass boxes"...
ok, sounds good guys, doing away with the building as a machine for living in, what's your alternative?
"..po-mo architecture offers the *vernacular*, an emphasis on the local and particular as opposed to modernist universalism."
Still not sounding as terrible as your concepts usually are, go on...
"This means a return to ornament, with references to the historic past and its symbolism,"
Don't like the use of the word 'references' in your mouth but ok, I can live with this, what else?
", but in the ironic manner of parody, pastiche and *quotation*."
YOU DID IT. YOU FOUND A WAY TO FUCK IT UP JESUS FUCKING GOD DAMN YOU TO HELL.
-------------------------
Do any of these fucktards grasp for one moment that people, in general, do not want a revolution? Especially one lead by THEM?
Ohh the holoucaust, ohhh >gestures meaningfully<
Shallow, disinterested in the depth of any of their examples. I read this book in the manner that one reads a book about poisonous snakes, but now I fee despair for the snakes. So shallow. So pseudo-deep
Link common commercial image with fake degradation to 'dark' social fact, bingo, depth without thought. Clever, cynical appeals to 'secret knowledge, un-proven and un-provable. Shitty 'crazy like a fox' statements and always ready to benefit from a strong negative moral claim but always non-specific enough that no hard risk is taken by the speaker.
.....................
Serial killer fiction is bad? gansta rp is bad? Online porn is bad? Ok, That’s a conservative point of view - but a conservative would have to state it directly and answer for.
Liberalism went into reversal with Regan and Thatcher - do words just mean what you think you should mean? Do you understand what 'liberal' means and that both Regan and Thatcher saw themselves as liberalisers?
Free markets didn't destroy communism.
There was nothing postmodern about the Rushdie situation.
"Islam and the third world are left out of most accounts of post modernism" SO IS MOST OF REALITY ITS A WESTERN URBAN LEFT-LIBERAL FETISH CULT AND NO ONE ELSE GIVES TWO FUCKS
Shit idea descended from a shit idea
9-11 comparisons are facile as fuck
'Chomsky is a libertarian gadlfy' - is this Bob Chomsky, your local tobacconist? Cause it sure as fuck doesn't describe the other one.
'what do islamists want?' they have made that quite clear by this point.
Shallow French intellectuals fucked off that Marx failed looking at common Americans aware of small parts of everything and understanding nothing.
Post-modernism is simply bad. It's a bad idea with bad beginnings leading nowhere. It is the worst idea ever. It is worse than genuinely evil ideas that have done more verifiable harm because at least those ideas inspire the heroic passion of opposition. You really have to get your shit together to fight Fascism. How do you fight post-modernism? It oozes into the ground, chuckling, it ebbs and frets at the character. It slowly leeches colour life and belief from everything. It takes and takes and takes and never gives.
The book is OK.
As for Post-Modernism;
To begin with, Saussure was wrong - language does not permit thinking, merely sharpen or refine it and along only one of its many axis, the image, space, body, movement, music and pure emotion all do the same.
Dual-axis signification is STUPID
The relation between signifier and signified is never arbitrary, but organically ordered rather in in a systematic mechanical. In the same way that the branches and leaves of a tree are never arbitrarily placed or the sandbars of an estuary are predictable as a mass but never as individual elements. Human culture is not a machine and the mind is not a computer
The binary model is dumb. and metaphor works in a much wider, more global way and ins much more deeply intermixed with real-life experience in the actual world.
Semiology should not exist as a subject, it's tea-leaf reading or, more appropriately, self-cold-reading. (Also remind myself to re-read and review that book on cold reading).
Levi-Strauss was obviously and massively wrong THE. MIND. IS. NOT. A. MACHINE. Binarism is FUCKING STUPID
"The human mind functions in model binary sets"
No it fucking doesn't, only in laboratory conditions or a theoretical ideaspsce THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST. The conditions of everyday life are MUCH more complex. The mind is not a machine, measuring it like one is dumb.
Pft, now fucking Derrada has turned up.
"Derrida is outraged by the totalitarian arrogance implicit in the claims of Reason. His anger does not seem so eccentric when we recall the shameful history of atrocities committed by rationalist Western cultures - the systematic "rationality" of mass extermination in the Nazi era, the scientific rationalism of the A-bomb and the Hiroshama holocaust..."
Welcome to postmodernism shitbag tactic B12 - the facile as fuck pseudo-deep political comparison that draws dark water from a well it won't gaze too deeply into it. The Nazis were occultists, the Japanese government that started the Pacific war with the U.S. (thanks btw) was fully fucking mental.
"It was incorrect to assume that anything reasoned is ever universal, timeless and stable."
Great, so put a fucking pin in your eye Derrada.
Even anti-story is a story
Foucalt now, just when you think things can't get any worse. Ok, so bang on and on and on about the power structures in knowledge. But what is it like to be without knowledge, without structure, without self? And who dominates and takes advantage of such people. No victims there. And nothing else either.
"He showed how power and knowledge fundamentally depend on each other, so that the extension of one is simultaneously the extension of the other. In so doing, the mad, criminal and deviant against which to define itself. It is thus sexist, racist and imperialist in practice."
I mean, except when imprisoning rapists, racists and going after war-criminals I guess? Are schizophrenics mad? Are rapists bad? Are people who fuck their pets deviant? Pathetic.
Yes all theory is local and regional, apart apparently from yours.
God this is hard to read. The horror of it is that by hacking away at all the cultural elements that support consensus, solidarity, moral action and any concept of good beyond the immediate they create these terrible neurotic shell-people who are easily knocked-over by the first passionate idea that enters their carved-out-pumpkin heads.
Now Lacan - it actually gets worse - this is some serious Ron Edwards shit. The sense of self doesn't come from fucking _mirrors_. This is so bad, so, so bad.
Ok, on to feminism. Ladies you thought you were safe but it seems there is nothing that post-modernism can't somehow fuck up so here we go;
"Male theories of sexuality - Freuds or Lacan's - literally cannot think of women except as negatively imaginary, incomplete, an empty signifier (the vacant womb)...
That leaves only two possibilities...
EITHER - there is no feminine sexuality except as men imagine it
OR - feminine sexuality is a schizoid duality
(a) subordinate to the needs and desires of men
(b) autonomous and explorable only within a radically *separatist* womens movement"
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRR - POSTMODERNISM IS SHIT AND NONE OF THAT SHIT IS TRUE AT ALL????
If there was any gender less likely to be radical gender separatists, its women. Men will be outta here in large numbers as soon as the sex-bots get good enough.
It's still not over.
Scepticism towards all metanarratives falls back so quickly into brutal glib narcissism. When asked the question of what should be done the only response is a glib and silent smirk. being a puritan about
The sane aspects of postmodernism are just small-c conservatism, which post-modernists would probably be aware of if they ever read anything outside their tiny fucking left-liberal bubble, which I don't think they did
"The scientific method is little short of myth" WHAT THE FUCK
"In place of unilateral 'glass boxes"...
ok, sounds good guys, doing away with the building as a machine for living in, what's your alternative?
"..po-mo architecture offers the *vernacular*, an emphasis on the local and particular as opposed to modernist universalism."
Still not sounding as terrible as your concepts usually are, go on...
"This means a return to ornament, with references to the historic past and its symbolism,"
Don't like the use of the word 'references' in your mouth but ok, I can live with this, what else?
", but in the ironic manner of parody, pastiche and *quotation*."
YOU DID IT. YOU FOUND A WAY TO FUCK IT UP JESUS FUCKING GOD DAMN YOU TO HELL.
-------------------------
Do any of these fucktards grasp for one moment that people, in general, do not want a revolution? Especially one lead by THEM?
Ohh the holoucaust, ohhh >gestures meaningfully<
Shallow, disinterested in the depth of any of their examples. I read this book in the manner that one reads a book about poisonous snakes, but now I fee despair for the snakes. So shallow. So pseudo-deep
Link common commercial image with fake degradation to 'dark' social fact, bingo, depth without thought. Clever, cynical appeals to 'secret knowledge, un-proven and un-provable. Shitty 'crazy like a fox' statements and always ready to benefit from a strong negative moral claim but always non-specific enough that no hard risk is taken by the speaker.
.....................
Serial killer fiction is bad? gansta rp is bad? Online porn is bad? Ok, That’s a conservative point of view - but a conservative would have to state it directly and answer for.
Liberalism went into reversal with Regan and Thatcher - do words just mean what you think you should mean? Do you understand what 'liberal' means and that both Regan and Thatcher saw themselves as liberalisers?
Free markets didn't destroy communism.
There was nothing postmodern about the Rushdie situation.
"Islam and the third world are left out of most accounts of post modernism" SO IS MOST OF REALITY ITS A WESTERN URBAN LEFT-LIBERAL FETISH CULT AND NO ONE ELSE GIVES TWO FUCKS
Shit idea descended from a shit idea
9-11 comparisons are facile as fuck
'Chomsky is a libertarian gadlfy' - is this Bob Chomsky, your local tobacconist? Cause it sure as fuck doesn't describe the other one.
'what do islamists want?' they have made that quite clear by this point.
Shallow French intellectuals fucked off that Marx failed looking at common Americans aware of small parts of everything and understanding nothing.
Post-modernism is simply bad. It's a bad idea with bad beginnings leading nowhere. It is the worst idea ever. It is worse than genuinely evil ideas that have done more verifiable harm because at least those ideas inspire the heroic passion of opposition. You really have to get your shit together to fight Fascism. How do you fight post-modernism? It oozes into the ground, chuckling, it ebbs and frets at the character. It slowly leeches colour life and belief from everything. It takes and takes and takes and never gives.
February 25, 2016
I don't get the purpose of this book. For a "complete novice," it definitely is NOT a useful introduction or a guide, as it's hard to follow (the authors often jump from one concept/theory/buzzword to the next with little relation between the two), it rarely explains complex and vague terms and notions in a manner anywhere near sufficient, and many of the examples offered are so scantily presented that they serve to confuse more rather than elucidate. Indeed, for an "introduction" this book is almost qrotesquely bad at explaining and clarifying. To a reader with some knowledge of postmodern theory and/or associated fields, the book offers 200 pages of sort-of-but-not-really amusing pictures, but it fails to provide a coherent, engaging and intellectually enriching account of postmodernism and its manifestations. In other words, the book is simultaneously too complex/vague and too shallow: it could have gone further in one of these directions to cater to one type of readership, yet instead it only skims the surface of its subject matter (problematic for a more experienced reader), but it does so without translating this very subject into more digestible terms (problematic for the complete layman).
Mostly, it just reminded me how much I detest Baudrillard.
Mostly, it just reminded me how much I detest Baudrillard.
July 12, 2010
I don't think anyone would expect a small book full of cartoons and the world "Introducing" on the cover to be scholarly. This book succeeds in giving someone who is new to the subject a toe-hold, just enough for further learning to build on. As a person advances in the topic they can develop their own opinions on the areas of the book that were written in a biased fashion.
The world makes a little more sense after reading this book.
The world makes a little more sense after reading this book.
March 27, 2010
It's somewhat embarrassing, but it seems that I've gone and got hooked on this series. It's great for people like me who combine a thirst for knowledge with a attention span of a mosquito.
Read
December 23, 2019Postmodernism - quite like times we live in - pretty much calls to mind the old idiom “it was like a train wreck: you didn’t want to stare, but you couldn’t bare to look away”.
This nifty intro isn’t a slog by any means, in fact it’s incredibly illuminating. I’d even go as far as saying that every thinking person (specifically those embarking on any length of study in the arts) should read this book. It might just save you endless hours of confusion.
P.s. Derrida was nowhere near as wanky as he was made out to be during my undergrad
This nifty intro isn’t a slog by any means, in fact it’s incredibly illuminating. I’d even go as far as saying that every thinking person (specifically those embarking on any length of study in the arts) should read this book. It might just save you endless hours of confusion.
P.s. Derrida was nowhere near as wanky as he was made out to be during my undergrad
April 20, 2023
4.5 Stars!
“Communists have totally misunderstood modern technology. It’s run for party bosses and not designed to deliver to the consumer. Sooner or later, the hunger for commodities will drive the masses to demand their franchise in technology-their right to a prosperity that doesn’t really exist!”
I hate it when they don't have the edition of a book you've read on here, Uch I suppose this is close enough. I’ve been reading and enjoying these “Introducing” books for years, but what I loved about this particular edition, was that it was one of the really old school versions from the 90s, and so the art work had a very distinctive feel to it which really appealed to me.
This is really good value and I learned a lot, for instance did you know that the word “modern” comes from the Latin “modo” meaning “just now”. Also I thought the humour came through really well too without overwhelming the knowledge it was trying to share. This is absolutely heaving with literary, political and philosophical figures, concepts and buzz words and is outstanding in many places and is easily one of the best in the series.
“Communists have totally misunderstood modern technology. It’s run for party bosses and not designed to deliver to the consumer. Sooner or later, the hunger for commodities will drive the masses to demand their franchise in technology-their right to a prosperity that doesn’t really exist!”
I hate it when they don't have the edition of a book you've read on here, Uch I suppose this is close enough. I’ve been reading and enjoying these “Introducing” books for years, but what I loved about this particular edition, was that it was one of the really old school versions from the 90s, and so the art work had a very distinctive feel to it which really appealed to me.
This is really good value and I learned a lot, for instance did you know that the word “modern” comes from the Latin “modo” meaning “just now”. Also I thought the humour came through really well too without overwhelming the knowledge it was trying to share. This is absolutely heaving with literary, political and philosophical figures, concepts and buzz words and is outstanding in many places and is easily one of the best in the series.
January 15, 2021
"Simplifying to the extreme, I define
postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives. "
- Jean Francois Lyotard
postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives. "
- Jean Francois Lyotard
April 24, 2017
This subject does my head in. All that meta-neo-epistemic-cyber-hyper-reality and everything that goes along with it. It's too much, really. If it's true, like they say at the end of the book, that "The only cure for postmodernism is the incurable illness of romanticism", then give me Goethe or give me death. "Ach, wie herrlich leuchtet Mir die Natur!"
March 19, 2018
An easy book to get through but the humour did not work for me. I also still don't know exactly what postmodernism is.
November 18, 2019
„Susirūpinimas, kad mes tapome „makdonaldizuoti“, nuo kokakolos pamišę „Starbucks“ narkomanai, yra perdėtas, paviršutiniškas.“
November 5, 2021
well they really bungled that one. orientalism galore in the last quarter. but i quite liked the ending sentence ‘the only cure for postmodernism is the incurable illness of romanticism’ whether i agree with that or not tho 🤦🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️ they should really start getting people who LIKE postmodernism to write all these introductions to it, then hopefully they will at least get their facts straight.
December 11, 2020
Well written introduction with many interesting ideas, even though it doesn’t cover everything, it’s still a good place to start.
March 19, 2016
This book is pretty interesting. I thought I knew what postmodernism was but this book made me realize I actually have no idea.
As an introduction, I'm not sure how good it is. It's not easy to read. I had to google some stuff because his explanations weren't clear or extensive enough. I disliked how he introduces a phrase once and then immediately begins using it. It's pretty confusing.
Nonetheless, I learned loads. It's a good introduction in the sense that it shows a lot of sides of postmodernism. Definitely going to reread it someday.
Conclusion: post modernism is depressing and the future is going downhill (like anyone wants an enlightenment comeback, Kant was unrealistic as hell).
As an introduction, I'm not sure how good it is. It's not easy to read. I had to google some stuff because his explanations weren't clear or extensive enough. I disliked how he introduces a phrase once and then immediately begins using it. It's pretty confusing.
Nonetheless, I learned loads. It's a good introduction in the sense that it shows a lot of sides of postmodernism. Definitely going to reread it someday.
Conclusion: post modernism is depressing and the future is going downhill (like anyone wants an enlightenment comeback, Kant was unrealistic as hell).
June 8, 2019
Really liked this graphic introduction to Po Mo ( PostModernism). After being introduced to reviews of books by authors like Joseph McElroy I wanted to understand the genre. This turned out to be very easy route. It’s a beginners guide to the thought evolution of all things “Post” in philosophy. In the process I happened on Jacques Derrida, Lacan and Foucault and others.
Hope this journey of discovery leads somewhere. Recommended.
Hope this journey of discovery leads somewhere. Recommended.
November 18, 2016
I find postmodernism an extremely convoluted and pretentious word to describe stuff that's out of the norm. I thought this book would help me understand the movement. It did nothing but confuse me further into a world of confusion. I might just leave postmodernism for the intellectuals who understand it. It's not overly interesting or thought provoking - it's more like a crazy acid trip.
February 16, 2018
I am biased, because I am not a fan of post-modernism, but some aspects of it were quite intriguing.
March 12, 2018
I enjoyed this book. I especially liked the explanation of how postmodernism overlaps with semiotics. However, having read it, I still don't feel I understand exactly what postmodernism is.
April 15, 2020
Pembacaan Kedua
Tiba-tiba di tengah pandemi, kepalaku berjibaku dengan dua teori: The Death of Author milik Roland Barthes dengan The Death of Expertise-nya Tom Nichols. Aku ingat betul, ketika aku kuliah, aku sempat bertemu dengan teori The Death of Author di salah satu buku milik ayah. Benar saja, buku ini masih tersimpan rapi di rak buku ayah.
Membaca untuk kedua kalinya tentu saja memiliki pemahaman yang berbeda. Hitungannya, 5 tahun setelah aku lulus, aku kembali membaca buku ini dengan pengalaman dan pengetahuan yang lebih banyak. Tidak heran jika aku bisa menghabiskan dalam waktu semalam saja. Istilah-istilah asing yang dulu sempat membuat bingung kini sudah bisa aku cerna dengan sekali baca saja.
Terjemahan tahun 1997 ini akan terasa lucu untuk kita yang terbiasa dengan narasi tahun 2020. Tapi tenang saja, masih bisa dipahami kok, meskipun bagiku pribadi, ada beberapa istilah yang rasanya lebih enak kalau dibiarkan dalam bahasa Inggris.
Buku ini memberikan pengantar secara kronologis, membuat pembaca mengerti bagaimana sebuah Posmodernisme bisa terbentuk. Dilengkapi dengan ilustrasi yang kadang terkesan menyindir suatu isu, buku ini memang betul bisa menjadi sebuah pengantar sebelum nantinya menyelami setiap sub dalam Posmodernisme.
Sesaat setelah menyelesaikan buku ini aku pun bergumam, "Perlukah aku melanjutkan studi?"
Tiba-tiba di tengah pandemi, kepalaku berjibaku dengan dua teori: The Death of Author milik Roland Barthes dengan The Death of Expertise-nya Tom Nichols. Aku ingat betul, ketika aku kuliah, aku sempat bertemu dengan teori The Death of Author di salah satu buku milik ayah. Benar saja, buku ini masih tersimpan rapi di rak buku ayah.
Membaca untuk kedua kalinya tentu saja memiliki pemahaman yang berbeda. Hitungannya, 5 tahun setelah aku lulus, aku kembali membaca buku ini dengan pengalaman dan pengetahuan yang lebih banyak. Tidak heran jika aku bisa menghabiskan dalam waktu semalam saja. Istilah-istilah asing yang dulu sempat membuat bingung kini sudah bisa aku cerna dengan sekali baca saja.
Terjemahan tahun 1997 ini akan terasa lucu untuk kita yang terbiasa dengan narasi tahun 2020. Tapi tenang saja, masih bisa dipahami kok, meskipun bagiku pribadi, ada beberapa istilah yang rasanya lebih enak kalau dibiarkan dalam bahasa Inggris.
Buku ini memberikan pengantar secara kronologis, membuat pembaca mengerti bagaimana sebuah Posmodernisme bisa terbentuk. Dilengkapi dengan ilustrasi yang kadang terkesan menyindir suatu isu, buku ini memang betul bisa menjadi sebuah pengantar sebelum nantinya menyelami setiap sub dalam Posmodernisme.
Sesaat setelah menyelesaikan buku ini aku pun bergumam, "Perlukah aku melanjutkan studi?"
November 29, 2021
The crux of postmodernity is that there are two “presents”. One is a “spectre” present, a Virtual Reality techno-media simulacrum that makes the other “real” present appear borderline, fugitive, elusive.
This overview manages to cover an immense amount of ground from structuralism to architecture to the commodification of knowledge itself (where knower becomes consumer). The virtual and the idealized present a kind of hyper-reality towards which "real life" tries to either catch up or emulate. Consumer objects like athletic shoes take on a life of their own as status symbols now almost entirely divorced from any concept of "sports." The market appropriates and commodifies everything from data to experience funded by constant financial flows invisibly crossing borders and timezones almost instantaneously.
Postmodernism as both concept and term seems inherently contradictory, amorphous, and slippery. And yet it does seem to capture some changes to culture/art/life not readily captured by other terms/theories. An irony and relativity unraveling grand narratives and dominated by image/video.
February 15, 2022
Estoy muy ilusionada con esta lectura. Es el primer libro que compro de la serie Introducing y aunque he ido a escoger un tema denso de narices, el formato y el humor del texto, aligeran bastante la lectura. Minipunto a celebrar: esa sección de bibliografía recomendada al final.
Me quedo con muchísimas ganas de seguir explorando más títulos de la colección.
Me quedo con muchísimas ganas de seguir explorando más títulos de la colección.
December 1, 2019
A quick intro on the vast confusing and misunderstood topic called Postmodernism.
February 29, 2024
kas ten vyksta
July 7, 2019
I understand that, because there is a lot within postmodernism I dislike, I will naturally review anything about postmoderism lower than other books on different subjects.
Here the distinctive style of this series is detrimental. Postmodernism is the most confusing field I have ever read about, even when it is presented clearly. I am sure I read the VSI on it and thought I had a hold on it, but after reading this I feel lost in a deeply irritating minefield of bullshit.
When previously reading in this series about semiotics I sometimes struggled to understand but for the most part it was clear. There seemed a progression and structure to the teaching arguments made and I felt I arrived at some interesting insight into semiotics and linguistics. This time around the same fast paced style, dense with cartoons and references and quick changes of tack left me feeling adrift at sea with no markers in sight. Postmodern language is already stupidly inaccessible and I really struggle with the writing style employed by the biggest postmodern names. To then blast through name after name - to hop back and forward in theme, topic and delivery - was too much too soon.
In their attempt to introduce all of postmodernism they drown the reader. Despite covering everything quickly, this is not for beginners. If this was actually for beginners it would be more gentle.
There are some interesting points made but the parts I understood were few and far between. A field as inaccessible and difficult - elusive, even - as postmodernism should not have been covered in this way. And despite acknowledging some of the central elements of postmodernism - exercising doubt about what we thought we knew about the past, for instance - it does not hold true to them, despite very obviously being a postmodern bit of writing.
Would not recommend to anyone. Wrong delivery for the subject and incorrect approach.
Here the distinctive style of this series is detrimental. Postmodernism is the most confusing field I have ever read about, even when it is presented clearly. I am sure I read the VSI on it and thought I had a hold on it, but after reading this I feel lost in a deeply irritating minefield of bullshit.
When previously reading in this series about semiotics I sometimes struggled to understand but for the most part it was clear. There seemed a progression and structure to the teaching arguments made and I felt I arrived at some interesting insight into semiotics and linguistics. This time around the same fast paced style, dense with cartoons and references and quick changes of tack left me feeling adrift at sea with no markers in sight. Postmodern language is already stupidly inaccessible and I really struggle with the writing style employed by the biggest postmodern names. To then blast through name after name - to hop back and forward in theme, topic and delivery - was too much too soon.
In their attempt to introduce all of postmodernism they drown the reader. Despite covering everything quickly, this is not for beginners. If this was actually for beginners it would be more gentle.
There are some interesting points made but the parts I understood were few and far between. A field as inaccessible and difficult - elusive, even - as postmodernism should not have been covered in this way. And despite acknowledging some of the central elements of postmodernism - exercising doubt about what we thought we knew about the past, for instance - it does not hold true to them, despite very obviously being a postmodern bit of writing.
Would not recommend to anyone. Wrong delivery for the subject and incorrect approach.
Read
December 8, 2023This is a graphic novel that purports to introduce the reader to the concept and world of postmodernism, a fraught and not static idea that may or may not be dead, may or may not have ever existed, and may or may not be the driving force of every language, art, and design element of our lives.
And to add to the fluidity of all this, this is the audiobook version of the graphic novel, so there’s a lot of weird little voice acting moments throughout. I think I have read the graphic novel version at some point.
Postmodernism for a lot of people is contained within the Simpsons in a meaningfully simplistic moment, when Moe changes up his bar, calls it po-mo, and tells everyone “Weird for the sake of weird”.
Obviously this is not the most useful understanding of it. I think of it more in terms with art and design attempting to come to terms with the limits and failures of language to represent the world. If realism, and a much lesser extent modernism, are grappling with the ways in which one can narrate reality, I think postmodernism more or less has decided it can’t, so instead of trying to do that, it tries to capture the fractured nature of that reality, and extends that project beyond the human mind’s perception of reality (or more so, brings in the different signals and images of the world into the process of trying to represent the world). I also think postmodernism has a better sense that all art and design is a forever addition palimpsest as well.
So! How does that translate to this book? I think it’s a tool, not an end. I don’t think you can get a whole lot from this book unless you’ve read or tried to read a lot of the reference points (Foucault, Lacan, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Heidegger, etc) and in a lot of ways, you’re better off reading the wikipedia pages.
And to add to the fluidity of all this, this is the audiobook version of the graphic novel, so there’s a lot of weird little voice acting moments throughout. I think I have read the graphic novel version at some point.
Postmodernism for a lot of people is contained within the Simpsons in a meaningfully simplistic moment, when Moe changes up his bar, calls it po-mo, and tells everyone “Weird for the sake of weird”.
Obviously this is not the most useful understanding of it. I think of it more in terms with art and design attempting to come to terms with the limits and failures of language to represent the world. If realism, and a much lesser extent modernism, are grappling with the ways in which one can narrate reality, I think postmodernism more or less has decided it can’t, so instead of trying to do that, it tries to capture the fractured nature of that reality, and extends that project beyond the human mind’s perception of reality (or more so, brings in the different signals and images of the world into the process of trying to represent the world). I also think postmodernism has a better sense that all art and design is a forever addition palimpsest as well.
So! How does that translate to this book? I think it’s a tool, not an end. I don’t think you can get a whole lot from this book unless you’ve read or tried to read a lot of the reference points (Foucault, Lacan, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Heidegger, etc) and in a lot of ways, you’re better off reading the wikipedia pages.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 138 reviews