for very good reasons he is my lover
From: michael@entropy8zuper.org Subject: Re: Postmodernism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Date: 2006年2月28日 22:21:22 GMT+01:00 To: auriea@tale-of-tales.com
Il n’y a pas de solution parce qu’il n’y a pas de problème.
There is no solution because there is no problem.
A Sade-an perversion of this phrase could be to turn a problem into a non-problem and as a result freeing yourself of the desire/obligation to find a solution.
In this particular case, ‘Pataphysics comes to the rescue, as the science where everything is true, simultaneously. The symbol of regular science is the circle: an absolute shape with a single mid-point. The symbol of ‘pataphysics is the ellipse with its two mid-points. When something is black, it is also white. When something is big, it is also small. Etcetera.
Postmodernism only accepted this ambiguity to some extent when they made everything relative to place and time and culture. The next step is to accept ambiguity always. Don’t choose between the divine and the vulgar. Both are equally real. Don’t choose between truth and paradise. You can have both if you don’t choose. Not by rejecting both but, on the contrary, by embracing both. The idea that the supernatural and science would exclude each other is so 17th century! ;)
(z)
At 20:41 28/02/2006, you wrote:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism#Criticism>
right so this is what i think is the cause of my confusion about art.
postmodernism was just very very confusing. i don’t think i ever
understood it, but since it was an all pervasive “philosophy” in the
art schools of the late 80s early 90s i learned it all anyway. just
part of life at the time.
i think it extremely unfortunate that i was at such an impressionable
age when all this stuff was in vogue. now, i am always uncertain HOW
i should appreciate an old master work. the only thing i know how to
do is to say “i like it” or “i don’t like it” if i start thinking of
a painting in terms of absolutes, (beauty, truth etc) all kinds of
alarms go off in my head. i mean, shouldn’t i be DECONSTRUCTING this
painting!?!
it sounds so much like preaching. talking about big narratives and
ideals and myths. it sounds,... false. the question then becomes what
saves humanity (or myself) more. truth or paradise? breaking things
down and making sense of them (by making nonsense out of them) or
clinging to absolutes (saying and believing “this thing is
important!” eschewing irony.) i think the child in me is far more
comfortable with the latter view but is being undermined at every
turn by the young adult in me that has learned to not believe in
“experts” or to view beauty with suspicion etc.
haha,
Auriea.