From: IN%"[email protected]" "Art Criticism Discussion Forum" 2-JUN-1994
16:44:08.13
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: modernism
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: [email protected]
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01HD2NQOGV1C8ZDUX7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 2 Jun 1994 16:44 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 3553 for HRL@PSUARCH; Thu,
2 Jun 1994 16:44 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0763; Thu, 2 Jun 1994 16:48:50 -0400
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 13:25:00 CST
From: drn2431.bhc1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: modernism
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01HD2NQOGV1C8ZDUX7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: artcrit%yorkvm1.bitnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
If it is the case, as Lyotard urges in _The Postmodern
Condition_, that "A work can become modern only if it is first
postmodern. Postmodernism thus understood is not modernism at its
end but in its nascent state, and this state is constant." [p.
79], it would seem that postmodernism is modernism continued by
other means. What is different, perhaps, is the sense of the
possibility of closure, of the realization - even if only the
incremental realization - of a utopia; the possibility of
progress. Perhaps this century has had too much evidence of the
quickness of turning from utopian ambition to dystopian
realization. Yet one of the things artworks do is to provide a
sense of what an ideal order would be like, were it to be. Does
this not have a different valence if the possibility of
realization in the social domain is regarded as obviated?
-David Newman drn2431.bhc1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
16:44:08.13
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: modernism
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: [email protected]
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01HD2NQOGV1C8ZDUX7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 2 Jun 1994 16:44 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 3553 for HRL@PSUARCH; Thu,
2 Jun 1994 16:44 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0763; Thu, 2 Jun 1994 16:48:50 -0400
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 13:25:00 CST
From: drn2431.bhc1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: modernism
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01HD2NQOGV1C8ZDUX7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: artcrit%yorkvm1.bitnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
If it is the case, as Lyotard urges in _The Postmodern
Condition_, that "A work can become modern only if it is first
postmodern. Postmodernism thus understood is not modernism at its
end but in its nascent state, and this state is constant." [p.
79], it would seem that postmodernism is modernism continued by
other means. What is different, perhaps, is the sense of the
possibility of closure, of the realization - even if only the
incremental realization - of a utopia; the possibility of
progress. Perhaps this century has had too much evidence of the
quickness of turning from utopian ambition to dystopian
realization. Yet one of the things artworks do is to provide a
sense of what an ideal order would be like, were it to be. Does
this not have a different valence if the possibility of
realization in the social domain is regarded as obviated?
-David Newman drn2431.bhc1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx