Postmodernism, romanticism, modernism, hippie. . .

What is postmodernism?

Let us rule out a few impossible definitions of postmodernism from the outset. First, postmodernism is not a stylistic concept. The idea that postmodernism is a style cannot be established because no matter what stylistic terms are used to define modernism and postmodernism, people find it difficult to distinguish between the two, or the latter It's just an intensification or change of certain styles that the former already had. People have long pointed out that Hassan's distinguishing characteristics of postmodernism (such as "uncertainty", "immanence", etc.) simply cannot be established. Defining postmodernism in terms of style or language can also lead to the absurd conclusion that some parts of a work are modernist and other parts are postmodernist (for example, thinking that the stream of consciousness part of "Ulysses" is modern) ism, and its parody or parody part is postmodernism, another example is that Eisenman’s architectural language is modernist, but his space is postmodern, etc.). As C. B. Chabot said: "Our lack of an adequate and generally accepted understanding of modernism makes many of the arguments for postmodernism specious, and many of the things that are labeled postmodern are , all come directly from earlier [modernist] writers. ”1)

Second, postmodernism is not a concept of a period or an artistic movement. Because, firstly, it mistakenly regards modernism as a temporal art movement (such as from 1860 to 1960). This mistake will lead to treating "all" art after 1960 as postmodern. The absurd conclusion of doctrine; secondly, it is either based on a vulgar social determinism (such as in James Letter), or on some apocalyptic dogmatism that asserts that "we have entered postmodernity" (like Baudrillard, and most low-grade postmodernist theorists). As Chabot said, "People even think that we live in a postmodern society. A certain number of people obviously believe that a cultural break has occurred at a certain moment, and its signs can be seen from the entire range of our cultural activities. perceived. Yet few seem to agree on the fundamental nature of the rupture in time, and even fewer agree on how best to characterize its impact on our cultural production. "2) This kind of dogmatism is not only untenable, but also disgusting with its prophetic tone. F. F. Centore pointed out: "Postmodernism has actually become an unofficial state religion, a new salvation myth with universal validity that every good citizen must abide by. In fact, Those who do not follow this liberal consciousness are guilty of treason. In the name of radical hermeneutics, deconstruction, neo-pragmatism or postmodernism, the current orthodoxy teaches people about the modern world (1600-1945). The world that has fallen apart with God and objective science should be replaced by a more fluid amorphous process, thus calling for a more radical mode of interpretation that it insists on. Things are only a metaphor or symbol of reality, and reality does not exist. Everything is a function of history; all culture and religion are only temporal, temporary and mythical. It is not the word of God that created the world. It’s about hermeneutics—the middle and the end are certainly no exception.” 3)

Thirdly, postmodernism is not the reality of Western contemporary art, it is and always is only a conceptual form and a criticism. Concept or aesthetic concept. This point is particularly worth mentioning. Some naive postmodernists believe that we have "entered" some epochal period where everything is "postmodern." In China, due to the specious and vague introductions of some more naive postmodern scholars, as well as the "postmodern theoretical research" that has been buzzing from the beginning, people have a "Western" concept in their daily consciousness. We have entered postmodernity, what should we do?”-style unfounded anxiety, or “we should bypass modernity and directly enter postmodernity”-style utopian fantasies. In fact, postmodernism is by no means a social reality in the West, or even an ideological reality.

It is said that it is not a social reality because, as Berger pointedly pointed out: "Although the economy, technology and society have undergone profound changes compared with the second half of the 19th century, the dominant mode of production still remains Same: the exploitation of collectively produced surplus value by private capital. Western European social democracies have fully recognized that, despite the growing significance of government intervention in economic affairs, the pursuit of maximum profit remains the driving force of social production. We must be cautious about the current changes and not naively evaluate them as signs of epochal changes.” 4) Postmodernism is not even an ideological fact because: from the first day of its birth, postmodernism has been. It has always been criticized and refuted by Western knowledgeable people. In other words, postmodernism has never existed as an "ideological reality" for a day, but has always existed as a "problem." As Chabot puts it: "They [postmodernists] assume that we are in fact witnessing the emergence of some truly postmodern culture, and I want to question that assumption. It seems to me that some of the It is at least equally plausible that what is in modernism is in fact a recent development or evolution within modernism itself. I have put forward some arguments in support of my thesis: (1) It is not yet satisfactory. and the existence of a commonly accepted interpretation of postmodernism; (2) much of what is called postmodern actually comes directly from modernism; (3) most arguments for its existence are largely through exhausted generalizations about modernism , especially through a generalization that ignores its nature as a second-level concept, to achieve its initial plausibility." 5)

Finally, postmodernism is not a media concept or concept. Art style concept. Therefore, for example, we cannot say that easel painting is modernist, while installation art, video art, etc. are postmodernist. Because, fundamentally speaking, the difference between modernism and postmodernism is not a difference in media or materials, or specific styles, but a difference in concepts. This issue is somewhat complex. We have to take a slight detour.

We have said that assertions that "we have entered postmodernity" and that "we are witnessing the emergence of a new culture" are often accompanied by declarations of the death of modernism. Some more neutral authors seem more willing to ask the question "Has modernism failed?" For example, Gablik. He asks at the beginning of his book of the same name: "Modernism - the term that has been used to describe art and culture of the past few hundred years - seems to be coming to an end. As long as we are willing to think that everything must be art, innovation seems to have Impossible, or even undesirable. Do we leave behind us a period of success and provocative creativity, or an era of poverty and decline? Has modernism succeeded, or has it failed? Pluralism is already in a state of rage, so does postmodernism offer a wider space for freedom, or is it just what Hegel calls a bad infinity - one that claims to understand everything but is in fact just one? Is it just a false complexity that masks its lack of meaning?" 6)

Gabrick summarizes the debate between modernism and postmodernism as the following question: "Art for art's sake, or art for society's sake? ?" He said: "Anyone who tries to face the full reality of modernism, even now, remains trapped between its admirers (those who defend abstraction and art for art's sake) and its detractors (those who believe "7)

Gabrick explains that in the early 20th century to the high modernism of the 1930s. stage, art very consciously severed ties with its social moorings and retreated to its own ground in order to save its essence. The “dehumanization” of art that occurred in the first decades of this century was more a response to the mental suffering of artists in capitalist and totalitarian societies. As Kandinsky said, "The phrase 'art for art's sake' is in fact the best ideal that an age of materialism can sustain, for it is a reference to materialism and to everything that should be useful and practical. An unconscious protest against the demands of value.

” In opposition to materialist values, but also because of the spiritual breakdown that followed the collapse of religion in modern society, the early modernists turned inward and turned away from the world, thus focusing on the self and its inner life. Since there The meaning of value could no longer be found in the social world, and they turned to themselves to find this meaning. In the minds of artists of the early 20th century, a work of art was an independent, purely created world with its own identity. Spiritual essence.

In the 1960s and 1970s, however, late modernism began to abandon growing examples of self-referential formalism that denied abstract art its place in a social framework. had any dissident function or meaning. After a period in which most avant-garde artists radically dissociated themselves from social themes or effects, many artists began to feel disgusted with the star system and the narrow formal "movement" they had. Start asking yourself some big questions. When they looked up from their canvases and steel, they saw politics, nature, history and myth. ” (Lucy Lippard, American Marxist and Feminist Critic) Many artists began to look for alternatives to painting and sculpture, because both might provide an exercise in the opportunism and ruthlessness of the market system. They developed new models. , such as conceptual art, anti-formal art, land art, process art, body art and performance art, etc. Immateriality and non-permanence are the main strategies used to dissolve the materialization of art so that they are no longer " "precious things" and no longer what attracts the market. 8)

Obviously, we have come to a key question in contemporary art theory: these on the one hand aim to destroy modernism (such as Green Berg), while on the other hand trying to maintain the critical nature of modernism (i.e. conceptual art, anti-formal art, land art, process art, body art and performance art, etc.), does it belong to modernism or does it belong to modernism? Postmodernism? The answer to this question depends on our definition of modernism/postmodernism. We have already defined modernism in the "Introduction" of this book, where we answered that modernism is not a modernism. Therefore, it can be said with certainty that these critical artistic styles in contemporary art still belong to the category of modernism, only when these arts meet the following conditions: When they insist on the autonomy of art as a differentiated cultural field, they insist on the concept of formal definition (or visual quality) and partisanship, and when they abandon these concepts, they are no longer modernism. , the question of whether these new styles in contemporary art (including installation art and visual art) belong to modernism or postmodernism cannot be generalized.

When people abandon the premises of modernism, People will inevitably ask the following question: So, are they postmodernism? Martin Jay once pointed out when summarizing the thoughts of Adorno, Berger and Habermas on contemporary art, If we look more closely at the aesthetic dimension of the contemporary art situation, we will see the same antidifferentiating impulse at work that makes us anxious about the large amounts of conceptual, anti-formal, and performance art in contemporary art. , because "it deviates from our sense of boundaries; there is no longer a distinction between public events and private events, between realistic emotions and aesthetic emotions, between art and self." In this sense, postmodernism can be seen in part as a non-utopian descent into what Peter Berger calls the historical avant-garde. This is the culmination of postmodernism's strong tendency to depart from the boundaries. Typical examples are the collapse of distinctions between high and low art, between culture and trash, and between the sacred space of the museum and the profane world, especially in architecture (which has been widely considered postmodern). areas of sharpest attack), what Charles Jencks called "radical eclecticism" meant the interruption of long-established differences between different styles, and also that "serious" architecture had always been superior to a more The breakdown of hierarchies for popular and vulgar local architecture (such as those celebrated by Robert Venturi in his defense of Las Vegas).

9)

So far, we have clearly seen where the difference between modernism and postmodernism lies. But this is still not the right time to define postmodernism. Only when we listen to those who call themselves "postmodern" can we find out what they mean by postmodernism. Only then can we hope to give a more appropriate definition of postmodernism.

Although avowed postmodernists disdain or simply disdain theory, the ideas of some, such as Robert Venturi's ideas on architecture, are directly directed at modernist and avant-garde art theory and are therefore important to unravel A basic trace of this new change is helpful. In a similar way and more broadly, Jenks ventured into theoretical territory. Another leading figure is Oliwa, an advocate of the “trans-avant-garde” theory that was very popular in Europe in the early 1980s and in China in the early 1990s. There are also many artists who have self-commented and been interviewed, such as Sherman, Koons, Steinbach, etc., who all publicly claim a postmodernist stance. If one pays attention to what they say, if one examines the diversity of artistic activity in all these fields, one should be able to explain what they mean by postmodernism. Stefan Morawski pointed out the following two basic characteristics of postmodernism.

First of all, it is undoubtedly anti-avant-garde. Postmodernism is extremely indifferent, if not hostile, to contemplation of the status of art. At this point, it would not be wrong, or even anti-intellectual, to say that postmodernism is an intellectual anti-rationalism. Postmodernism often boasts of itself as the greatest advocate of tolerance; but it can never tolerate any ideological contributions or eschatology (utopian or emancipatory blueprints). It questions the pursuit of constant innovation and undermines the belief that the best knights of art are heroes of medium, means of expression, iconography, and so on. Rather, it agrees that art is not a career but one of many vocations. Its legitimacy lies in producing goods that sell particularly well. It does not wait for rebellion or transcendence. It insists on the closest contact with the average member of society. The aesthetic dimension must be restated, either in the form of a dazzling fake (which reminds us of stylized design art dictated by the market) or in the form of an artist's spontaneous expression (these The artist uses colors, sounds, words, denying the possibility of perfection, and only wants to present a familiar imitation of reality). In a world without an axis, in a vacuum of values, the fundamental goal is to "create" freely for happy reasons. Imitation paintings and parodies have become the most suitable means to witness the current cultural garbage. And its guest card is shamelessly eclectic. 10)

Secondly, postmodern practice is the degeneration of high culture, but it is a deliberate degeneration, deliberately lowering itself to the level of low culture. It wants to find a feeling of home because it makes it more consumable, so it exploits the benefits of narrative, familiar symbols and simple forms. Its main form is a plurality of attitudes and values, which people can choose at will. Social reality is affirmed at every level as heterogeneous, fragmentary and contingent. Postmodernists insist that there is nothing today that has the power of a judge, so art has no mission but is merely a pastime. All principles of avant-garde art were questioned. Painting only means pointing to something fleeting, without making any assertion as to whether it can be remembered. Iconography is usually banal or associated only with the nightmares of human sadomasochists, it has no referential frame and therefore cannot remember anything. The audience's demands for pictures were met either in hasty bursts that disregarded aesthetic quality, or in imitating the masterful techniques of their classical predecessors. Straightforward eclecticism led to a distrust of the dignity of art and a belief that everything was just a commercial display. R. Longo's images are often borrowed from magazines, newspapers and film stills. Painting should always be an operation using proper craftsmanship so as to unite the painter with an infantile audience indifferent to any serious thought. It should be as comprehensible as a gift and should, as Oliva puts it, celebrate "joyful nihilism."

Sherrie Levine’s endlessly self-repeating photo reproductions, Mark Kostabi’s endless redoing of Leger’s operations, Koons’s reproduction of all market icons, Prince Trendy stylized images, etc., all fall into this category. That’s not to say there aren’t differences between these artists. However, all these works are parasitically copied from random ready-made objects. 11)

In the field of architecture, average taste is deeply rooted in regional (national) traditions, so it is easy to mistake postmodernism for resurrectionism. However, the products of postmodernism can be identified by the fact that different styles, old and new, are eclectically juxtaposed and enhanced by modernist techniques and the latest materials. Columns, colonnades, and arches were resurrected, and the space was filled with trees, flowers, and small fountains. Intermittent lines were welcomed, and colors were invited to cooperate with shapes. Architecture must also have a narrative: it takes symbolic symbols of the past and tries to be interesting and enthusiastic, so that the audience will be happy with it. At one end of the spectrum are C. Moore and his tawdry reimaginings of distant idioms, such as the promenade, or S. Tigerman's " Daisy House,” a building that imitates a phallus and a vagina; at the other end are the overtly refined buildings (such as P. Eisenman, H. Hollein, and J. Lin (J. Stiring)]. They radically resurrected the modern paradigm without entirely leaving it to chance. Their strategy is one of "dual coding," but they also appreciate conscious handcrafting, grafting heterogeneity, diversity, and, through carefully defined semantics, the surrender of high technology to a mass audience. emotional connection.

Morawski pointedly pointed out that it is difficult for the camel of art to pass through the eye of this needle. If the main condition for being an artist is to be a follower and a popular person (for example, to adapt to the average demand and interesting) words. He is suspicious of Costabi, Bidlo, Lersch and others - they are parasitic on various micro or macro quotations, constantly producing paradoxes and imitations, and have a negative impact on their works. The emptiness doesn't make me blush at all - whether it's some artist who blows his lies. His suspicions were finally confirmed in a book called Endgame (1986). The Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston published this book, which reviews the paintings of Bleckner and Halley, as well as the so-called mixed-media sculptors Koons, Otterson, and Steinbach, What is clear is that these artists, while clearly aware of the civilized and cultural context in which they found themselves, subscribed to the pervasive fetishism of commercialism. They clearly understand and willingly surrender to the needs of the high street and the reproduction industry. The joyful handling of the finished product became the main motivation for external urging and artistic play. Shopping, as Steinbach openly admits, is today's best form of travel and voyeurism. Coons' vacuum cleaner can be interpreted as a symbol of a cultural vacuum. For these artists, they create these products without any melancholy, anger or irony. They are just a symbol of general commodification and are therefore very close to the expectations and desires of customers in the broadest sense. 12)

Morawski certainly takes a firm critical stance towards the typical stance of postmodernist art and its practitioners, as well as the affirmation and non-difference they foster. Postmodern art has been accused of abandoning the ambitions of modernism and the avant-garde, its tenacious pursuit of aesthetic values, its conscience of responsibility for cultural and social impact, and its emancipatory spirit that underpins modernity. works of liberalism and avant-garde art, and spur it to reach the highest artistic achievement. Morawski's critique of postmodernist culture is both an artistic critique and a political critique. A culture that proclaims as its principle the indifference of the sublime and isolation from anything but the artist's studio and painting can only produce art that is mediocre and irrelevant—while reinforcing the spirit of commercialism.

Therefore, Morawski argued that postmodernism suppresses human sensitivity to the tragic complexity of existence, eliminates human pursuit of transcendence and improvement, and elevates the instrumentality of hedonism to the highest level. The sin was committed in terms of the standpoint of, in fact, the only value.

Morawski's second front targets the radical anti-foundationalism of postmodernist philosophy and its hostility to all aspects of the modern tradition. One part of the modern heritage that Morawski would not allow to be rejected is the deep need to uncover and grasp reality; it is this reality that grounds and gives meaning to the episodic and the fragmentary. There is also modernism's equally deep concern with grounding human values ??and ethical principles. Morawski doubts the sincerity, and especially the feasibility, of the postmodern philosophers' project. He insists that postmodern philosophers cannot account for their assumptions; knowingly or unknowingly, they "absolutize" their landscapes and smuggle in their own "absolute values". What modern philosophy usually does consciously and openly, and is therefore work open to debate and critical questioning, postmodern philosophy does covertly and circuitously, blocking opportunities for self-criticism and self-correction.

This is the basic landscape of postmodernism. Morawski's portrayal is not necessarily a complete picture of postmodernism, but it does get the point across. Summarizing the description and criticism of postmodernism we have mentioned in each chapter, we can give a definition of postmodernism: Postmodernism is a movement that occurred in Europe and the United States in the 1960s and became popular in the West in the 1970s and 1980s. of art, social culture and philosophical trends. Its essence consists in abandoning the basic premises of modernity and its normative content. In postmodernist art, this abandonment manifests itself in the rejection of modernist art as an autonomous value that differentiates a cultural field, and the rejection of modernist principles of formal definition and partisanship. Its essence is a kind of intellectual anti-rationalism and moral anti-rationalism

4. Why "when I came back, I looked like I had lost something"? How to understand this mentality?

My father has worked all his life, and labor is life. In his spiritual world, labor is creation, labor is rewarding, and labor embodies its own value. Once he cannot work, he loses everything, so Feeling like something is missing.

Exercise instructions

1. Read the text carefully and use the third person to tell the story outline of this article.

This question requires grasping the content of the text and distinguishing between the first person and the third person.

××’s old house only had three steps. Seeing that the steps were high and respected by others, he decided to build a new house with high steps. But given his financial situation, it would take him half a lifetime to build a new house like this. He thought that he could build a tower by gathering sand, and with his own strength, if he worked for ten or twenty years, one day he could build a new house. He worked hard for most of his life, picking up bricks and tiles, saving dimes and dimes, and finally built a new house with nine steps. After the house is built, the man grows old and his body collapses.

2. Discuss the following issues.

1. Why does “my father always feel that our family’s level is low”?

2． "The new steps have been built", but why does my father feel that "something is wrong" everywhere?

3． Tell me what you think of the figure of father.

This question is based on the previous question and guides students to deeply understand the key content in the text and then analyze the characters.

1. Because steps are a sign of status. His family was more than ten steps taller, but his own steps were only three steps. He was looked down upon by others. "No one ever said he had status, and my father never felt that he had status." He wanted to have status but did not have status, so he always felt that his family had no status. The steps are low.

2． Low steps meant low economic status, which caused my father to develop an inferiority complex. This inferiority complex has existed for a long time and is difficult to eliminate at once, so the higher the level, the more I feel uncomfortable and wrong everywhere.

3． My father is a very strong farmer. He is ambitious and unwilling to be inferior to others. He wants to stand on his own in a respected position. He has long-term goals in life. He has the spirit of the Foolish Old Man to move mountains and the perseverance.

My father is an honest and kind farmer. He builds up his family and business through honest labor and is not afraid of hardships.

At the same time, my father has the unique humility of traditional Chinese farmers. When the new steps were built, he felt something was wrong and uncomfortable, and he was embarrassed to sit on it.

3. "Back" grasps the idea of ??the "back" proposition and organizes the materials; "Stairs" organizes the materials around the idea of ??the "steps" proposition. Let’s talk about the advantages of writing this way.

This topic combines "Back View" to study the relationship between material selection and center.

"Back View" grasps the concept of "back view", organizes the materials, highlights the father's back view, highlights the father's love, leaves a deep impression on people, and makes people feel the father's love strongly.

"Stairs" is conceived around the proposition of "Stairs" and organizes the materials, giving the general subject of house building a focus and distinctiveness, highlighting the father's pursuit of social status and highlighting the father's hope. A respected ideological character.

Teaching Suggestions

1. You can use "Three Questions" to guide students to grasp the content and analyze the characters.

A question: Why did my father want to build a new house with high steps?

Second question: How did my father build a new house with high steps?

Third question: The new house is built, how is your father?

2. Seize the key sentence.

The key sentence in the full text is "the higher the steps, the higher the status of the owner of the house." By grasping this key sentence, it will be easy to understand the content of the story and the thoughts and feelings of the characters.