I'd also say Modernism (post or otherwise) is a negative. I've learned to disregard what's generally written about it. I now look at most art made today as pure form – design – and by doing so it's a lot easier to deal with. The new openly hostile sexual and racial diversity stuff is alien, and I reject it out of hand.
Please forgive my butting in here but you are one of the very few people capable of writing about art/culture intelligently. I like the way you tie the material into an historical context. I tend to write comments when I disagree with something I'm concerned with. Might be irritating. If so, I'm very sorry.
Nice essay. I always thought the term "post-modernism" was just a way to "make it new" without actually doing anything new. Maybe I'm wrong but I can't tell the difference between Marcel Duchamp's R Mutt and Damien Hirst spot paintings, or Jeff Koons. The only new development I see is the push for diversity, i.e., where the revulsion for classical European culture morphed into a hatred for normal European people.
[By my definition, Modernism was/is based on Marx, Darwin and Freud and a loathing for classical Western culture. They were going to plumb the depths of the human psyche rather than perform "mere" illustration. and story-telling. They succeeded because they attracted sponsors (rich people) who for a number of reasons liked or were attracted to emptiness and irony.]
I think "Post-Modernism" is an implicit acceptance of an exhaustion with form and style and a deliberate decision to step away from the arm's race of changing fashion. Yes, Duchamp, Koons and Hirst all get into the nomination/appropriation-as-production line.
As for Freud, I'd say he was actually a lover of classical civilisation (esp. the Greeks), see the "Oedipus complex" and numerous references to myths etc. But he was hostile to Christianity, which makes him ambivalent towards Western culture. Certainly his influence has been overall destructive.
I'd also say Modernism (post or otherwise) is a negative. I've learned to disregard what's generally written about it. I now look at most art made today as pure form – design – and by doing so it's a lot easier to deal with. The new openly hostile sexual and racial diversity stuff is alien, and I reject it out of hand.
Please forgive my butting in here but you are one of the very few people capable of writing about art/culture intelligently. I like the way you tie the material into an historical context. I tend to write comments when I disagree with something I'm concerned with. Might be irritating. If so, I'm very sorry.
No, do continue to comment. It really helps me to refine and reconsider what I've written!
Nice essay. I always thought the term "post-modernism" was just a way to "make it new" without actually doing anything new. Maybe I'm wrong but I can't tell the difference between Marcel Duchamp's R Mutt and Damien Hirst spot paintings, or Jeff Koons. The only new development I see is the push for diversity, i.e., where the revulsion for classical European culture morphed into a hatred for normal European people.
[By my definition, Modernism was/is based on Marx, Darwin and Freud and a loathing for classical Western culture. They were going to plumb the depths of the human psyche rather than perform "mere" illustration. and story-telling. They succeeded because they attracted sponsors (rich people) who for a number of reasons liked or were attracted to emptiness and irony.]
I think "Post-Modernism" is an implicit acceptance of an exhaustion with form and style and a deliberate decision to step away from the arm's race of changing fashion. Yes, Duchamp, Koons and Hirst all get into the nomination/appropriation-as-production line.
As for Freud, I'd say he was actually a lover of classical civilisation (esp. the Greeks), see the "Oedipus complex" and numerous references to myths etc. But he was hostile to Christianity, which makes him ambivalent towards Western culture. Certainly his influence has been overall destructive.