/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14184610]

Are there any serious critics of postmodernism? Most of the people who bash it don't even understand it and just use it as a label for ideas they don't like.

[Anonymous No.14184617]

>>14184610
>Most of the people who bash it don't even understand it and just use it as a label for ideas they don't like.
You answered your own question.

[Anonymous No.14184632]

David Foster Wallace

[Anonymous No.14184638]

>>14184610
Jordan Peterson is one of the best critics of Postmodernism out there.

He exposes the fact that "Postmodernists" are really just Neomarxists who know they cant get away with spouting the standard marxist propaganda of Proletariat vs Bourgeoisie, so instead they change it to "Oppressed" vs "Oppressor".

Postmodernism is basically marxism lite, mixed with identity politics so its acceptable in the current age

[Anonymous No.14184641]

>>14184610
rene girard

[Anonymous No.14184644]

>>14184638
Cringe

[Anonymous No.14184651]

>>14184610
No

[Anonymous No.14184657]

>>14184638
based

[Anonymous No.14184664]

>>14184638

[Anonymous No.14184773]

what's wrong with postmodernism, op?

[Anonymous No.14184839]

>>14184773
He doesn’t like that there isn’t an objective reality that everyone can live in

[Anonymous No.14184848]

>>14184638
Weak bait

[Anonymous No.14184884]

>>14184632
This.
Post modernity creates a huge gap in the human condition. No standards, no God, no love.. Everything has to be made fun of, which kills sincerity and actual values. The worst part is that it really is like a huge barroque game without solution that leaves you hopeless to whatever will happen next in the world of art and whatever else.

[Anonymous No.14184894]

>>14184610
Félix Guattari

[Anonymous No.14184895]

>>14184610
>General Critiques
Bawer, Bruce. 2012. The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind. Broadside Books, New York.

Dennett, Daniel. 1998. “Postmodernism and Truth,” Butterflies and Wheels
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2003/postmodernism-and-truth/

Detmer, David. 2003. Challenging Postmodernism: Philosophy and the Politics of Truth. Humanity Books, Amherst, N.Y.

Devaney, M. J. 1997. ‘Since at least Plato …’ and Other Postmodernist Myths. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

Ellis, John M. 1989. Against Deconstruction. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

Gross, Paul R. and Norman Levitt. 1994. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Johnson, Gregory R. 1992. “Without Sense or Reference. J.G. Merquior’s From Prague to Park: A Critique of Structuralist and Post-Structuralist Thought,” Reason Papers 17: 153–160.

Koertge, Noretta. 1998. A House built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths about Science. Oxford University Press, New York.

McKinley, B. 2000. “Postmodernism certainly is not science, but could it be religion?,” CSAS Bulletin 36.1: 16–18.

Merquior, Jose Guilherme. 1986. From Prague to Paris: A Critique of Structuralist and Post-Structuralist Thought. Verso, London.

Merquior, José Guilherme. 1991. Foucault (2nd edn.). Fontana, London.

Norris, Christopher. 1993. The Truth about Postmodernism. Blackwell, Oxford.
This defends deconstruction, but condemns Postmodernism.

Sokal, Alan and Jean Bricmont. 1998. Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. Picador, New York.

>Conservative Critiques
Norris, Christopher. 1990. What’s Wrong with Postmodernism. Harvester Wheatsheaf, England.

Norris, Christopher. 1993. The Truth about Postmodernism. Blackwell, Oxford.

Scruton, R. 1993. Upon Nothing. University College of Swansea, Swansea.

Scruton, Roger. 1994. “Upon Nothing,” Philosophical Investigations 17.3: 481–506.

Scruton, Roger. 2015. Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left. Bloomsbury, London.

Windschuttle, Keith. 1994. The Killing of History: How a Discipline is being murdered by Literary Critics and Social Theorists. Macleay Press, Sydney.

Windschuttle, K. 1998. “Foucault as Historian,” in Robert Nola (ed.). Foucault. F. Cass, London and Portland, Or. 5–35.

>Marxian criticisms
Callinicos, Alex. 1990. Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

Eagleton, Terry. 1996. The Illusions of Postmodernism. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Mass.

>Libertarian Critiques
Hicks, Stephen R. C. 2004. Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. Scholargy, New Berlin, Milwaukee.

[Anonymous No.14184993]

>>14184610

[Anonymous No.14185072]

>>14184610
Hmm what if I pull the self-rutation card

[Anonymous No.14185485]

if you ignore the shitty political landscape postmodernism is a so wide term that it is impossible to critique.
anything that departs from or critiques the modern values is postmodern so essentially ''wanting to go back'' most of today's reactionaries don't actually want to go back but they want a hybrid or a synthesis of modern capabilities and some old values is as postmodern as being gender critical.

[Anonymous No.14185491]

>>14184610
Pic related.

[Anonymous No.14185514]

>>14185491
Fallacy fallacy (goalpost).

[Anonymous No.14185515]

>>14184895
thanks bro

[Anonymous No.14185527]

>>14184610
There aren't, do you know why? Because postmodernism is the truth. You can't critique the truth.

[Anonymous No.14185533]

>>14185527
You can critique the truth, but if what you're criticizing is the truth, then your critique is either misguided or flat out wrong.

[Anonymous No.14185534]

>>14184610
Fredric Jameson's "Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism" gets mentioned fairly often, but I haven't read it myself.

[Anonymous No.14185539]

>>14184610
The criticism of postmodernism that it has always frankly levied at itself is that it's post-modernism and not something new in itself. Postmodernists have a guilt complex around not having the "constructive new vision" that they secretly want and a good proportion of their writing is based on creating elaborate justifications for why they don't need one.

Or this at least has been the case for several decades now. Personally I think it's sad they feel so guilty and so in the modernist-parent's shadow.

[Anonymous No.14185551]

Habermas' The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity.
Jameson's Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism
Charles Taylor’s Ethics of Authenticity and Anthony Gidden’s Consequences of Modernity.

[Anonymous No.14185564]

>>14185533
I think he was being ironic since postmoderism is "incredulity towards meta narratives" so things like universal truth are a no go

[Anonymous No.14185606]

>>14185534
I'd like to read it some time. I appreciate postmodernism but I think it goes too far in how it treats truth, meaning, and knowledge. It's because of their descent from Saussure and Nietzsche, mixed perhaps with Lacan. The result: every attempt at saying things about objective reality is looked at with a psychoanalytic diagnosis, treated as a sign of where one is in one's anthropological, cultural, social structure, and thus the prospect of knowledge is denied. In its place, new theories of meaning and truth (independent of correspondence to a pre-existing world) are proposed. It's hermeneutics of suspicion kind of stuff, and Marx honestly contributed to that even if Marxism still thought it could say things about reality as-is. But I also think the Marxists are right that material/economic relations at the base level can totally determine the consciousness that forms at the superstructure level, and it's no mistake that both analytics and continentals turned anti-realist in the 20th century, for different reasons. It's super easy to see how the analytics' anti-realism derives directly from a capitalist base. It's not as obvious why that's true for the continentals, and that's why I want to read Jameson.

[Anonymous No.14185666]

>>14184895
Thanks! I believe I read Detmer in undergrad, I'll look that up again.

[Anonymous No.14186648]

[Anonymous No.14186674]

>>14184610
The best critique of post modernism is too look at all the art it created.

[Anonymous No.14186676]

Stephen Hicks “Explaining postmodernism” is a fairly decent starting point.

That being said, postmodernism has its uses. It just shouldn’t have been introduced to undergraduates.

[Anonymous No.14186685]

>>14186674
so, pretty great overall?

[Anonymous No.14186693]

>>14186685
Post some great post modern art so we can laugh at you

[Anonymous No.14186698]

>>14186676
lol

[Anonymous No.14186720]

>>14184632
yeah, his talk about the lack of sincerity and the problems of irony is pretty legit

i think one of the problems is what is postmodernism?
there seems to not be a commonly agreed upon definition of what postmodernism is unless its some kind of vague, general description that speaks more about what it isnt, than what it is

[Anonymous No.14186723]

>>14186693

[Anonymous No.14186726]

>>14186693
Picasso, de Koonig, Warhol or Still are not great?

[Anonymous No.14186735]

>>14186723
lol
>>14186726
>de Koonig, Warhol or Still
disgusting
>Picasso
what

[Anonymous No.14186745]

>>14186726
He probably only likes medieval paintings of deformed, swarthy saints.

[Anonymous No.14186754]

>>14186735

[Anonymous No.14186756]

>>14184638

I know this post is just shitposting, but I get the impression that Memerson basically argues against those college kids who have a similarly bad understanding of postmodernism as Peterson himself. They use postmodern terms, bits and pieces to advocate for their views and Peterson argues against that, while neither party actually understand it.

[Anonymous No.14186763]

>>14186745
No I like things that are aesthetically pleasing not random drips of paints.

[Anonymous No.14186769]

>>14186745
the horseshoe theory once again proves correct

[Anonymous No.14186777]

>>14186763
So subjective. Therefore you can’t talk shit about post modern/modern art because you are a person that values subjectivity over theory and technique.

[Anonymous No.14186782]

zizek
not joking

[Anonymous No.14186792]

>>14186777
Are you saying dripping paint randomly is something respectable?

[Anonymous No.14186825]

>>14186792
“I like things that are aesthetically”
If I find dripped paint aesthetic, then it must have some value, because we are being objective. You might not like it, but to me it represents more than the drips, there are ideas attached to it.

[Anonymous No.14186832]

>>14186792
Are you saying someone who's learned and applied conventional techniques yet still failed to create something appealing is respectable?

[Anonymous No.14186836]

>>14186832
Can you give an example please?

[Anonymous No.14186837]

>>14186825
>If I find dripped paint aesthetic, then it must have some value
Yes but I objectively think you have bad taste
> there are ideas attached to it.
Yes tell me you can tell the random paint drips are calling for the communist revolution

[Anonymous No.14186841]

>>14186832
Yes because at least they tried. Usually when they fail they take the easy way out and start doing drip paintings

[Anonymous No.14186846]

>>14186837
Dude, there are shit ton of essays about Pollok representing the best of capitalism.
Post modern art is far more capitalist than most people think.

[Anonymous No.14186851]

>>14186846
Obviously that part isn't serious

[Anonymous No.14186859]

>>14186836
Just visit any church lmao

[Anonymous No.14186866]

>>14186851
Kek.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1360731?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[Anonymous No.14186953]

>>14184610
it was inspired by nietzche

[Anonymous No.14186981]

>>14186693
Pynchon, Gass, Barth

[Anonymous No.14187182]

>>14186981
Honestly, are you baiting or are you underage?
Literary postmodernism isn't artistic/philosophical postmodernism. There - if you were baiting, you got me to reply. If not, educate yourself.

[Anonymous No.14187251]

Postmods are just stating the obvious for the most part.
Foucault, for instance, wrote books saying that there is a element of power and domination in our social relations. So fucking what? Did anyone ever denied that?
And then for some reason he could recognize any element of domination when he was getting assfucked in a bathroom.

[Anonymous No.14187403]

>>14187251
>And then for some reason he could recognize any element of domination when he was getting assfucked in a bathroom
Imagining that gave me a boner

[Anonymous No.14187647]

>>14184839
But there is objective reality. Humans are just shit at perceiving it and living in densely packed society makes them oblivious to nature and extremely vulnerable to bias.
Their limited minds are unable to comprehend the complexity they themselves created.

[Anonymous No.14188191]

>>14187182
But neither is postmodern art necessarily related to "postmodern" philosophy... So, there.

[Anonymous No.14188206]

>>14184895
>Hicks, Stephen R. C. 2004. Explaining Postmodernism

Into the trash the post goes

[Anonymous No.14189570]

>>14184638
>.

>Cold war america was completely populated by neomarxists because they switched proletariat vs bourgeoisie to American vs Russian

>Nazis on 4chan are neomarxists because they switched proletariat vs bourgeoisie to goy vs jew

lobster man is cringe and postmodernism is about rejecting historical narratives largely including that of class.

[Anonymous No.14189587]

>>14184895
>Scruton, Roger. 1994. “Upon Nothing,”
This has no rigor at all

[Anonymous No.14189618]

>>14184638
>Postmodernism is a rejection of overaching theories or truths
>Marxism is an overarching theory

[Anonymous No.14189674]

>>14186693

[Anonymous No.14189683]

>>14184632
postmodernism in literature/art is not the same as in philosophy, although its obviously not completely unrelated.

>>14184884
European civilization during modernism and premodernism? Continual rounds of warfare, repression, and barbarity. European civilization during the postmodern period? No wars, a flourishing citizenry with the highest welfare and life satisfaction in the world, peaceful diplomatic cooperation and a goal of promoting a sense of moral values abroad instead of plunder and extraction.

Damn that postmodernism really is a terrible thing. Better hope the rest of the world never is afflicted by it.

[Anonymous No.14189702]

nobody on this board knows shit about art, let's see

>>14186723
slightly above Banksy tier. has potential but looks like something I'd see in a small commercial gallery. dogshit flat spatial composition
>>14186726
>>14186754
not postmodern
>>14186825
see this almost looks like cubism which is modernism but it has this solidity that literalizes the cubist shapes and makes them ironically more realistic/figurative than formal, almost surreal but it's not authentically determined by surrealist dream logic either it's a parody of the form. THIS is actually postmodern. wouldn't call it "great" but certainly has merit, well considered choices of specific shapes colours etc. to make it maximally unsettling, clearly as much thought/craft goes into this as an average "traditional" academic painting

[Anonymous No.14189819]

>>14189683
More like Europe is a pacified but depressed cultural wasteland that's about to descend into a stagnant pit. Europe has no future under modernity. It's replacing Europeans in the name of individualism, with people who couldn't give a shit or know anything about individualism

[Anonymous No.14189896]

>>14184610
The thoughtless need to critique is one of the fundamental attributes of the postmodernist.

[Anonymous No.14189914]

>>14184638
You need to learn to differentiate between the philosophy of postmodernism, and the political ideology the postmodernists had.

[Anonymous No.14189922]

>>14184610
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WlRyIefvLA
Play at double speed

[Anonymous No.14189936]

>>14189819
>Europe has no future under modernity.
Modernity ended with WW2.

>It's replacing Europeans in the name of individualism, with people who couldn't give a shit or know anything about individualism
Ah yes, you're one of those who is so pathetic and weak of mind that you are consumed by paranoia because 5% of people happen to be Muslim. That which is superior about Western culture does not extend or describe weak and whimpering folks like you.

[Anonymous No.14189978]

>>14184610
Hegel

[Anonymous No.14190287]

>>14189702
The last one is by George Condo, who was initially linked to neo-expressionism. Postmodernism in art, painting especially, is a funny thing, since it isn't much applied as a term (usually jumps from modernism to contemporary, or refers to the specific tendencies in between: conceptualism, minimalism, land art, etc.). One might think that conceptual art would be most postmodern, but as far as the term has been used, it was usually applied to neo-expressionist and trans-avant-garde painting (as a reaction to late/high modern minimalism), if not a certain return to, but pastiche of, classical painting and (hyper)realism. This kind of postmodernism is probably close to the one in architecture, that is eclecticist and neo-historicist.

[Anonymous No.14190292]

>>14189914
So you agree then, that Postmodernists are really just Neomarxists who know they cant get away with spouting the standard marxist propaganda of Proletariat vs Bourgeoisie, so instead they change it to "Oppressed" vs "Oppressor"

[Anonymous No.14191401]

Does anyone except Jordan Peterson use the term neomarxist?

[Anonymous No.14191429]

David Harvey, and Frederic Jameson's books on postmodernity are pretty good. Personally just read Jameson's original essay on the subject rather than buying the book, like a lot of Jameson's work, it's a lot of fluff without much reward. He's much better short form.

I've not read Lyotard's account, but it's the OG work on the subject so that too.

[Anonymous No.14191470]

>>14190292
>Implying a postmodernist has a metal narrative
Cringe