Humanities thread

This thread seemed oddly lacking in existence, given the main topic of the site, the arts.

A thread for the humanities, in the vein of philosophy, economics and politics threads.

Many things have been called humanities. The humanities, for this thread, will include history, literature, linguistics, and philosophy ^note While there is a thread for it, its mainly analytic.

What brought me to making this thread was reading "Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism" and wanting to discusse its topics. Given this ill begin with this question:

What is postmodernism?

As a humanist myself I hope this thread will be very active. I'll certainly be contributing to it.

To quote wikipedia, postmodernism is the relatively recent wave of criticism and redesign of modernist culture.

edited 11th Apr '15 12:24:45 PM by RabidTanker

Postmodernism cannot precisely be defined, and that's honestly what I like about it. Postmodernism is basically a reexamination of previous artistic movements in such a way that it both challenges and reaffirms traditional methods of the creative process. Some people argue that postmodernism has always existed, and that this field is simply a label for the ebb and flow of different genres and period movements, constant inventing and reinventing themselves, overlapping, borrowing and revitalizing concepts that were thought to be lost.

Here are some major components, though they're not set in stone.

- Reflexivity, reflection and meta-narratives: works that comment on themselves, demonstrating both an internal and external awareness of the conventions that keep the work together rather than simply demonstrating those conventions as is. This may include devices like breaking the 4th wall, having a Show Within a Show that is a reflection of the more conventional and traditional version of that work (a cheesy action show in a gritty deconstruction of action shows) and using a work to examine the flux relationship between denotation as literal and connotation as metaphor (and vice versa)

- Regurgitation of traditional themes made culturally or chronologically ambiguous: works that intentionally pretend to be original stories that are actually an homage, criticism of or general examination of a trend that has existed for a much longer time. You could say that the new Dodge Challenger is a postmodern concept because it takes a traditional, iconic American muscle car and transplants that concept into 21st century technological trends despite the original Challenger basically doing the same thing. It is a traditional sports car pretending to be an anachronism.

- Using malleability as a driving force for the work: challenging binary opposites in more traditional themes, figuring out why we insist upon these binaries, and reconfiguring them in a way that makes them more nuanced than previously thought.

- Acknowledging and embracing the limitations of time (or our perception of it) and how it affects conceptualization: Similar to the previous points, this means identifying a zeitgeist, mythology or cultural icon and identifying the imprecise nature of its origins. It also means challenging the whole notion of what is traditional and what is allowed to be rendered malleable (can Link be a woman? Can Spider-man be black?)

- Inverting, contorting, disassembling and deconstructing a work to show how the mechanics affect the narrative and how the audience is affected by this revelation: popping the hood and looking at the engine, so to speak. Alan Moore's Watchmen examines the anatomy of the superhero mythology. The Stanley Parable is a game about dissecting game mechanics. Pre-faded and pre-torn jeans are a marketing ploy meant to capitalize on how entropy evokes sentimental value for personal belongings.

- Irony with an objective: Postmodernism often asserts that irony should always be used with a clear objective. Many postmodernists are not interested in irony for its own sake. That's probably closer to absurdism or abstract expressionism. Postmodern irony can include things like using understatement to further punctuate a remarkable situation while also showing how density and lack of empathy for a remarkable situation promote understatement in the first place. Or it may mean using humor to describe a terrible event that otherwise goes unnoticed.

The movie Idiocracy uses Judd Apatow-style humor to make a hilarious yet horrifyingly true point about the dangers of anti-intellectualism. Watch_Dogs is a game about the contradictory nature of a vigilante crime fighter's appropriation of a surveillance state despite the game being advertised using a notoriously invasive viral marketing campaign.

There are some more I can think up, but I think that's good for now.

EDIT: One more.

- General commentary versus analysis: not restricted to postmodernism, but a common feature of it is to emphasize the fundamental nature of critical analysis rather than viewing it as ancillary function independent of the work. That is, the work is the analysis itself. For some obvious reasons, I strongly believe this to be true. General commentary is talking about the work and reframing the "what is X" question whereas analysis seeks to answer the question of "how X is X". Satire might be a good example of this difference.

edited 14th Apr '15 7:43:18 PM by Aprilla

Also, The point to postmodernist perspectives is to have a point... But, no specific ideological dog in whatever fight you're in.

Which is quite novel: most movements have had some specific nationalistic, religious or other philosophical game plan as part and parcel of their raison d'être.

The closest you get with postmodernism is an empirical-style "poke it and see" attitude... but, no firm commitment towards anything beyond that.

edited 11th Apr '15 7:35:42 PM by Euodiachloris

Here i must disagree, given that many of those were modernist. Many can be seen in don quijote.

And here, i must vehemently disagree. Culture and other spheres of life are closely related.in the crimes of the world, culture isn't innocent.of course, it's there on the few graces, too. I would say, in fact, that a culture is how an era thinks, it's mind. all the goals and rationalizations are there.

Ideology is culture

postmodernism=capitalism's worldview

I'm not seeing what you're disagreeing with because you're being vague. Postmodernism is definitely in flux (oxymoron, I know) and malleable, so it seems weird to say "I disagree" in a broad sense, especially when I already acknowledged that postmodernism is arguably nothing new and relative to the time period in which a work is deconstructed and reconstructed.

Sure, Don Quixote challenges the conventions of medieval chivalry, but that wasn't always apparent at the time. Likewise, Clint Eastwood's cowboy anti-heroes are often regarded as the status quo of spaghetti westerns although his characters are actually a response to the more morally unambiguous heroes of the previous era.

I'm really not seeing what's to be disagreed upon here. Also not clear about the capitalism bit. That was kind of out of left field.

EDIT Are you sure you aren't addressing the Marxist theory on literary criticism? Because I'd love to talk about that. I've written a few papers based on that area.

edited 14th Apr '15 7:09:36 PM by Aprilla

Uh, i was vague, sorry. I didn't mean to disagree ith the thesis, but with the components list. my argument (wich i didnt expose previously) is that without a qualitetive change, there isnt a difference between modernism and post-modernism. given the conception of culture as an eras worldview,with wich you may disagree, if an era could see a concept as clearly as the other. i wouldn't say they are really different. Thus those concepts present in modernism cant define posmo.Some of those that you pointed are postmodern, but i would say the list is innecesarely extensive

about capitalism, i meant to say that its the economic era we are living, and so the culture is capitalism ideology

and regarding marxism, i am not only reading jameson, but also find my self agreeing with many of his points. i don't mean to adress marxism, but im deinitively using parts of it.If you want to discuss it, feel free. That is what the thread is for.

edited 14th Apr '15 7:29:49 PM by Caw

Still not quite sure what you mean, but okay. You might want to check out Franz Boas and Karl Popper, too. I bring them up because historicism and reductivism are related parts of post-structuralism and postmodernism. I also mentioned Marx because conflict theory inevitably comes up when discussing whether or not texts throughout history can be defined based on fundamental qualities of opposition and imbalance.

I think you raised another important issue with modernism. Some scholars have taken issue with modernism as a structuralist idea because it presupposes that history can be viewed in teleological terms; that we define the human condition primarily based on the current living generations. Some Neoclassical writers such as John Dryden, Alexander Swift and John Wilmot. Gulliver's Travels in particular seems to be a pretty scathing critique of both Hobbesian values and the teleological perspective of history.

edited 14th Apr '15 7:42:10 PM by Aprilla

I find this thread redundant. There is an Animal Rights and Enviromentalism thread already where we can speak about Manatees, regardless of their size

What is the difference between Postmodernism and Deconstruction?

Both probably have a billion different meanings, as Aprilla pointed out for the former's difficult definability.

My personal take on the first is that it's meta-reactionary, an existential/nihilistic, relativistic outlook on things that induces an irony-laden self-awareness on the subject being regarded, taking a step back and asking why on why things happen.

Deconstruction in the tvtropes sense is pretty much inherently postmodern if we're using my take, taking a step back and asking why for the trope(s) being used and then giving "realistic" consequences, although postmodernism can go the other route of going crazy surreal to ask questions about the trope(s) as well.

I've been taught that deconstruction (in the original and academic sense - e.g. Derrida & co.) is part of the general postmodern theory, particularly in regards to ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics and so forth.

Caw, GAP and some other tropers were discussing this in another thread. Deconstruction in critical theory is different from the deconstruction used here on TV Tropes, but I've yet to find an academic that would reject our use of the term.

One difference between deconstruction and postmodernism is that a narrative can have elements of postmodernism while not necessarily being a deconstruction work. I was thinking about this when I was watching The Expendables trilogy. In many ways, the series is a meta-narrative where the characters are self-aware of the genre conventions they are employing up to a certain extent. Note: there are a few reasons why I'm not using the Genre Savvy tag, but I won't dive into those reasons right now.

Anyway, the Expendables have several moments where they demonstrate awareness of the fact they are aging action movie stars of questionable relevance. There's also the issue of their feats having very little basis in reality and being a huge Shout-Out to the God-like aiming skills and relative invulnerability for which their genre is known.

Despite all of these features of self-reference and self-commentary, I don't think we can call The Expendables a deconstruction although that self-referential commentary has dark shades of postmodernism. Contrast that with Last Action Hero, which is much closer to a deconstruction. Also consider something like Die Hard, which was a sincerely straight action movie that has later been regarded as a deconstruction. Movie Bob has a video explaining, among other things, how Die Hard really deconstructs action movies after the fact

Another example might be Attack On Titan. A lot of people say it deconstructs the shonen genre, but it really doesn't if you think about it. It does challenge some key features of shonen, but the anime and the manga actually check off most of the boxes that constitute shonen. Our own page on deconstruction even explains how there is often confusion between Darker and Edgier and outright deconstruction. Attack on Titan is firmly in the former category.

edited 12th May '15 10:37:52 PM by Aprilla

We have our own thread now...WHOOT!

The loose way I have described deconstruction is "You're getting exactly what you've asked for in all it's reality".

When you have an ideal that has been held for so long, you kinda need someone to come and pop that bubble.

In artistic forms, one of the best examples would be the evolution of the crucifixion.

Grunewald's Crucifixion was a big deal at the time. You weren't supposed to depict Christ that ugly.

White guy in your MFA: 'I nobly pursue something purer than wealth – truth itself'

The Real World vs. The MFA: On the Long Path to a First Novel

A group of rising artists strongly rejects the all-or-nothing, children-versus-art premise

Motherhood is no threat to creativity, author Zadie Smith says

Nostalgia on Repeat - Why do we feel nostalgia? And are infinite entertainment choices changing the way we look back?

Proof that motherhood is no threat to creativity (on the contrary, in fact): Björk's Medúlla.

edited 23rd May '15 5:04:44 PM by Quag15

Once You See These Drawings You’ll Start To Question Everything Wrong In This World

I'm less concerned with the illustrations themselves and more concerned with two comments that I think are worth exploring and debating:

Comment One

Comment Two

Both perspectives are valid, though I'm more partial to the latter in many ways. What you do think?

edited 26th May '15 1:01:46 PM by Aprilla

I would say that these images are more accessible to interpretation than that they only have one interpretation.

For many of those images I could come up with several arguments and the elements of the image would validate them. Does it mean only one answer is right? No. Does it mean that there is one argument that has more credible evidence than others? Probably.

But I could give the same images to a different culture or someone with a different background and they could come up with something different.

The problem with surreal art, especially politically charged surreal art, is that it is very emotionally provoking. As it should be. But emotions can be very restrictive when interpreting an image.

HR Giger was notorious for setting up his paintings like that.

I'll have to be more specific with what I'm looking for in terms of discussion. The idea I'm chasing isn't so much a question of how many or what kinds of interpretations we can derive from art, but what we can work with in terms of messages and intents. Or put differently, how much of the heavy lifting should we let the viewer do when we show them art?

The latter comment seems to be arguing that the website is wrongly commandeering the piece in an sophomoric attempt to make some grandiose statement about the follies of man or some such, and I'm inclined to agree. If I write a poem about how starvation is a bad thing, am I giving my audience much of anything to work with? I suppose, but as she suggested, taking very simple political statements and equating them to magnanimous revelations speaks against the intelligence of the audience. I agree with her that this is not a fault of the artist, but of the outlet presenting the piece.

I'm also concerned with how Pulptastic is trying to mobilize the artist's message because it's taking a open interpretation piece and spoon feeding you its political message in such a way that you aren't left with much exploration on your own. An important part of social and political awareness is having the room to work your imagination muscles, so to speak, and while the artist has simply given us an open ended piece and said "here, chew on this and see what you deduce", a lot of online publications take a somewhat condescending approach by holding your hand and telling you that it's supposed to be important because it's meant to make you feel all warm, fuzzy and important.

EDIT: That warm fuzzy feeling can be dangerous because we sometimes make ourselves feel smart and helpful, like we've done a good deed by just consuming the art. This isn't about slacktivism (a term I don't really like). It's about that kind of "pat yourself on the back" stuff you see on the internet everyday that mobilizes you just enough to think about your role in the world for like five minutes before you go back to not caring. I also think this is the reason why exceedingly basic messages can erode the political intent they're trying to convey.

Giger's work (and his determination to control how his work is presented) manages to offer that free range for exploration and introspection. For example, one of the images should very much make you think to yourself "oh dear. My consumerism actually contributes to world hunger." And in all fairness, Pulptastic looks like it's trying to do that, but it just rubs me the wrong way. It's kind of like those clickbait articles from Upworthy or Buzzfeed that preface their messages (however important they may be) with a sappy title like "You won't believe what this woman did when men catcalled her" or "This Christian's response to hearing his son come out of the closet will restore your faith in humanity."

It's just rote sentimentalist drivel that interferes with the thesis of your art because you're not letting your viewer just plunge into it. Then again, I have a soft spot for minimalism and iceberg theory, so that may be where my whole spiel is coming from.

EDIT 2 (Sorry): Let me clarify something else. Let's look at the title.

"Once You See These Drawings You’ll Start To Question Everything Wrong In This World"

Okay, this is my problem right here. If you're an intelligent adult with at least a small collection of life experiences, you should already be questioning everything wrong in this world.

edited 26th May '15 1:45:52 PM by Aprilla

Meh, it's just a clickbait title.

edited 26th May '15 2:31:36 PM by Quag15

I like those images. Reminds me a lot of Argentinian artist Quino.

I don't get a few of them tho, mostly cuz' I am stupid, but otherwise I like them.

For example,◊ this is Quino◊

It is definitely more than lineart. But the subject it treats are Quino-esque.

edited 26th May '15 2:42:08 PM by Aszur

Hmm... I'd say it's too elaborate and filled with lots of aesthetic details to be Quino-like.

Edit: You have a point.

edited 26th May '15 3:12:54 PM by Quag15

Your title is part of the thesis for the work you're presenting. Art handles it differently than literature does for obvious reasons, but the title should always be carefully managed, even if the title has a seemingly superficial function. When your audience sees your title, you've already implanted specific expectations in their minds. It's not really hollow, psychologically speaking.