It’s interesting because upon reading the first article by Jameson I could completely sympathize with the argument that he was creating, which was based on the dispute as to whether or not postmodernism is just an extension of modernism. So when it came to reading the second article by David Harvey, I was intrigued by the means in which the different authors chose to evaluate the same topic and essentially conclude different things.
“like Jameson, though with greater precision, Harvey treats post modernity as a historical condition. Unlike Jameson, he feels it is possible to analyze its levels in such a way as to move outside and beyond it” (180).
• Basically Harvey goes on to discuss how postmodernism is in fact a reflection of modernism, but that is deserves more respect as an individual entity then Jameson gives it
• For instance Harvey refers to postmodern as a mirror of modern, but at the same time says that the mirror is cracked and therefore reflects various different perspectives or ways of interpreting what is already known
• Now this is something that Jameson actually comments on in his article is that by slightly shifting history as we know it and creating something that is marginally different, it cannot be accepted as a revolutionary idea
• Previous to reading Harvey’s article I was convinced by Jameson’s argument, but now I not so sure
• The problem that I see with the latter and that Harvey seems to understand as well is that where does the credit go now, because essentially history is a prevalent factor, but the distortion of it seems to suggest otherwise?
Aside from the slight conflict between theories, I found it interesting to see the affect in which post modernity has played and assumingly continues to play on civilization. The notion of image-building (which Harvey focused on though the example of the political and economical systems implemented in the US), whether society agrees or not is an extremely large part of how this world functions on a day-to-day basis. Some may be reluctant to believe, but no matter what area of society that we are talking about whether it be architectural, fashion, personal aesthetics, professional, etc image could be considered on of the most elements of profit. For instance I have seen this marginally through my part-time job in an architecture firm where selling yourself is just as important if not more important when it comes to establishing a professional contract. So when putting together a proposal it is important for the marketing staff to understand who the client is, what they are about and which staff members would most appropriately suit the job. Oh and no matter how superstitious this may sound, all elements about a first impression will dictate the relationship that could be potentially made upon that interaction. This element is one of the main reasons that branding has become such a popular edifice in the architectural world today because everyone wants their own identity and therefore it is important to understand the complexities that are involved to do so.
“like Jameson, though with greater precision, Harvey treats post modernity as a historical condition. Unlike Jameson, he feels it is possible to analyze its levels in such a way as to move outside and beyond it” (180).
• Basically Harvey goes on to discuss how postmodernism is in fact a reflection of modernism, but that is deserves more respect as an individual entity then Jameson gives it
• For instance Harvey refers to postmodern as a mirror of modern, but at the same time says that the mirror is cracked and therefore reflects various different perspectives or ways of interpreting what is already known
• Now this is something that Jameson actually comments on in his article is that by slightly shifting history as we know it and creating something that is marginally different, it cannot be accepted as a revolutionary idea
• Previous to reading Harvey’s article I was convinced by Jameson’s argument, but now I not so sure
• The problem that I see with the latter and that Harvey seems to understand as well is that where does the credit go now, because essentially history is a prevalent factor, but the distortion of it seems to suggest otherwise?
Aside from the slight conflict between theories, I found it interesting to see the affect in which post modernity has played and assumingly continues to play on civilization. The notion of image-building (which Harvey focused on though the example of the political and economical systems implemented in the US), whether society agrees or not is an extremely large part of how this world functions on a day-to-day basis. Some may be reluctant to believe, but no matter what area of society that we are talking about whether it be architectural, fashion, personal aesthetics, professional, etc image could be considered on of the most elements of profit. For instance I have seen this marginally through my part-time job in an architecture firm where selling yourself is just as important if not more important when it comes to establishing a professional contract. So when putting together a proposal it is important for the marketing staff to understand who the client is, what they are about and which staff members would most appropriately suit the job. Oh and no matter how superstitious this may sound, all elements about a first impression will dictate the relationship that could be potentially made upon that interaction. This element is one of the main reasons that branding has become such a popular edifice in the architectural world today because everyone wants their own identity and therefore it is important to understand the complexities that are involved to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment