If I had to summarize the general ideology of this article (and the element which initially interested me) into a brief sentence, I would say that it’s an abstract delineation between modernity and post modernity. So basically what the author is trying to understand is why the 2 design eras are considered different from one another. According to his implications, he believes there are distinct connections that get carried up both streams so why have we tried to signify postmodernism as its own individual entity? Does it in fact pose the suggestion that originality and innovation are terms of the past?
The obvious conclusion about modern society today is that all ideas are rather a reinterpretation or disguising of something that preceded it. This is especially prevalent in design school where it is extremely rare, if not impossible to design a space or anything for that matter that is completely objective or undetermined by any form of precedence. It can occur consciously or not, but its obvious that every post-modern idea that we generate is somewhere rooted in history in some shape or form.
Now this is along the lines of what Jameson is beginning to discuss in terms of postmodernism becoming an extension of modernism and in fact he makes 2 interesting connotations as to why this may be occurring:
1) “most postmodernists are emerging as a reaction against the established forms of high modernism”
• in this understanding you begin to see where the notion of unique and original ideas get lost
• essentially what’s happening is that the modernist era was such an outrage against everything that civilization was familiar with till then, so as it established it became recognized for its individuality and uniqueness
• so therefore postmodernists believe that by taking the individuality which was established by the modernists and reacting against it would be creating a new form, but in fact it is just a play off of something which has already been undermined
“this means that there will be as many different forms of postmodernism as there are high modernisms in place, since the former are at least initially specific ad local reactions against those models” (164-165).
2) “the effacement in it of some key boundaries or separations”
• now this is where the notion of consumerism begins to play a part in postmodernism, initially differentiating it from modernity on various levels
• Jameson is referring to the implicit connection which is drawn from historical precedence to postmodern designs in order to attract the viewers/ consumers to the product
• I definitely think this is a marketing strategy which is strongly emphasized in today’s day and age, not saying that its positive or negative because that’s an entirely new discussion on its own
“they incorporate them to the point where the line between high art and commercial forms seems increasingly difficult to draw” (165).
The obvious conclusion about modern society today is that all ideas are rather a reinterpretation or disguising of something that preceded it. This is especially prevalent in design school where it is extremely rare, if not impossible to design a space or anything for that matter that is completely objective or undetermined by any form of precedence. It can occur consciously or not, but its obvious that every post-modern idea that we generate is somewhere rooted in history in some shape or form.
Now this is along the lines of what Jameson is beginning to discuss in terms of postmodernism becoming an extension of modernism and in fact he makes 2 interesting connotations as to why this may be occurring:
1) “most postmodernists are emerging as a reaction against the established forms of high modernism”
• in this understanding you begin to see where the notion of unique and original ideas get lost
• essentially what’s happening is that the modernist era was such an outrage against everything that civilization was familiar with till then, so as it established it became recognized for its individuality and uniqueness
• so therefore postmodernists believe that by taking the individuality which was established by the modernists and reacting against it would be creating a new form, but in fact it is just a play off of something which has already been undermined
“this means that there will be as many different forms of postmodernism as there are high modernisms in place, since the former are at least initially specific ad local reactions against those models” (164-165).
2) “the effacement in it of some key boundaries or separations”
• now this is where the notion of consumerism begins to play a part in postmodernism, initially differentiating it from modernity on various levels
• Jameson is referring to the implicit connection which is drawn from historical precedence to postmodern designs in order to attract the viewers/ consumers to the product
• I definitely think this is a marketing strategy which is strongly emphasized in today’s day and age, not saying that its positive or negative because that’s an entirely new discussion on its own
“they incorporate them to the point where the line between high art and commercial forms seems increasingly difficult to draw” (165).
No comments:
Post a Comment