What is post-modern photography

[sam_richardson]

Brian, that's an extremely cynical view of the art world and I'm not sure why you feel this way. Contemporary art is not a threat to the style of art that you create so why stick your nose up at something just because you can't understand it.

[sam_richardson]

I also wanted to comment about photography for the masses. I used to consider popular photography as photography for the masses but when I really think about it the masses don't really care that much about photography. Ask 100 non-photographers who their favourite photographer is and I bet that you'll mainly get 'I dunno' and a few grunts. The masses are into action films and pop music. They don't give a damn about photographic art, for the most part, and a camera is just something you use to record your friends and family at events.

 

So, in conclusion, while contemporary photography may not be well-liked on posting sites like this, the photographs presented here are mainly of interest to other photography enthusiasts. They are not the art of the masses. We are all in the same boat.

[claudia__]

"What is Post-Modern Photography"

This is a question that will not find a definitive answer because Post-Modernism is a category, an umbrella that covers many sub categories like Pop, Conceptual, Process Art, Video Art etc. Each of these in turn have their own internal aesthetic structures and theories It is not correct to say Duchamp is a Post-Modernist because he was in fact the one who provided the model for the art that became a collection of art activities subsumed in Post-Modernism. Calling Duchamp a PM is like saying Buddha was a Buddhist. Also, it is futile to walk thru a museum looking for individual PM pieces.

 

As for the masses, there is actually no reason for them to use the term. Why would they? The masses are Consumers, their children are Consumers In Training, and Post-Modernism is the antithesis of Consumption.

[sam_richardson]

The masses are Consumers, their children are Consumers In Training, and Post-Modernism is the antithesis of Consumption.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Bingo!!!!

[Landrum Kelly]

Everybody go read Derrida and Jameson first, and then come back and let's start all over.

[mottershead]

Sam, actually I find contemporary art very interesting. I just think that most of the people who write and talk about it, including people who are supposed to be art professionals, are either pretentious or incoherent, and act as though they pride themselves on contemporary art being inaccessible to "the masses", seemingly striving to keep it that way by refusing to talk clearly about it. I don't know whether this is deliberate, whether it is just a style thing, or whether these people really are as incapable of being clear as it often seems. I can barely stand contemporary art-talk. Contemporary art is a different story.

 

By the way, I'm still waiting for someone who claims to understand what post-modernism is in the context of photography to define it, rather than just saying read this or that. If you have read this or that yourself, then presumably you understood it and can relate it to the rest of us.

[Landrum Kelly]

Amen to that, Brian. Whether in philosophy in general, or simply in aesthetics, this term is a slippery fish bandied about by literateurs and poseurs. I enjoy reading some of these people, but I always have trouble explaining what Derrida, for example, just said. He is constantly negating himself, but the contradictions have never slowed him down, or troubled him in the least.

[jake_tauber]

In many of my posts on this forum, I have talked about how "context" sets art/photography apart from the world of snapshots and paintings sold out of hotel ballrooms. A lack of context is why when someone on PN or the thousand other photo sites offers up a single isolated "artistic" shot, he or she has not created art. Art has to have a context and refer to something else. To be art, a painting or photo has to be part of a series or have intellectual intent, or in a postmodern sense, reference some other work/school that preceded it. I'm not sure why, but this is a difficult concept for many to grasp.

 

During the 80's, in architecture, we saw a lot of contemporary work referencing the past. For example, columns having no structural purpose were included as design elements. That was a postmodern flourish. This is opposed to neo-classicism where the columns held up the building. When Tim Davis shoots reflections on the surface of paintings in a museum, that is postmodern. But most importantly, he and the postmodern architects created a new vocabulary. Tritely, something old and something new.

 

As has been stated by others, artists generally don't set out to make something postmodern. But because most artists have a knowledge of the art and culture that surrounds them, they reference it. Over the years, I've visited a lot of art studios. I'm always surprised how frequently I see tons of open books and magazines lying around. The artists are liberally borrowing and sometimes copying bits and pieces from the world. Often that produces something postmodern

[mottershead]

OK, so now I see that Quiche and Sam are in agreement that post-modernism is the antithesis of consumerism. And earlier Sam wanted to let me know that it wasn't a threat to me. Great! Someone knows what it is!. So, how about enlightening the rest of us?

[mottershead]

That's all fine Jake. But what is it? I'm really serious. I'm an idiot. I've been waiting for years for someone to explain it to me. I've tried to read people who are allegedly explaining it, but they never seem like explanations to me, and I'm never left with the feeling that I understand what they are talking about. (Usually I'm left with the feeling that they don't understand what they are talking about.) I have a Philosophy degree from Harvard; so I'm not stupid, even though I say so myself.

 

You just made a few statements about postmodernism; so you must understand it. So here's your chance to educate the ignorant. Go ahead.

[claudia__]

You have to <i>see</i> it to understand it. I suggest really spending some time with the picture (and others by Bacon) on this link<p>

 

http://www.francis-bacon.cx/figures/headvi.html</p>

<p>

I hated Bacon when I first saw his work, then I slowly "got" it, like the time standing in my kitchen I finally really <i>heard</i> Miles Davis even though I had <i>listened</i> to him for years.</p>

 

<p>Definitions and explanations are fine, but ultimately art is about the experience. That is why the original question is so unsatisfactory.</p>

[d_poinsett]

All art occurs in a social context but postmodernism does so in particular and with intention.

 

Postmodernism is diverse. Issues of culture, gender, sexuality, ethics, ethnics, politics, and media are driving forces. Irony and sarcasm are common themes.

 

In addition to broad social context, postmodernism also often occurs in the narrow social context of the art world itself where works could be likened to an improvisational response to the works of other artists. It is an evolving conversation. Much of Duchamp's work, who some consider the grandaddy of postmodernism, was a sarcastic response to the work of other modern artists. Seeing Duchamp's work without knowing this is like having a meal where most of the food is missing.

 

Postmodernism is like the inside joke. If you are on the outside, it seems confusing and clique-ish. Today, to an outsider, much art looks arbitrary and even stupid. But that is because most of us are not aware of the context in which it created and being judged. Art has gotten sophisticated and specialized. It is simply not accessible to those of us without this information. If you want to understand postmodern photography and art in general, you have to study.

[Landrum Kelly]

Here is Terry Eagleton's take on it: "Truth is a lie; morality stinks; beauty is shit." ("From the Polis to Postmodernism," in _Ideology of the Aesthetic_, p. 372.) In other words, postmodernism is relativist ranting. Same goes for "deconstruction." I've studied it. I still have no clue, but Eagleton seems to have summed it up pretty well for my feeble mind.

[beeman458]

Brian wrote<p>

 

<i>By the way, I'm still waiting for someone who claims to understand what post-modernism is in the context of photography to define it, rather than just saying read this or that. If you have read this or that yourself, then presumably you understood it and can relate it to the rest of us.</i><p>

 

I keep trying to answer the question but you keep deleating my answers. It's about the deconstructing of the sacred, what ever that sacred might be. The sacred could be the almighty dollar.<p>

[mottershead]

That isn't a definition. It is a wisecrack. As for having to "see" it to understand it, Quiche, are you saying that it is some kind of mystical experience that cannot be explained? If it isn't, then please explain it.

 

Look, I know who the famous "post-modern" photographers and artists are, the same as the rest of you, and I know what their paintings, sculptures, installations, etc, look like. I could probably recognize that some artist I never saw before is a "post-modern", on the basis that his works look like those of someone else that I know to be a "post-modern". I could probably announce that someone is "post-modern" on this or that basis, and everybody would agree with me, and think I knew what I was talking about. I could probably make meaningful-sounding statements like "post-modernism is the antithesis of consumerism", or "so-and-so's photographs of reflections off museum pieces are post-modern", and everybody would think I know what post-modernism is. I don't. Does anybody? Is this an emperor-has-no-clothes kind of deal?

[Landrum Kelly]

My own take on it? Postmodernists are to art/aesthetics/philosophy as adolescents are to sex: each generation seems to think that it has invented it. Self-conscious, reflexive thinking was around for some millenia before it hit the postmodernists between the eyes. Somebody had to publish to get tenure and so created a new term.

[thomas_sullivan]

the Bacon art being PM I get but why is <a href="http://www.noorderlicht.com/eng/fest97/eden/barney/">this Tina Barney</a> stuff considerd PM?....or aren't these ones of Barney considered PM?

[beeman458]

Brian wrote<p>

 

<i>That isn't a definition. It is a wisecrack.</i><p>

 

It is not a wisecrack. It is a definition. I can list the name of the person who wrote that down. She's the curator of the Guggenheim Museum; Jennifer Blessing.<p>

[mottershead]

Well that seems like another wisecrack, not a definition. It does capture the notion that self-reference is one hallmark of post-modernism. Is that the totality of it? Why all the fuss, then?

[beeman458]

Brian, there's no wisecracking there. I'm simply posting the name of the individual and their position within the industry so as to establish the veracity of my comment. I didn't make this stuff up. This is not of my opinion.

 

Postmodernism has been defined by those within the industry, as enigmatic as it may seem. Once you're onto the deconstucting intent of the art, then what you see before you makes all the sense in the world, like it or not. This is a good thing.

[d_poinsett]

Postmodernism, like any sophisticated subject, can easily become an "emperor-has-no-clothes" scenario among the uninformed. Someone who has studied art history and knows the work of a particular artist and contemporaries can make distinctions that would see through uninformed comments. For the most part, I am not among the informed but I have read enough on the subject now to understand what I am missing and why.

 

Information on the context is what separates junk from art. This is why art students today are required to articulate the context. It is no longer just about skill and the craft. It is about knowledge and communicating a point of view in the context of that knowledge.

[mottershead]

Sorry, Jake, I'm not letting you off the hook. Now you're saying you can only explain it if you can do a slide show. You say I should find a lecture series so that someone else can explain it. Above, you sounded like you understood what it is. If you do, then you can explain it.

 

I'm not dumb; I've read quite a few books. I generally don't have a problem understanding complex intellectual constructs. If you can't explain it to me, then either: (1) you don't understand it yourself and are only bluffing; or (2) the term is no more than an empty banner, under which various critics and artists have gathered, but with no actual content that anybody can explain. In the latter case, the only way to explain the term is to point to its denotation; that is, do a slide show of the work of the artists who decided to pull up under that banner for whatever sociological reason, which might indeed be no more respectable than art dealers and artists trying to sell pictures to museum directors, art critics trying to get writing gigs, and professors trying to get tenure.

 

That would explain why people put forward jokes and aphorisms as definitions, hoping that everyone is too embarassed and feels too stupid to press for an actual coherent explanation of it. I'm quite serious.

[claudia__]

There is no concrete definition of Post-Modernism. What I see here is the refusal of some to accept that the term is in constant use in the so called artworld and that most people using it have agreed on a loose consensus of what they are talking about. You want a one size fits all definition? You won't find it. I don't see the point of arguing that if it cannot be satifactorily defined to you that it is not important or doesn't exist other than being artspeak. If someone says to me that a public art proposal is PM, I have an idea of what might be proposed and what would be excluded by calling it PM. That's about it. It is useful if you hang out with artists, but probably not if you don't or are not a serious follower of current art. Try listening to an explanation of cricket. You have to watch the games and even then you probably won't know why a game can possibly last as long as it does.

[mottershead]

D Poinsett: so Jake says you have to able to do a slide show to be able to explain. Or go to a lecture series. You say it can't be explained to someone who hasn't studied art history and isn't an art expert.

 

This is beginning to sound like some kind of esoteric gnosis that only insiders who have been initiated into the mysteries can understand, after years of arcane rituals and preparations. So, give those of us who haven't been inducted into this gnosis one good reason why we need to take any of this seriously.

[claudia__]

From the Oxford Companion to Philosophy...

 

"postmodernism. In its broad usage, this is a 'family resemblance' term employed in a variety of contexts (architecture, painting, music, poetry, fiction, etc.) for things which seem to be related---if at all---by a laid back pluralism of styles and a vague desire to have done with the pretension fo high-modernist culture."

 

I hope the above helps. Several here have said the same, me included, but it has not satisfied Brian. So be it.