Doing a paper on PoMo philosophy and photography

[g_bor_t_r_csik_nagy]

<p>Hello!</p>

<p>Like the title says, i'm doing just that and i'm still at the very beginning of the paper. I would like to ask your opinion on, who would you think are a good duo-trio PoMo photographers who encompass the PoMo philosophy?</p>

<p>Ok, let me explain this a bit, because the above paragraph is a bit vague. The idea of the paper is to write about the philosophy first, and then connect how that philosophy has made it's way into the works of some photographers.<br>

Thank you! Your help will give me a good beginning push, that i think i need! :)</p>

<p>PS: also, what are your thoughts on Andreas Gurskys' work?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>PoMo collapses critique into its object, so I think your concluding question should be "what do you think Gursky's work thinks about itself?"</p>

<p>I think the more interesting thing to think about is not PoMo itself but what it misses -- when it, theoretically, shouldn't miss anything. That from the ashes of the object's self-immolation, it mocks the viewer with the sublime, nevertheless.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>what are your thoughts on Andreas Gurskys' work</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pays well.</p>

[kristina_kraft]

<p>Here is a citation to mull over if you find it interesting and engaging:"...Gursky’s world of the 1990s is big, high-tech, fast-paced, expensive, and global. Within it, the anonymous individual is but one among many." - MoMA</p>

 

[alan_zinn]

<p>There is no way you can avoid Baudrillard. See <em>Photographies 1985 - 1998</em>. I admire his photographs a lot.<br /> The problem I have with Gursky is that, like commercial graphics, it wows rather than charms.<br>

<br /> Trouble with PoMo for me is, like the Higgs Boson, it makes some sense while you are reading about it, but when you put the book down, pooof! -- can't use the specialized lingo in everyday discourse. What remains, however, is a residual confirming buzz that informs everything thereafter.<br>

Good luck with your project.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I am not particularly attracted to PoMo, although I acknowledge its importance among the French philosophers and writers of the politically more left leaning 1960s and 70s, prior the fall of the (humanly expensive) Communist experiment.</p>

<p>One thing that I have read and tend to agree with is that PoMo is politically impeded because it cuts us off from the ability to make absolute judgements (traditional philosophies) and/or suggests that we are trapped within social/political/intellectual systems that we are unable to escape. Perhaps the latter is what Gursky's works are all about, but that doesn't make my interest in PoMo any more palatable than it was. I find it odd that Eggleston rejected PoMo, as his works to me seem to follow a similar philosophy.</p>

<p>Alan, read The Economist's report (current issue) on the boson particle of Higgs (and five other researchers of his time (1964)), as it brings into focus the relevance of this discovery, now proven (well, it is hoped so), and how it explains the universe in somewhat the manner that DNA explains a bit our make-up.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<blockquote>

<p>Arthur,<br>

"…cuts us off from the ability to make absolute judgments (traditional philosophies) and/or suggests that we are trapped within social/political/intellectual systems that we are unable to escape"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If what you mean by "trapped" is the same as I view the Modernist dead-end, I agree -- They are reactionary, and in some cases dueling, absolutism. <br>

Unashamed whimsical sampling of historical and cultural forms in response to the seeming dead-end of Modernist ideas is probably the most accessible PoMo characteristic in the arts. "Anything goes" is emblematic of our times. Photographers, gifted by digital fate, gleefully embrace it. Can't say much about that sort of sampling in non-art fields. <br>

Neo Genomic evolutionary theory I dig but the specialist jargon is also tough.</p>

 

[g_bor_t_r_csik_nagy]

<p>Thank you Julie and Kristina for the insight.<br>

Thanks Alan for that recommendation on Baudrillard, but the i can't seem to find this book. (I live in Serbia so i can't order via Amazon... hurray :( )<br>

Yes, Arthur, i too like the relativistic philosophys of PoMo, i think this is what has drawn me to it. Oh, and thanks for connecting that dot on PoMo and Gursky! Really helpful.<br>

Question, the use of computers to change 'what is' in a photograph is definitely a postmodern thing. Are there some photographers that you know of who use this to challenge notions/thoughts about reality?</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Google images: "Baudrillard Photographies 1985 - 1998" will get you some of his pictures among the litter. Sorry you can't get a look at the book.<br /> Correction,<br /> Evo Devo (evolutionary developmental biology) is the term I meant. Not "Neo Genomic" which turns out to be some sort of video game console! Neither of which have anything to do with the OP. Sorry.</p>

[lynnthomas]

Found this

 

 

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/pomo.html

[g_bor_t_r_csik_nagy]

<p>Thank you Lynn!<br />I'll read it tomorrow!</p>

[andrew_molitor]

<p>Is it just me, or is the stuff at that georgetown link pretty much just gibberish?</p>

[lynnthomas]

The OP asked for help and I found the link thinking perhaps it might at least help his research or be an

interesting read. I don't have an opinion on the content one way or another. Alot of things are gibberish.

[g_bor_t_r_csik_nagy]

<p>Yes, Lynn it was helpful!<br />Though i know many of the concepts written there, still it's very good to have all the info at one place!</p>

[andrew_molitor]

<p>Not busting on you, Lynn. Any writings on postmodernism just tend to descend rapidly into gibberish, occasionally surfacing for air from time to time.</p>

 

[alan_zinn]

<p>Lynn,<br /> Thanks for that!</p>

[jonathancharlesphoto]

<p>If you strip away the various authors' specific angles the overall theme of post-modernism (in art criticism) is IMHO that the creative process is not really the work of the artist as an individual but a result of the philosphical milieu at the time and the person's development. This is reflected in works of art which concentrate, often in a quite unreal way, on the process of construction - which is seen as somehow more important than what has been constructed (if anything). Like most fashionable (at some time) movements there is some value in the ideas, even if they are only part of the story.</p>

<p>The contrast is on one hand with modernism which was a movement of intellectuallising and driving forwards the creative process in a consciously intentional way (impressionism, expressionism, cubism, surrealism etc.). On the other hand with "post-postmodernism" which is a rejection of process in favour of content and its emotional impact - a "new romanticism", in some ways harking back to a kind of un-focussed pre-raphaelite and even renaissance approach.</p>

[g_bor_t_r_csik_nagy]

<p>Thanks Jonathan for that!<br /><br />Yes, for me, it seem kind of interesting that in postmodernism the critical and philosophical aspect in art is so much present. As far as i know it wasn't that much present in past art movements, so i think it's a very interesting period we are in, where the arts are blending (and bending :) ) with other things.</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>Gabor, your way of going about this (as proscribed by your teacher I'm sure) demonstrates the uselessness of a college "education", and by extrapolation, why the world is in the awful state that it's in. Developing a point of view, or bias, and THEN fitting it into something is hopeless. I am just amazed that people, who I am sure have some native intelligence, still do this. It's absolutely the back ass wards way to go about seeing reality. The idea of seeing reality is to get ourselves, our biases and theories, out of the way, and observe what is in front of us. Simply that, THEN write on what we have observed and see if it goes into a path, or way of thought. But you can't make any money operating like this. No long winded, incomprehensible essays that you cajole people into publishing, so that you can either get a degree, or keep the one you have. Well, things are the way they are, the educational system isn't going to change just because it doesn't work (because it doesn't HAVE to change. It's really about getting as much money as possible from students to support the sky high salaries of those at the top). But it's important to understand what's up. It's important to speak up, whether you're heard or not, whether it makes any difference or not. </p>

[g_bor_t_r_csik_nagy]

<p>Hi Steve!<br>

Yes, you are right, and i agree with you, education is flawed, but hey what can we do? It will only change if it collapses, and is then rebuilt. Until then nothing will happen.<br>

Anyway, when i wrote: "doing a paper" i meant my master thesis, and also we have changed it's title to 'postmodern aspects of Andreas Gurskys photography'... and when i'll finish the first draft, i think i will have some more questions for you guys! ...i'll start a new topic then...<br>

Thank you all for the help!</p>