Re: [microsound] neo-modermism

["ph!L @ c e n t i b e l" <hellomynameisphil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

------=_NextPart_000_C3BA_01C2A3A6.74EDDF00
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>The more I read Manovich, the less I like, particularly from the
standpoint=20
>of someone with an interest in sonic art forms and literature. I would
be=20
>much less bothered by a return to Klee et all than to the sort of
modernist=20
>theoretical underpinnings that Manovich attempts to resuscitate. _The=20
>Language of New Media_ points the way to the return of the very worst
sort=20
>of modernism, with its overemphasis on the visual form as having a
direct=20
>line to cultural truths. "Generation Flash" is even more offensive in
its=20
>obsessive equation of the visual with Hegelian idealism and the spirit
of=20
>the age embodied in the form of cultural heroes. Coupled with the
"belief in=20
>science and rationality", this is going to take us right back into the
worst=20
>form of false enlightenment already thoroughly dismantled by Horkheimer
and=20
>Adorno.=20

do you think there's a way we could return to (some aspects of)
modernism without falling into the traps you identify? Is there some way
to "integrate" modernism with postmodernism in some useful way? You talk
about "the very worst sort of modernism"; what is "the very best sort?"
And maybe we should spell out what exactly is wrong with "a belief in
science and rationality." Is there another "science and rationality" we
could go (back) to without duplicating all the worst aspects of
modernity? What about Critical Art Ensemble's use of science?

>More importantly, I think this whole supposition that pits modernism
against=20
>postmodernism as a dialectic is a mistake. Postmodernism was already
the=20
>fulfillment of modernism, not its antagonist; in fact, postmodernism is
the=20
>synthesis of modernism and its antithesis, which was the bourgeois
mimetic=20
>realism of the 19th century.=20

I need some clarification here. You say that the relation between
modernism and postmodernism is not dialetical. Then you use dialectical
language to describe the relationship between mod and pomo.

>You can already see that Manovich is stumbling into the worst pitfalls
of=20
>modernism by the fact that he uses the word "new" four times in this
short=20
>paragraph to set off key terms. All of this is old news ... pun
intended ...=20
>buying into the project of a singular cultural agenda moving toward=20
>perfection through history.=20

Is there a possibility of using the word "new" in a contingent
(postmodern) way?

Not arguing, just engaging.

ph

>-=3DTrace=20
>
>
> To return to the topic of new modernism. Of course we don't want to
simply=20
> replay Mondrian and Klee on computer screens. The task of the new=20
>generation=20
> is to integrate the two paradigms of the twentieth century: (1) belief
in=20
> science and rationality, emphasis on efficiency, basic forms, idealism
and=20
> heroic spirit of modernism; (2) skepticism, interest in "marginality"
and=20
> "complexity," deconstructive strategies, baroque opaqueness and excess
of=20
> post-modernism (1960s-). At this point all the features of the second=20
>paradigm=20
> became tired clich=E9s. Therefore a return to modernism is not a bad
first=20
>step,=20
> as long as it is just a first step towards developing the new
aesthetics=20
>for=20
> the new age.=20
> Lev Manovich - "Generation Flash"=20

_______________________________________________________________
Get the FREE email that has everyone talking at
http://www.mail2world.com

------=_NextPart_000_C3BA_01C2A3A6.74EDDF00--

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