Re: [microsound] neo-modermism

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

------=_NextPart_000_899A_01C2A428.D8308220
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>Hi, Phil. Thanks for your comments, questions and further proddings on
this. 

ditto. :)

[snip]

>>>>>>>>>phil: 
>Is there a possibility of using the word "new" in a contingent 
>(postmodern) way? 
>
>Why should we have to? 

Why should we not have to? I'm just inquiring about (what you think
about) its possibilities. 

>And why equate the contingent with the postmodern? 

Not an equation, but to the extent that postmodernism is about
contingency, a contingent use of "new," in a way that doesn't drive
dialectically towards some goal of perfection, could be useful for
postmodernism. I guess I'm thinking about D & G's essay on concept,
percept, affect for example, in which they say (basically) that the role
of the philosopher is to create new concepts, and the role of the artist
is to create new sensory experiences. But in neither case is anything to
be resolved; both the artist and the philosopher should create new
questions, not supply new answers in anything but a contingent sense.
I'm not specifically arguing for this, just giving it (maybe not the
best example) of ways in which we can engage with "new" in a productive
way. 

Part of the reason why I ask is because if we more or less deliberately
avoid "new" in cultural practice, it may come back to haunt us; "new"
becomes postmodernism's abject (in the Kristevan sense) and becomes
reified as such (not that reification is always a bad thing). But if we
can engage with "new" in a provisional way, then I wonder what the
possibilties are.

>To 
>me it's redundant, as postmodernism is new-modernism, but it's
modernism 
>that had finally gotten over its obsession with the new. It just reeks
of 
>ruptures and breaks, discoveries and ideals, the novel of all things.
New 
>modernism, new generation (ad slogan), new aesthetics (come again?),
new age 
>..... oh brother (where art thou?). 

Again, I need clarification. You say that postmodernism has gotten over
its obsession with the new, and then you give examples of the ways in
which postmodernism obsessively talks about the "new". And, as above, I
wonder if this is the only way we can talk about "new"ness.

>>>>>>>>>phil: 
>Not arguing, just engaging. 

>Me too! 
>-=Trace 

Me three. 

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

------=_NextPart_000_899A_01C2A428.D8308220--

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