You are on page 1of 5

Luca Petracca

Final assignment Music aesthetic

A thought about postmodernism

Its absolutely not an easy task to talk about art, to explain, describe or give clear parametres and
definitions to the concept of art. Im often even doubting if it can ever be possible to achieve this
goal.
I have to admit that at the beginning of this writing i feel a bit like into the Hippias Major dialougue
where Socrates and Hippias try, with several and different attempts, to find an answer to the
question: what is the beauty?. Now in my case the question would be what is postmodernism?,
what is the concept of art in the postmodernist era?.
I would like immediately to clarify that this paper is certainly not an attempt to give any absolute
answers, or any real truth about this subject; through an analysis of its history, events and
descriptions i would love to focus and push our attention to think deeply about an era that, maybe,
we are still living. Looking for its qualities, dangers, problems, uncertainties and where this is
leading to.
To discuss, describe and try to put on a paper years of history it has never been an easy thing, but i
guess its even harder when you try to do it with something which is not over yet, that is just around
you, without any real boundaries or time limits, something which you, unconsciuosly, experience
every single day and something where, without even noticing, you play a role in, you act, you are
part of it. Its always really complicated to take distance from something you live with or you touch
every day, even if you hate it or love it, you are anyway involved.
Personally each time i have been reading a history book or something concerning concepts or eras,
not single events, i never expected to find the key to understand what really happened or if what
happened was good or bad, i just try, through the readings, to inform my self and to build my own
personal way to look at the things.
So my aim in this writing wont be to finally show you or make you understand what really means
postmodernism, im still looking for this too, but i hope to share with you a part of my personal
experience and my journey to the discovery and understanding of this ambiguous thing called
Postmodernism.

- Definitions of postmodernism:
The word postmodernism is not only awkward and uncouth; it evokes what it wishes to surpass or
suppress, modernism itself. The term thus contains its enemy within1. This statement by Ihab
Hassan immediately suggests a specific approach for the understanding of the argument; indeed it
highlights the strong connection between Modernism and Postmodernism. These two artistic trends
are obviously really connected with each other, the first reason is for a chronological cause, and
someone could see the postmodernism as a reaction to the modernism era or just as a natural

1 Ihab Hassan, The question of postmodernism, Performing Arts Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1981), pp. 30-37, published by Performing Arts Journal,Inc.

extension of it.
Modernism and postmodernism are not separated by an Iron Curtain or Chinese Wall, for history is
a palimpsest, and culture is permeable to time past, time present, and time future. We are all, I
suspect, a little Victorian, Modern, and Postmodern, at once. And an author may, in his or her own
lifetime, easily write both a modernist and a postmodernist work.2 Being chronologically right one
after each other and having several artists (composers like L. Berio, I. Stravinsky or P. Boulez) who
operated during both periods in a continuous artistic evolution which embrace the two cultural
trends its not easy to define if one is just a reaction to the other one or a trasformation of the same
thing. Maybe these two definitions are both right; in the course of the history everything might be
seen as an evolution of the past and at the same time like a reaction to it. Isnt Classicism a
reaction/evoultion from the Baroque time, or Romanticism to the Classicism? Even more, talking
about artistic and philosophical movements, which dont have an exact date of birth or death, its
impossible to make strict separation between reaction and evolution. I would rather say that
reactions made and still make the evolution possible. The human, artistic or philosophical evolution
is just a continuous series of reactions in the history.
One must accept (and the modernists are the first who should do so) that postmodernism is not an
enormous departure from modernism, but rather a capillary system of revisions and
transformations.3

Differences between modernism and postmodernism:

Obviously there are differences; i would like to start from three typical statements about art for
postmodernists, which basically rapresents the main differences with the modernists view on art,
and they will be our main point of discussion.
There are no formal boundaries between art and life (rejection of modernist artistic autonomy)
The formal properties of an artwork do not determine its relative worth
Art is performative; it is neither good nor bad, it just is
The cancelation of boundaries between art and life with the rejection for the separation between
high art and low art is one of the most visible differences which create a break between the two
eras. Indeed postmodernists totally rejected the modernist artistic autonomy, considered too
idealistic, far from the historical circumstances and the social environment, claiming for purity and
absolute truth. This idea of the absolute truth or beauty is something that postmodernists
absoultely reject. The concept of art is not something abstract, unmaterial or out of reality, it is part
of our every day life, connected with the historical circumstances and the time we are living in.
Indeed the formal properties and craftsmanship play a secondary role; they cant determine the
quality of an artwork, they are just a superficial aspect.
As the artist Marcel Duchamp said about his painting: I do care about ideas, not only about what is
visible. I wanted to bring back painting in attendance of the mind. [] Painting shouldnt be just
visual and figurative. This kind of idea, coupled with an emphasis on simplicity as a reaction of
the complexity and elitism of modernists, brought to extreme examples of artworks, like

2 Ihab Hassan, The question of postmodernism, Performing Arts Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1981), pp. 30-37, published by Performing Arts Journal,Inc.
3 Maurizio Ferraris and Anna Taraboletti Segre, Postmodernism and the Deconstruction of Modernism, Design Issues, Vol. 4, No. 1/2, Designing the
Immaterial Society (1988), pp. 12-24, published by The MIT press.

Fountain by M. Duchamp in 1917, where the piece of art consists only of a common urinal. No
craftmanship, no technical skills, absence of formal properties, just the materialization of a concept.
This kind of examples, which can be found also in music in pieces like Four by J. Cage or
Intersection 3 by M. Feldman, may assume also a provocative aspect. Indeed the figure of the artist
started losing its ego; not-intentional composers like Cage (although he is also considered a
modernist composers, which is another good example to understand the ambiguity and the absence
of a strict border between the two musical trends) wanted to get rid of the individualism which
deeply characterized modernism and the previous eras.
Its easy to imagine what kind of strong reaction and shock this big change caused on art-users; it
was a revolution of expectations, a game played between artists and their audience.
Obviously also the judgment parameters to define, interpret or understand an art work totally
changed with the arrival of postmodernism.
About the interpretation and the view of a work of art David Novitz writes: First, with regard to
the theory of interpretation, postmodernists argue that there is and can be no such thing as a true
interpretation, while many who are influenced by the central tenents of philosophical modernism
argue that any interpretation is either true or false, and that for any work of art there is and must
be a single true interpretation. Second, while modernists are of the view that a work of art can be
genuinely good, [] postmodernists see artistic merit as a function of contingent historical and
cultural circumstances, and argue that what makes a work of art good or beatiful is not a set of
intrinsic features of the work, but the historically derived values and conventions [].
[] There are no intrinsic features that distinguish art from non-art.4

Consequences of postmodernism:

I would love to focus mainly on this last sentence that deeply struck my attention the first time i
started to research about postmodernism. We already saw how postmodernists strongly rejected that
idea of any kind of possible intrinsic value of a piece of art which makes it good or bad. For them
everything is connected to the historical circumstances and the formal properties can not determine
its relative worth.
I dont want, and i cant assert if this statment is good or bad, but im costantly wondering if is
either possible or not to completely ignore the formal properties of what we listen or see.
Eventhough an artist may express or represent unmaterial feelings or ideas he/she must find a
material way to do it, which contains formal properties in itself. Write a poem, make a sculpture,
painting, compose a symphony, they all contain, if you want it or not, formal properties that are
visible, touchable, hearable and, i would say, unignorable. The formal properties of an artwork, are
inescapably part of it.
My question would be: is it really possible to ignore them?Are we, as human beings, able to forget
about the more material, or what a postmodernist would call the more superficial aspect, of
what we perceive? Most probably a postmodernist will say that we are, or we should be able to do
it; but i would like to investigate more in this direction, and more than assure if its possible or not i
will try to analyse and to find the consequences and the risks of such a view.
My biggest fear is about losing our perception of art, getting lost, artists and art benificiaries, in a
random and endless world of possibilities, which doesnt offer much freedom but, on the contrary,
reduce our imagination and expressiveness. Its like being in front of a big supermarket shelf, full of
many different brands which contains all the same kind of product and we can just guess, whithout

4 David Novitz, The boundaries of art, 1992, Cybereditions, pp. 158, 159

any deep and real knowledge of what we are going to buy, which one could be the best choice that
will satisfy our needs; are we really able to choose? The fact that there are no intrinsic features that
distinguish art from non-art and the absence of an absolute truth make us all precarious and
vulnerable. The lack of a linear logic might lead just to a chaos, with the risk of a feelings and
judgment criteria globalization.
Modernism was born in a growing emphasis on the autonomy and the achievements of the
individual, where works of art were unique, objects of beauty created by the inventiveness of
talented individuals. Art was separated from the everyday life, its intrinsic artistic nature makes it
survive across cultures and times. The idea of genius, people with outstanding natural talents,
increased even more the idea of uniqueness.
Postmodernism art begins with an assault right on these limitless boundaries of art; a refusal to see
art as something purely formal and detached from life. Enlightenment thought and Idealism, which
were the ground basis of modernism, were totally rejected.
As D. Novitz wrote: The motivation for postmodernism comes from two seemingly different
sources. The first is an emphasis on and almost sentimental yearning for community, coupled with a
marked hostility to the emphasis placed by Enlightenment philosophy on the natural powers and the
autonomy of the individual5.
The comunity idea is a pilar for the postmodernism thought, not the talent of a few individuals,
but the social and the historical circumstances.
Probably all of these statetments, which try to describe and explain the concept of postmodernism
with its origins and aims, dont offer yet a clear view about it. As J. Kramer writes Postmodernism
is a maddeninigly imprecise musical concept; indeed one of the main risks and consequences that
postmodernist era brought is the open-endedness, a lack of clearness and linear logic which led, and
probably its still leading, the world of art into an obscure, indeterminate and vulnerable status.
Being still unable to clearly define what the term postmodernism applies to, what it contains, and
what makes it practically different from modernism, its a clear warning. Within the same artistic
trend there are so many different fringes which often make impossible to find the real boundaries of
this era. As Umberto Eco wrote: Postmodernism is not a trend to be chronologically defined, but
rather an ideal category, or better still, a way of operating. We could say that every period has its
postmodernism6.
Obvisously it has never been easy to strictly define the time limits of a historical period or its
specific properties, and even more talking about modernism and postmodernism, which are still so
present and alive it makes it even harder. The enormous amount of innovations happened in the XX
century, the technological revolution, which recently bacame more a technological saturation of our
society, and the globalization which broke all the boundaries making every cultural exchanges
possible, contributed enormously to create this chaos. It seems like that the techological revolution,
which is also considered one of the main reason for the birth of postmodernism, ran faster than
human brains. Postmodernism derives from the technological extension of consciousness, a kind of
twentieth century gnosis7.


5 David Novitz, The boundaries of art, 1992, Cybereditions, pp. 157
6 J.D Kramer, The nature and origins of musical postmodernism, Current Musicology 66, 1999. Republished in Postmodern Music/Postmodern
Thought, ed. Judy Lochhead and Joseph Auner, pp. 14 (New York: Routledge, 2002)
7 Ihab Hassan, The question of postmodernism, Performing Arts Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1981), pp. 35, published by Performing Arts Journal,Inc.

Conclusions:

As i said at the beginning, the aim of this paper is not an attempt to give a true and unique definition
to postmodernism, many theorists much more experienced than me already tried, and not even to
show if its good or bad, right or wrong, this i leave it to your considerations, but i rather wanted to
stimulate your attention on this topic. We, as art lovers, should try to be more aware of the era we
are living in, try to see its qualities and its weak points in order to get the, possibly, right way and
move on, bringing our share to it.
I believe, even though might be a bit negative view, we live in a really tough time, a swerving era
which doesnt have any stable points to lean on. Art world lost his main pilars, everything became
possible, everything might be good, we confused freedom with anarchy; for a kind of fake
politeness we started to accept everything which is in front of us losing or flattening out our
sensibility and perception of art.
In the past, in music for example, we saw like the presence of leading figures like Beethoven in
primis, first to break the line between classicism and romaticism, and Wagner later who started to
sign the end of XIX century music, were essential to take directions and move on. You might have
been with them or against them, finding your own way to react or continue their steps. Or in other
cases, the presence of regimes, like in Russia for example, which forced the artists to create
something that could suit their ideals, stimulated artistic reactions.
On the other hand nowdays we dont have any kind of guide lines, nothing to react to or to be up
for, and we ended up getting stuck in an era which we are not even able to define or to understand
completely.
Modernism and Postmodernism, if still make sense to give them two different names, are both
responsible for this artistic crash. They both closed their self into an isolated artistic world, unable
to communicate with the surrounding reality. The extreme elitism of modernism, that somehow it is
still present, created just a detachment between artist and benificiary of art; a gap which
postmodernism, that personally i see as just another kind of elitism with a different way of
operating didnt manage to fill.
Obviously these are just my modest and personal ideas, and im not trying to convince you or not of
their veracity, it would be enough if i managed to stimulate some reactions, positive or negative, it
doesnt matter, as long as we dont lose our sensibility and our capability of making choices.

Bibliography:
-

J.D Kramer, The nature and origins of musical postmodernism, Current Musicology 66, 1999. Republished in Postmodern
Music/Postmodern Thought, ed. Judy Lochhead and Joseph Auner, pp. 14 (New York: Routledge, 2002)

Ihab Hassan, The question of postmodernism, Performing Arts Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1981), pp. 35, published by Performing Arts
Journal,Inc

David Novitz, The boundaries of art, 1992, Cybereditions

Modernity and Modernism, Postmodernity and Postmodernism: Framing the


IssueAuthor(s): Jochen Schulte-SasseSource: Cultural Critique, No. 5, Modernity and Modernism, Postmodernity and
Postmodernism (Winter, 1986-1987), Published by: University of Minnesota Press.

Maurizio Ferraris and Anna Taraboletti Segre, Postmodernism and the Deconstruction of Modernism, Design Issues, Vol. 4, No. 1/2,
1988, published by The MIT press.

You might also like