After Postmodernism | 1. What (Really) Was Postmodernism? 

"We live in such strange times, Welcome to 2019" if only you knew 🤣

Holy shit. Share this series with everyone you know people.

Thanks a lot for the job you have done on this series. It feels like breathing! I have been puzzled by the post-modern cul-de-sac for a while and could never wrap my head around the concepts you explicit super well in the series. I think it is of great help to have these words and concepts when writing now. I do wish you the best success!

Excellent presentation. Thank you!

Agree strongly with how you summarize PM. I'm reading Jameson now, so I look forward to the next videos. I don't know if I'd whole-hog on the Eggers re-class mentioned by others below. I know where they're coming from, but I think Eggers straddles BOTH periods (interesting that he foreworded an edition of Infinite Jest--I consider Wallace a Metamodern thinker who still used many conventions of PM in his writing). Anyway, really enjoy the series (and some of your other videos I've watched) and hope to meet you at a conference someday. Thank you!

Thank you for this. It is time for a new era of expression and formulation in the guise of a tangible reality. This slipping into all too human post human world gripping us dance away from it. The dire belief of our extinction and stagnation has brought forth passions that were put to sleep after WW2. A renaissance is amongst us my fellow Spaceship Earth travelers.

Just discovered this. Already a great find. I would enjoy hearing your specific thoughts on some of the new contemporary representational/figurative painting that you show in some clips. Maybe you do in the following videos, I guess I will see.

So glad I found you. Postmodernism is doing my head in.

great work and great story telling : )

Enjoy your explanation with laxed tone and I feel at ease. Thanks

Great Content - Subscribed

Superb.

The fundamentals listed under Politics are very modern if using Integralist's idea of modernism. 1950-2000 wasn't postmodern in all sectors. Cultural lag is a thing. Postmodernism in politics is really only just beginning even if it's over with in art and theory.

Nice work! It makes it all so much clearer when we see compared images side by side, like you did with post-modernist x modernist x tradition, well done! I would put Dave Eggers´s HWSG on somewhere else AFTER POSTMODERNISM . The same with Kaufman´s Adaptation which, in my opinion, could be seen as Metamodern or at least a bridge from PoMo to Meta. Tks for the video!

Now the next time I walk into Santa Maria della Vittoria, I'm going to say "Oh, how deliciously postmodern." Perhaps anyone in a church today is themself a sad, not unironic objet d'art. Love your breakdowns, as always! My only quibble would be that "cynical" be the epithet applied to Radiohead--I would almost say "despairing" or "hopeless." They're postmodernism's last gasps, perhaps, but as often happens, death rattles inhale the first whiffs of a newborn world.

I'd argue that there was never anything "Postmodern" about Postmodernism. The entire concept feels like the most Modernist shit ever. If anything, it's "High Modernism" or "Middle Modernism" (assuming something like Metamodernism would be "Late Modernism"). It was the stage of pure Modernism that emerged once there was no one left around that could remember a time BEFORE Modernism (which is why 90% of the time, it simply refers to "self-referential Modernism" or even "self-hating Modernism"). I don't think that Modernists being critical of Modernism means they've broken into some new era, especially when there's no real foundation for a new era for them to stand on (the whole movement was purely critical - famous lacking any substantive alternative... which is why Metamodernism is not really a new era either, but instead a "contraction" as you say, and all about stopping the baby from being thrown out with the bathwater - because like "Postmodern," it too is still completely under the umbrella of Modernism).

Very well done, but definitely needs to be brought up to date as we are going through a sort of philosophical revolution in summer of 2021. The public (and this is displayed across the globe) is rejecting social ideas of postmodernism, such as CRT, LBGTQ+ mandates, reactions to covid-19, defunding police and more.

Really great format! Lots of material here and obviously you can't cover all the minutia. Maybe just my bias but would've liked to see more on the role of late stage capitalism in the _commodification of everything_ even, and especially, our lives - the minutes (ad content), hours (gig economy), days (jobs/careers), or years (pursuing higher education to make more money, enduring ever longer careers even as productivity has sharply risen). This trickles into all social stratum - that money = power, therefore less money (identity pay gaps) equal less power ad nauseum. physical objects (clothes, cars, houses) equalling identity. "personal brands" (e.g. how effective we are at selling ourselves). Not just that greed is good but that consumption, gratuitous consumption even, is a right and also right (to 'boost' the economy). The abstraction/cynicism of art, to me, seems like a symptom of this ideology that 'Worth' is really "value," monetary value, that is. Can't wait to see/hear more!

The emergence of Post modernism corresponded seamlessly with the advent of television. Post modernity's flip superficiality, cynicism, kitsch, irony, irreverence, connection to advertising's naked self promotion - all seemed to be underpinned by television. And TV returned the favor, by making pop art its movement of choice to promote in endless documentaries. With Warhol supplanting Jackson Pollack and Picasso as the media's artists of choice to cover. Post modernity began to wane as social media began to challenge the dominance of television. Social media with its information overload, brought with it uncertainty, a nebulous feeling of fractal chaos. And I'd say the post-post modern culture is in a nebulous chaos state, wherein no particular art defines the era. Only a general state of uncertainty pervades. No real art movements can emerge in this situation, because nothing is stable for long enough. Everything is constantly shifting and escapes definition. But in essence there should be a new realism that emerges, on climate change, on migration, on gun controls. A new passionate urgency. However, it seems the right have took the fag-end of post modernism and put it to use, as in it's the right now that is using the irreverence of post modernity to undermine a new angry left. Trump and Boris Johnson very much post modern figures, but a new dark post modernism. The dark side of the irony, the humour, the interplay of the past and present in kitsch repose.

For what it's worth, my personal hypothesis as to "why postmodernism?" is that it emerged as a reaction or response to ever-growing oppressive hyper-rigidity and religious devotion to operational and cognitive modes regarding those modes of operating as absolute, sacred, and taboo to deviate from. I feel that technological advancement, particularly in telecommunications and transport, yielding extra-cultural exposure.. that is to alternative modes of operation proven via their existence to be at least nearly as effective as the one(s) we so sacredly and reverently adhere to.. and so we experience this cultural crumbling of identity and structure. As the culture is being exposed to others it grows more self aware via the contrast to which to compare and a much grander and drastically more justifiable capacity for self criticism and cynicism emerges from the stage of cultural isolation. There is much more ripe ground on which to grow irreverence for the horses we've ridden in on. We begin to see the flaws and limitation of such horses growing disillusioned and embittered. Then we begin to poke fun at them and make light of it. Then we grow curious and deviate from our sacred modes and structures more and more. Eventually we lose our center, our sense of identity, our reverence for structure and the ground is pulled from beneath us as were left bereft of anything of depth to adhere to. Empty surfaces become what we have. The horses we rode in on are now dead or on their last breaths. We walk like zombies scouring a wasteland of disintegrated shards of interpretability, searching for depth, meaning, integrity, and identity. Something worthwhile to piece together from the ruins. Starving for meaning we hope and pray for a new, sacred horse on which to ride into the next horizon. But we've only one choice. To realize there is no new horse, accept the ground upon which we stand, start dissecting those old dead horses for the best of the best of what we've got to work with and try to build some new fucked up kind of Frankensteinian meta-horse that salvages and functionally integrates the best of our heritages so we can thus ride forth. I have no idea if this will be coherent. Lol. But to summarize I think we strayed from the modes and ways we got here that were holding us together as agents centered on points of unity. We strayed upon exposure to the larger network of modes which has yet to become integrated, and there is a process of disintegration and adaptive reconstruction necessary in order to integrate our smaller scale isolated cultural networks into the larger, higher order, becoming evermore integrated, inter-connected, and inter-dependent, globalized or holistic network. This globalized network demands a higher order than the small remote isolated network(s) and so the horses we've ridden in on have to largely die in order to fit the higher demanded. This order which is yet to be determined or realized.

Good thumbnail

Where did the slide from 0:48 to 1:00 come from? Great Video, Thanks

Thanks!

That hit hard during pandemic and war of Ukraine

2019 seems like such an innocent time now. My personal life was horrible but the world seemed more stable at least. Although it was really just an illusion

I love your thumbnail men, very accuarate. Can I ask what is the name of the painting?

why so few likes, the vid is awesome

Easy but fun animation at the beginning of the global falling

Where can I get that premodern/modern history chart? I want a copy.

Does anyone know where Brendan got the historical chronology of modernism and postmodernism starting at the 0:46 second mark?

Hello! Great series.. One question, the timeline at 0:50 Is that to be found somewhere online? I'd like a closer look at it.. Thanks

Could you share the link for the tables at min 1 and 3:11? Thank you!

Does anybody know where I could find the chart from minute 1?

What is the word centrist? I think people use it as a synonym for complacent and basically that's the correct synonym for that word because people that regard themselves as a centrist or people that want to avoid taking any kind of action or possessing any kind of opinion. 1:17

3:01 not because they think these are somehow real objective things, but because they offer useful, short-hand tools for talking about

Alright, just the background music is quite annoying, thanks just for your information

😎

Wait are you A. Reveran? Because that's word for word the first chapter of their book.

Want more references

q wea amigo como teni tan poco like y comentario. UP UP quena video

Postmodernism only pick up after the collapse of Soviet Union. Tough its genesis started with the May of 68. After the long recession of 2008/2011 the movement started it's late fase.

Okay but why is the soundtrack from a 70's porno

Metamodernism is usually a lack of understanding of postmodernism.

“Sardonic play and cynical irony”? Hm.. sounds rather “Lennonesque”, wouldn’t you say?

Postmodernism is only just getting started

jordan peterson is not an intellectual

There's no such thing as Postmodernism. There is only post-Modernism.

Omg so much pathos

Mmm, nope. People should really drop the PM nonsense as being a reality - I mean someone said it was an actual thing, and that it made sense to say Post but all arguments for it being useful fail. Modernity is larger than anything that PM speaks of and to suggest that there has been a paradigm without opposition is silly. Modernity is the larger shell (Globalism 1520, Ind. Rev. 1760, anti-Imperialism/Revolution 1789/91) within this shell, at least in the West, is the dialectic of Academy/Tradition and Critique/Novelty and what is called PM falls within Critique/Novelty. Continuing to ponder of PM one fails to speak to the persistent march of Modernity Tradition Control for the Richness of the Elite and their Rise above and separation from the People. Critique is larger than PM and Novelty more important. Also PM art and theory are generally crappy, or don't really like the moniker. I GenX say no thank you to anyone's PM sadness - long live DADA.

This is an excellent video. I look forward to watching the rest of this series, but you do make one extremely serious error here. Characterizing the postmodern period (roughly 1950 to 2000) as one of "laissez-faire capitalism" is -- forgive me -- breathtakingly stupid. It's an error roughly on par with, say, declaring that 12th century Italy was a secular society. The years 1950 -- 2000 witnessed an enormous growth in the degree and frequency of government intervention into the economy all over the Western World. The size of government, as a percentage of the total economy, grew continuously throughout those years. New government departments proliferated almost endlessly. Indeed, in the United States, the last year in which the size of the federal government actually decreased in absolute terms was 1946. Every year since, there has been nothing but growth in government and a corresponding diminution in the size of the private economy. Things have become so Orwellian in that respect that politicians began referring to a decrease in the originally projected rate of increase in government spending as a "cut" -- meaning that it's now possible for a politician to actually _increase_ the level of spending while claiming that he is "cutting" things (which is exactly what Reagan did, for example). Yes, it's true that massive financial institutions have emerged in that time, but this is due to their connections to the every-growing state and their ability to use that state to shield themselves from market competition. You could make a much better case for the existence of laissez-faire in the period 1850 -- 1900. The 20th century could much more justly be called the age of statism. It remains to be seen what the 21st century will be. Indeed, immediately after claiming that 1950-2000 was an age of laissez-faire, you point out that the period also witnessed the rise of the bureaucratic nation state -- not realizing that these two claims are contradictory (unless you mean something very different by "laissez-faire capitalism" from what most other people mean). As a rule, Continental critics of capitalism don't have the slightest idea of how economic systems -- whether capitalist, socialist or otherwise -- actually function, and have done nothing but pile inanities on top of one another when attempting to discuss economic systems. Centuries of well-developed economic theory exist for them to consult and learn from. If they did so, it would improve the quality of their analyses. But they are utterly uninterested in doing so. Indeed, I have the distinct impression that they regard economic theory as nothing but a series of rationalizations for the alleged depredations of the capitalist class, and therefore as not worth studying. Imagine if any other body of established knowledge were dismissed in a similar way. But other than this error, you've made a good video. It certainly does feel like the end of an era. No political system seems to deliver satisfying results anymore. The very idea of a society in which voters must choose between two different political parties -- even though the real diversity of ideological views in any large population can never be fully expressed this way -- is something quite stupid that itself needs to be transcended. I've been meaning to put my own thoughts on these matter in order for a long time, and you have re-ignited my desire to do so.

Peterson is no conservative. He's moderate left.

Bgm disgusting