Modernism, in the fine arts, a break with the past and the concurrent search for new forms of expression. Modernism fostered a period of experimentation in the arts from the late 19th to the mid-20th century, particularly in the years following World War I.
So modernism can be what can be created at an specific moment in time, with the materials available at that specific time and becomes the new norm, fad or in fashion.
It's a very good video that gave me a some new info on modernism. However, at some stages it's as if your voice cuts out and skips scenes... just something to look at.
I know this video is old but it bothers me that you keep on saying "you know" and "right", no, i don't know and i can't confirm either, that's the reason i'm watching this video. Other than that, very informative, thanks, my teacher uses this in class.
This video is why nobody trusts academics. The whole concept behind post-modernism is that the meaning of words will be destroyed in order to make it impossible to judge the validity of a particular insight or criticism. This means that what makes a criticism true is WHO says it, not WHAT is said, it is nothing short of Orwellian. This consolidation of power, this shutting down of any process that could provide a check or balance to academic criticism is nothing short of a betrayal of Western Civilization. Academia has become little more than a popularity contest. We live in a dark age indeed.
+Newk Leuz I'm not entirely in disagreement with you; but there are many aspects to postmodernism, and what you are describing is really a subset of postmodernism, critical theory such as poststructuralism or deconstruction and its political offshoots. Postmodern art and literature does not necessarily have the same agenda. And, moreover, there is a philosophical aspect of the whole thing which undermines all stable meanings, presumably not just what but who. . . .
Idiot, post-modernism is about philosophically generated art. We are in an age that requires answers to questions that haven't been thought up yet. We need to stimulate the brain, not spoon feed it redundancy. The only people who live in the dark ages are people like yourself who can't let go of obsolescence.
The mind forrms and shapes matter -dust into what it wills, Unfortunately they have forgotten the ways of God and greed and pride abound and is the reason things are the way they are it is a spiritual problem of the conscious mind.
Modernism is typically seen as ending with the end of World War II. We are in the period of postmodernism. But that's not to say modernism is not with us today. There certainly are elements of it, but it is not the predominant mindset among the intellectual and artistic elite.
They rejected tradition because all these new things were coming out like vehicles, the camera, buildings, music, also, people were tired of religion and the inferiority of women for example. Also, all this money came out during WWI and people were indulging in it, which caused morality to decline and the ideas of the West to change. Like the optimism to fight for your country... and they were having more empty and meaningless lives. Plus, some people became very rich while others became extremely poor. There was a big decline in morality so maybe they feared what more progress could mean to society. I could have probably explained this better but hopefully the author of this video will come on here and help me out and correct me if I am mistaken.
I agree with you, it is confusing. I think modernism was all about progress, change, the new. Ezra Pound's modernist dictum, "Make it new." Modernist literature and music was all about being different, new, innovative, unique- anti-tradition. I don't think modernism was anti-progress. In architecture it was all about progress, away from the old which was considered mere imitation, and into the pure machine for living. Futurism, a 'sister of modernism,' worshipped progress, technology, and youth. It was Post-modernism that questioned all and any ideology.
I might be wrong, but weren't modernists sceptical of historicism? (i.e. the idea that history moves in inevitable stages, often in a linear fashion) Modernists are not necessarily futurists, who look to the futuristic. Modernists are perhaps focused on "now" as opposed to the future or the past, which I guess they might see as outdated or non existant/illegitimate. Maybe this explains the stream of consciousness in modernist literature, and the lack of linearity? Just putting out ideas here, not sure if they're true.
+Marc-Oliver Heim The course itself is not available online to the general public, only the power-point lectures that I made to support the course. Thanks for your interest.
This is soooooo wrong it’s unbelievable. Duchamps fountain is postmodern not modern. Nietzsche is a radical subjectivist which is where the postmodernist drew inspiration. God soo wrong. Go read again.
Duchamps' fountain was 1917 at the very start of the modernist period. You can hardly be "postmodern" before modernism is really even under way. Most people understand that postmodernism begins after WWII. Not sure where you're getting your information. Nietzsche certainly influenced postmodernism but he also influenced modernism as well as pre-modernist like Freud.
Balazs on Culture formerly Western Humanities II In Toynbees reading postmodernism is placed at the beginning with the First World War. Vico lived before the enlightenment and can certainly be described as postmodern. Spengler is also postmodern( cultures are organisms each with their own truths) The very idea of the premodern, modern, postmodern rubric is very modern in itself. Postmodernists are relativistic and subjective by definition. Nietzsche is counter enlightenment and therefore not modern as modernity and the age of reason(enlightenment) are one and the same! Wolins and Berlins work on counter enlightenment are relevant here.
@@brianogsmyth7161 Some scholars choose to use the term "postmodern" in ahistorical ways with which I do not generally agree. Relativism is hardly something new to Western culture and has probably always existed in some form. Using terms like "postmodern" to refer to something that pre-existed modernism is highly problematic in my view. It denudes the term of any historical sense. And I'm not talking about "modernity." That has various meanings. In some contexts it basically refers to anytime after the Middle Ages. I knew a scholar who joked about Ancient Egypt constituting "modernity" in comparison to what preceded it. I'm not discussing modernity but "modernism," which is an intellectual movement with specific historical boundaries, 1870 to 1945 at the broadest. And "postmodernism" is a reaction to that historical period and, therefore, cannot precede it. There may be people who "anticipated" postmodern attitudes but they cannot be said to be postmodern unless you use the term in a very different way than I and most scholars mean it. The fact is, to some extent the term has become political, and it is in some ways in some folks' interest to claim certain figures for "postmodernism." I have seen, for example, James Joyce referred to as "postmodern," which in my view is just silly since he is a chief representative of High Modernism. You can use the word however you want. But in my video it is meant largely as a way of explaining a reaction to modernism not as some sort of free-floating set of ideas and attitudes that can be attributed to anyone at at any time. As for Toynbee, looking briefly at the reference, I see he uses the term "Post-Modern Age." That is not the same as "postmodernism." The space between the words makes all the difference; "Post-Modern Age" refers to modernity (see above), so I'm guessing his term is probably closer in meaning to what scholars today would call "modernism" than to "postmodernism."
Balazs on Culture formerly Western Humanities II If you understood postmodernism you would recognise that I’m using the term in a postmodern way(denoting it to people who lived before modernism in your schema). Your analysis is in itself based on modernist thought. You desire a meta narrative in which everything must have its place and order. This is not necessary in postmodern thought e.g Fukuyamas linear view of history is based on a teleological modernist reading. Such meta narratives had certainly been dominant in the West since the enlightenment. The enlightenment age of reason, modernism, modernity are all one and the same. The the post-modern age that Toynbee refers begins with the loss of faith in modernity(which is modernism)that had characterised and dominated western thought( the notions reason, rationality, progress etc) and where called into doubt due to the horror of industrialised warfare that they had produced. I guess your more on the arts spectrum of the humanities however so I respect that your concept of modernism in the arts and literature will be different to what I’m referring to. It’s more the philosophy of history that concerns me regarding modernism.
