From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Literature (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


I have restructured the article to be more appropriate from an etymological-, logical-, and Wikipedia article- standpoint. The History section goes first to give the background of the word (or topic of the article in general). The hodge-podge definition goes second, because chronologically, it is the earliest (as is done in Wikipedia articles), and helps show etymological progression. Finally, the imitation definition comes last, as it is the latest etymological take on the word (it also concludes with the ostensible see-also section, which often concludes most general articles anyway.) Clearly this is a better format, rather than having the newest take on the word first (which could be argued as pushing a newer definition for priority.) 22:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly disagree: "pastiche" is used today most often as a synonymn for assemblage. I.e. it is a combination of multiple elements, usually for humorous effect. It is also quite often derisive of the originals. Furthermore, although literary pastiche continues, the term is probably much more used in fine arts, where it can include collage and parodic mixtures of found elements. As post-modernism has risen, pastiche has become a favored technique again. It is also odd to omit reference to Dada and its use of pastiche.

Furthermore, the most common use of the word "pastiche" outside of the arts is for derogation. "Oh, that report? It was a pastiche of every press release the company has issued in the last year." user:Geogre

I agree as well. Pastiche is not exactly the same as pasticcio, and in my opinion, combining them would be a bad idea. anonymous user

Ya, never mind. I don't know what I was thinking. (I was 09:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There are external links in the 'Further Reading' section to Jameson, but you'll find Jameson in fact differentiates Pastiche and Parody. He claims that Pastiche is in fact "blank parody" and that the aim of Pastiche has never been humor. This theory is quite prevalent in post-modern thought, it needs to be added to this article if we really want a coherent discussion of the pastiche notion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

right away this article takes on frederic jameson's understanding of pastiche--in the 2nd, introductory sentence, in a way that is not neutral not necessarily true across the board. "Unlike parody, pastiche celebrates, rather than mocks, the work it imitates"-- I would argue this is a theoretical statement as opposed to a definition, and cannot be conceived of outside of the language of Jameson. I think you all should either cite Jameson right away if he is so influential or save this more theoretical statement for later. (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)random college student <3

Accuracy neutrality[edit]

I dispute the neutrality because of the comments about Tarantino; find a more neutral way of expressing the fact that his films are 'pastiche' but without saying "They're not original works of art- they're just copied." I don't mean to sound like one of the teen jerks on IMDB- I'm just pointing out the obvious bias the writer had against Tarantino's work. Andrewdt85 00:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hate to sound like a teen fanboy but how can a sentence like "The Star Wars series of films by George Lucas stands out for the relentlessly derivative nature of its plot and characters" be considered objective or neutral. I'd bet the author would never describe the films of Kurosawa as "relentlessly derivative" even though Hidden Fortress has much the same plot and characters as Star Wars and some of his best are simple Shakespeare riffs. Take the joy-sucking elitism somewhere else. Much thanks! Philhhc 05:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I have edited both sections in question to be of a NPOV and have removed the dispute tag. Pacian 07:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • to the writers defense, its been well documented by lucas himself that most of the ideas for stars wars come from kurosawa's hidden fortress, he's been very open about that fact.So technically you could call stars wars a pastiche as kurosawa was heavily influenced by the early american westerns of ford, so in turn stars wars pays homage to westerns and japan cinema


    • In philhhhc's defense, the phrase "relentlessly derivative" is not particularly neutral or even coherent.


I'm going to remove the opposition in the literary section between pastiche and parody. Literary parody, as seminally defined by Linda Hutcheon, is in fact respectful. It is indeed, innately respectful, for in the act of parody one assumes that the text parodied is worth the attention. So, when Rushdie parodies Dickens on the first page of Midnight's Children, for example, it is not necessarily a mocking or disrespectful gesture. Mcgma709 02:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Un-dicdef the article[edit]

The article is currently about a word, not a concept, and it's rather obvious that it's supposed to concentrate on the latter. Please try to amend this. Peter Isotalo 12:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A concept is an abstraction. That is, when perceiving several objects, an observer mentally removes their inessential characteristics and retains only what is common to all of the objects. The abstract object that remains, with only the characteristics that all the objects shared, is a concept. For example, the concept of a dog is a mental object that has four legs, fur, panting tongue, and barks when the doorbell rings. In order to communicate this concept with each other, various humans have created signs, such as "chien," "Hund," "dog," and "perro." These signs are words. So, what is the concept that is designated by the word pastiche? Does the word designate more than one concept, such as "mixture" and "copy?" If it does, then the sign is an ambiguous word.Lestrade 23:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade


In the "Pastiche as imitation" section, the following sentence occurs: Edvard Grieg's Holberg Suite was written as a conscious homage to the music of an earlier age. This is an example of the current use of the word "homage" to mean "imitation" or "copy." It is well to be aware when a word that has had an accepted, conventional meaning, like "homage," is used with a new, different meaning. In the same section, the phrase "pay tribute to" is also used as a euphemism for "imitation" or "copy". Lestrade 23:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Diacritics (Unicode)[edit]

Should be "Händel", no?

Not in English, no. Deipnosophista (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Languages of Pao[edit]

Is this section necessary? How does this novel and a fourth language called "Pastiche" say anything useful toward the word itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiralout987 (talkcontribs) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


What's the difference to Eclecticism? Could this be merged?

It's not clear to me how they might be related, the philosophy of varied and diverse schools of thought. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Certain meanings could be considered synonyms or subtypes. Worthy of a "see also" link (added) but not a merge, I think. -- Beland (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


Thumperward deleted all the references as well as the dictionary definition. I restored the refs but left the rest alone for now.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Relationship to postmodernism and intertextuality[edit]

The below was meandering and full of dubious claims which seem to be opinions unsupported by general academic consensus. I replaced it with "Pastiche is a form of intertextuality, which is sometimes associated with postmodernism.". -- Beland (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed text[edit]

Postmodern art, media and literature can be characterized by intertextuality as the narrative mode, and the postmodern period can be characterized by the death of the grand narratives as proclaimed by Jean-François Lyotard in The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (1979). The grand narratives such as religions, ideologies and the Age of Enlightenment project have been substituted by the small, local narratives, e.g. love of one’s family.

Pastiche is intertextual in its very form as it is a recreation of an earlier text. In the postmodern pastiche the older text (the hypotext) may reflect one of the bygone grand narratives, yet its new postmodern version may reflect a local narrative, so that the two enter into a dialogue in the pastiche. This is for instance the case with Francis Glebas' "Pomp and Circumstance" - the seventh segment in Fantasia 2000 from 1999, in which the grand religious narrative of the Deluge is merged with the local narrative of personal love, personified in Donald Duck and Daisy. Though the grand narratives may be dead as ontological frames, they can here in the pastiche narrative regain some of their ontological strength when the local narratives are confronted by them in this narrative way.

What is this article about?[edit]

Wikipedia articles are generally about things, not words. In the case of this article, several different concepts are being covered and this is inappropriate. Should we split it? Considering the things/words distinction, is there anything that might constitute content forkery that can be merged elsewhere? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 01:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


Is it correct to speak of Masses as having "movements"? It seems disrespectful to the liturgical context. Deipnosophista (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)