Talk:Postmodern art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

No Postmodernism[edit]

There is no post-modernism. It would only be tradition to accept this as a period in art. From a modern viewpoint this would be unacceptable, therefore, it does not exist unless we abolish the ideas and concepts behind modernism. Tara Zacharias tara_z@hotmail.com

At the moment that interpretation is not valid under Wiki NOR (no original research), as it is a personal interpretation. Wiki's policy is to show the range of existing attitudes to a subject, and there is a large body that subscribes to Postmodernism. If there is a source that does put forward the view above, then it can be quoted and referenced. This would then be NPOV (from a neutral point of view). I often put things in articles that I personally might not agree with, but it is part of objective knowledge.
Tyrenius 16:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius -- Postmodernism's own definition of itself is that it does not exist. Since it is self-contradictory, pointing that out is part of basic description. Bus stop 23:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

UTC - I completely concur, and so does Jameson in the introduction of his overly-cited book on the subject. At least that is one of the epocization theories he puts forth in his survey of the main Continental views at the time he was writing. His own position finally acknowledges Postmodernism as an effect within an structurally "realistic" epistemological order(though Jameson acknowledges that most so-called Postmodern philosophers, reacting against the Marxist and Freudian traditions in particular, tend to repudiate the notion of "structure," as a kind of hidden ideological totalitarianism, esp. in regard to semantics or to the analysis of culture). From a certain perspective, this is a contradictory viewpoint (much to Jameson's awareness) inasmuch as Postmodernism as a formal position would deny the possibility of pitting oneself against Totality in order to ascertain it's objective historical status, and deny the possibility of separating the "discourses" about any object from that object itself... This ushers in the famed collapse of metaphysics, epistemology, history, etc., the death of the subject, the death of the text, the death or revolutionary praxis, etc. Yet even if Postmodernism as a theoretical tenet is inconsistent with its annunciation, Jameson attempts to describe it ultimately as a form of false consciousness, a final frontier phase of Capitalist atomization and deterritorialization -- that is, the removal of material activity from the domain of the signified, the complete erasure of use value by the code of exchange value. Inevitably, this is tied to developments in some notion of the Base, the cultural Infastructure -- changes in media and information technology, atomic energy, digitalization and automation of the entirety of the social field. There are a great many critics of this position, albeit each with his own set of contradictions. (CBK, 01/23/08)


Tyrenius -- I wouldn't for a moment suggest removing the article. But inherent contradiction should be pointed out. Wikipedia's philosophy is that neutrality can be achieved even through the inclusion of points of view that conflict with one another. I would say that the concept of postmodernism is perfectly valid. But what postmodernism says about itself is inherently contradictory. To describe postmodernism while leaving out the contradiction embedded in it is to leave out one of it's most important component flavors. Bus stop 23:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove the "Post" in Modern Art[edit]

This comment was moved from the main page by Thaddius

Modern comes from the french 'moderne'. In the period of the 1930's the label of "modern" was used with the then contemporary art meaning that the art conveyed something of the spirit of the future as much in the spirit of the 1939 World's fair in Paris. The problem with the label of modernism happened when art history became more and more independent as a discipline from philosophy. Art historians confusingly saw the works of the Impressionist as separate from the arts of Van Gogh and Gaugain and named the latter as post-impressionist artists, even though Picasso experimented with the impressionist technique early in his career. So once the tag of "post" this or that became more disseminated by universities formulating art history departments with curriculums, art historians did not perhaps have the time to reflect on these divisions or call them into question - until now. As the discipline of art history matures, adjustments will be made, and slowly, the rest of the public will be better informed. By then we will have left the "posts" well behind. Perhaps a better distinction would be to divide the period of modern art into its CLASSICAL phase, its CONCEPTUAL phase, its CONTEMPORARY phase, and its INTERNATIONAL phase. Art4Humanists 05:35, 17 December 2006]] (UTC)

The proposed taxonomy, of course, is so utterly blunt, simplistic, generalizing and down-right-irrelavent to what has actually gone on in the last 100 years, that one would be hard pressed to conclude that Aristotle himself hadn't devised the categories... (CBK, 01/23/08)

Just as the other person who made the same point, you fail to realize that, despite some poeple believing that post-modernism doesn't exist, there are those who do for certain reasons. It is the same reason that there are articles on God when there are those who do not believe it exists. This is not a debate, it is a statement of an idea\view that is shared by a significant number of people. I do agree that is was naïve for people to label things with 'posts' but it still has just as much reason to be here as any other article. Also, do not post a comment in the main article. --Thaddius 22:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thaddius -- Post-modernism in the visual arts certainly exists. I wouldn't for a moment suggest removing the article. But the entire article happens to be, at present, unsourced. It would be hard to argue that some "comments" are "comments" and other "comments" are not "comments." Bus stop 23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please place the {{helpme}} tag on your user talk page. Wikipedia has a learning curve and you are not quite ready to edit. —Viriditas | Talk 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas -- This is a Talk page for the article "Postmodern art." Why are you being offensive? You have followed me here, just as you have followed me elsewhere on Wikipedia. What have I done to incur your wrath? You are probably in violation of some policy Wikipedia has against "stalking," or some such thing. Why don't you let up? Bus stop 00:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bus stop. See WP:HA. I asked you to place the helpme tag on your talk page for your own benefit, as I would like to see you keep editing. Many of your edits have been reverted by other editors, and I've had to fix errors you've introduced and violations of Wikipedia policy you've made. I don't want to harass you in any way, but you need to change the way you edit. Please place the helpme tag on your user talk page so that other editors (and admins) can help improve your Wikipedia experience. You asked me not to edit your talk page so I am using the article talk pages to communicate with you. In this instance, you are adding comments to the main article space when they should be placed on talk instead. You also require help with citations. Using the helpme tag will bring experienced Wikipedians to your talk page and they will be able to help you implement your edits. —Viriditas | Talk 01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas -- Why are you referring me to a Wikipedia page on the subject of harassment (WP:HA), when you are the one doing the harassing? I did not say that you could not post on my user Talk page. But after a dozen or so negative posts, I indicated a desire to extricate myself from that cycle of accusation and counteraccusation. In fact I explicitly said that if you had something "new" to contact me about, you should feel free to do so, on my user Talk page. I indicated that I would look forward to future dialogue between us to be "amicable." But you've followed me to articles on "Michael Richards," and now to this article on "Postmodern art." That is not the way you should be using Wikipedia. I have not been assigned to you for minding. I don't like the experience of having one individual following me around. If I encounter other editors wherever I go and they have criticism that is something that I will chalk up to a learning experience. But what you are doing has some of the characteristics of a personal vendetta. Please examine your own motivations. Bus stop 01:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bus stop. I gave you the link to WP:HA because you expressed interest in the policy. You made it clear that you didn't want me to edit your talk page. And, I've never edited Michael Richards, I just asked you a question about your edits. I've repeatedly asked you to use the helpme tag in order to attract other experienced Wikipedians who can help you with some of the problems you are encountering. I have no interest in any "vendetta" of any kind, nor is there any basis for one. All I would like for you to do is learn how Wikipedia works. Take the tutorial, find a mentor, request "adoption", or just review the policies. I have no interest in a content dispute with you. As you can tell, I disagreed with your edits to hippie but I did not revert them. As for your edits to this and other articles, you aren't following style guidelines and policies. There's no need to respond to this comment. Just place the helpme tag on your user talk page, and an uninvolved editor will help you with any questions. —Viriditas | Talk 02:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Virditas -- Thank you for the link to WP:HA. It was very interesting reading. Perhaps I misunderstood your motivation for posting it. I apologize for reacting the way I did. Be well. Bus stop 02:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Virditas -- And one more thing: If you disagreed with my edits to the "Hippie" article, why didn't you revert them, or change them in some way? It is my understanding that Wikipedia is founded on the idea that collaborative effort can result in good articles. Why would you choose to just leave something in the "Hippie" article that you disagreed with? Are you sure you didn't actually appreciate and agree with my input to the "Hippie" article? Bus stop 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is Alison Letter?[edit]

The link goes nowhere and googling her name just comes up with pages and pages of this quote about everything being done before. Since the statement could have been said by anybody, perhaps somebody can find something similar ascribed to a more significant authority (Baudrillard, Lyotard ...?).--Ethicoaestheticist 01:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit of detective work later: the Allison Letter bit was added 19:56, 23 December 2005 by 69.241.233.136 (no name). Perhaps it's time to cut. Apologies if you know/are Allison Letter.--Ethicoaestheticist 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What would be a photograph of Postmodern art?[edit]

The tag at the top of this Talk page requests "a photograph or photographs" of Postmodern art. The article says "Postmodernism is, by its very nature, impossible to define clearly." Is Postmodern defined by a point in time? Would a photograph of a work of art produced after a point in time be Postmodern? (Or is it only certain works of art, produced after a point in time, that are Postmodern?) How would one know that a work of art was Postmodern? Are there any examples of Postmodern works of art, whether we have photographs of them or not? Maybe I misunderstand this article, but how come it mentions no works of art? Bus stop 18:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples?[edit]

Can anyone point to even one artwork as an example of Postmodern art? If not, shouldn't this article be nominated as an article for deletion? Bus stop 00:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[1] Start here.

BTW there is a Wikipolicy entitled Neutral Point of View, you should read it. And many other informative pages that are attached to the community portal. Trolling is, in general, not a good way to deal with other editors. Since you've been trolling this article for a year, I would say that it is probably too late to convince you that the purpose of the 'pedia is not to memorialize your views on things, but to document the state of huamn discourse on a particular topic. But we have to keep trying.

Stirling Newberry 02:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolling the article? The article happens to contain no pictures of examples of "postmodern" works of art. The article does not say when "postmodernism" begins. And the article does not mention even one artist who is a practitioner of this category of art. What does neutral point of view have to do with anything I've said, anyway? Aren't these talk pages for raising such concerns as I have raised? Bus stop 02:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the link you provide above is just one artist's advertising site. It is not an authoritative source. Bus stop 15:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You are acting in bad faith. Stirling Newberry 03:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You are being non-conversational. I don't think an article should be a repository for hot air. If the article has something to say, I think it should get to the point. What is the point to having an article that nobody can understand? I would be glad to say I understood something from the article as it now stands, but I simply do not. Wikipedia does not need an article that fetishizes over nothing. Other articles on visual art, most anyway, make a reasonably successful attempt to define their subject matter. I am not accepting of vagueness. I am challenging the editors to get to the point and nail down the subject matter. As it stands I think it qualifies for deletion. Bus stop 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You are still acting in bad faith. Good faith is the basis required for having a conversation. Stirling Newberry 04:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How am I acting in bad faith? Bus stop 04:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that carping about an article not having detail and then reverting on sight is sufficient. You have been violating good faith for months on this talk page, and have now done so on the article. You are a clear POV troll who is trying to stop, not help, an article, who has failed to show any respect for NPOV or wikiquette and who you are running a bad faith revert war. You are clearly not qualified to edit this article.

Stirling Newberry 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have called other people trolls in this article's history. How do you know that I am not qualified to edit this article? On the article page you are removing things that other people put up. I did not add the tag saying that the article did not adequately cite it's sources. And I did not add the tag requesting that editors please help in trying to expand the article. You are removing the tags that other editors put up. Even your reference to "revert war" is backwards since you just initiated that revert war. I have been discussing this on the Talk page. You initiated the making of changes to the article. Bus stop 08:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You continue to behave as a bad faith troll. I'm not going to get involved in a screaming match with you. Stop POV trolling. It is that simple. Stirling Newberry 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea -- don't get involved in a "screaming match." It is far better to try to address one another's concerns in a respectful way. Since you are calling me a "troll," it is you who is preventing civil discourse. Disagreeing about the substance of an article is normal among editors; it is acceptable. That is how the article is produced -- by editors talking about their differing points of view. What is not acceptable is name calling. And if you are going to assert that that I am pushing a point of view ("POV"), or acting in "bad faith," you should explicate on those things. You really should expand upon those ideas. I don't mind being criticised in these respects. But when you fail to explain what you mean by such terms, those terms sink to the level of little more than name calling. Name calling puts an end to discourse. I can't respond to dense and impenetrable names. I wouldn't mind responding to criticism. But I don't even know what "troll" means. Bus stop 17:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we go out on a limb?[edit]

If we are talking about postmodern art, shouldn't we be citing exemplary instances of this phenomenon? Shouldn't we be pointing to the last great modernist works of art? Shouldn't we be pointing out the first great postmodernist works of art? Isn't the important thing about postmodernism it's distinction from modernism? An article on postmodernism should go into describing, using examples, how postmodernism differs from modernism. Or, it should just be saying that it finds no distinction between postmodern art and merely modern art. Bus stop 23:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has a plethora of information now. I've been drawing a picture of the context, the roots of postmodernism, the edges of late modernism. Happenings are a phenomenon of the late 1950s, early 1960s. Bus stop, if you have some master works of post-modernism in mind, then describe them. Modernist 00:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Modernist -- My concern is the distinction between modernism and postmodernism. In general, in our culture, I find a curious absence of a defining of this distinction. I do not have examples from the two categories to cite. My hunch is that the term postmodernism means something. But I have my doubts that it means as much as is implied by some who use it. I think the clearest examination of this is done by examining individual works of art. I would like to see someone compare and contrast two works of art, each exemplary of their category, one from modernism, one from postmodernism. I am curious to know in what way postmodernism differs from modernism. Again -- I would assume some small distinctions could be discerned. But the impression I get from others is that a significant break occurred between modernism and postmodernism, and I just don't see it. Why doesn't anyone cite a point in time for the transition point? I don't mean that it has to be pinpointed to one year, or one decade. But the explanations that I read seem more content to casually graze across the length and breadth of the twentieth century to describe the transition from modernism to postmodernism. Maybe they are describing a different sort of phenomenon than I have in mind. But I think it always has to come back to the art. In the final analysis we have to be comparing and contrasting examples of modern art with examples of postmodern art. The word postmodern contains within it the word modern. Is the difference slight or great? I think the implication in using a word like postmodern is that there is considerable significance to the distinction. Therefore I would like to see works of art compared in order to define that significance. Without the citing of actual works of art from those two categories, I cannot discern that difference. Ideally we should be comparing late modern to early postmodern works of art. By doing so we would be tending to rule out extraneous differences related to the passage of time. But I rarely see postmodernism distinguished from modernism by means of comparing actual works of art. Instead what I am accustomed to hearing is generalized characteristics that I have no way of checking because examples in individual works of art are not cited. Bus stop 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, Bus Stop, several years ago I went to a symposium about Post-modernism at Moma with one of my sons - who was in college at the time. My son stood up in the auditorium and asked Robert Storr to "please define Post-modernism." Robert Storr paused for a minute, and he said "actually I don't think it exists, Post modernism implies after modernism, and modernism is still going on". While I understand what others mean - sort of - I agree with Robert Storr basically. I don't think there is a transition date, a clear moment. I think we always have to apply common sense, and the consensus might actually be incorrect. I have included the roots of late modernism here, - solid ground. Modernist 01:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That is great, for whatever it is worth, if that is a true story, it makes me laugh to hear it. I should say that part of my doubt about the meaning of postmodernism has to do with my doubts about modernism. I think it is like a tempest in a teapot. Styles change. Trends change. External events change. Art is constantly evolving. Movements rise and fall. I just can't accept the importance that has become attached to the word postmodernism. I find it artificial. Bus stop 01:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, true story. The thing is to trust yourself. Trying to explicate ad-infinitum, is an intellectual exercise, but you know true creation is unknowable, and anyway, the only thing worth pursuing. Modernist 02:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just questioning the relationship between modernism and postmodernism. I certainly don't mean to discourage you from improving the article as you have been doing all along. Bus stop 16:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Discuss, not revert[edit]

Can we discuss, rather than revert? Bus stop 19:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Discussion is always welcome. I am going to lay out my position:

1. The term is used. 2. It is used by identifiable and notable authors. 3. It is disputed by identifiable and notable authors and institutions. 4. The article should document which works of art, which movements, which critics and writers have used the term or had it applied to their work. 5. The article should document which critics, institutions and artists have disputed the term, or particular uses of it.

In general the sources are in pretty much remarkable agreement about:

1. There exists an identifiable postmodern in art. 2. In the world of art, this is identified as a trend, trait or movement, and not the all encompassing term that it has in philosophy. The broader term is contemporary - that article is a complete mess and I am going to start working on it. 3. The boundaries of the term are disputed - which means documenting who says what about it.

Postmodern Art, as a term, is used to dispute, specifically, the modern project - that is the faith in technique and mechanism of self-conscious art to produce visionary and forward looking bodies of art which constitute an original avant-garde that explores universal truth through art which would be a self renewing process for each wave of artists reacting to "their times".

This means that the term is used:

1. To mean all contemporary activity. This usage is in philosophy and sociology primarily, not art. Notable because critical theory is notable, and many artists work from critical theory. 2. To mean one strand of larger modern activity. This usage is falling off the map as "modern" is falling off the map as a designation for "the present" See Hughes, Danto and others as to why this is so. 3. To mean one strand of late modern activity. This is the definition pursued by a number of institutions, particularly those which are collecting and have starting dates. 4. To mean a reaction against modernity, or as one strand of that reaction. Danto and Hughes both take this position. Danto subordinates it, Hughes far less so.

It is not hard to stick to the sources. This is not about your opinion on post-modernism. I am not going to argue that, and this discussion page shows that for some time your position was to argue your view. This isn't about my opinion on post-modernism in art or post-modernism - I'm not a notable author on the subject, and if I were, it would be up to someone else to cite my work.

It is about what notable writers, artists and institutions say. I've included institions because many of them are de facto definers of what is "modern", "contemporary" and "postmodern". Being well endowed with a big building doesn't make their POV right, but it does mean that it must be documented.

But there shouldn't be these metaphysical arguments about whether there is or isn't postmodernism, postmodern art, and so on. That the term is used can be found by a simple google search. How it is used is present in the sources, and in the surveys of sources (EH being the most comprehensive formal survey to date.) This isn't hard, and wikipedia is not an arbiter of taste, sense or meaning. If the sources disagree with each other, or are conflicted, then that is what gets documented.

I'm going to emphasize that: the purpose of this article is to document the term, the arguments, and give a sample as to the weight of the different sides in number and notability.

Stirling Newberry 02:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


The purpose of the article is also to define the term. Documenting the term is not enough. Documentation proves that this is not original research. But documentation is not a substitute for explaining what is being spoken about. This article should not just be a source for references for further reading. This article should define postmodern art. In fact, you should be defining "the modern project" too, since that is a phrase you are bringing into the discussion. Defining these terms necessitates reference to art. Art did not change all that significantly when it crossed the divide from the modern to the postmodern, did it? Doesn't postmodern art also require fashioning materials into forms using techniques? It is preferable to explain what is being spoken about rather than to refer the reader to a source. In this instance, documentation is not a substitute for reference to actual works of art. Feel free to quote from critics speaking about works of art. But this article should not be primarily about theory. This article should be primarily about art. Bus stop 16:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Beyond?[edit]

It says in the article, Postmodern art uses a vocabulary of media, genres or styles as parts of an extended visual language that is seen as going beyond the boundaries of the modernist vocabulary. I'd like to know how this thing called postmodernism uses a vocabulary that "goes beyond" the "vocabulary" used by so-called modern art. What does that mean? I asked for a citation. But even a citation would not suffice. It is meaningless unless explained. Does postmodernism use materials and techniques that for some reason are not used by mere modernists? Bus stop 02:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "goes beyond" to "seen as going beyond" for the reason listed - that it goes beyond is an assertion that can't be proven, that there are artists and critics who say it goes beyond is a fact. Stirling Newberry 02:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't you say, in your own words, how it goes beyond? This gets to the heart of the distinction between modernism and postmodernism. Can you really say that there are elements of "vocabulary" used by postmodernists that are not used by modernists? Don't forget that it is your contention that both modernism and postmodernism coexist at this time. So, I would be curious to know what "vocabulary" you see being present in postmodern work that is absent in modern work. Bus stop 02:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I will again note that the term "modern" for present artistic activity is a minority. "Contemporary" is the far more common term, though some uses of the word contemporary are synonymous with modern, many are not, and cover either late modern (1940 ish forward) or the period defined as being "after" modernity - see again, both the post-structuralist sources, and Danto and others on the end of art. The prevailing use, with exceptions, is that the modern project, an sich in art is over. May not be your point of view, but you aren't a notable author on the subject. There is also the subspecies of thought that argues that modernism is temporarily being pushed back by counter-enlightment or kitsch but will overcome this obstacle. This view faded in the early 1990's and it is difficult to find recent (post-2000) newspaper criticism or journal articles which argue it.Stirling Newberry 02:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I see that as obfuscation. We are talking about art. All the post structuralist sources are not going to be contained in this article, are they? This article ought to be accessible to anyone with normal intelligence, ought it not? If we are talking about visual art then sources should be cited, not only in post structuralism, but also in works of art. The article ostensibly is about postmodern visual art. In the article it is distinguished from modern art. Successfully distinguishing modern art from postmodern art inevitably involves citing works of art as examples of what an editor is saying. Bus stop 03:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pop Art[edit]

I'm in the process of trying to figure this topic out and pop art strikes me as being more postmodern than modern. In particular, it's a celebration of kitsch, which contradicts the intro to Postmodern art#Radical movements in Modern Art. Neither the Pop Art nor Modern Art articles explain why pop art would not be classified as postmodern, and I've added a reference to Pop Art that does classify it as such. I suspect pop art is traditionally classified as modern, but this doesn't explain why so I've thrown contradict on pop art and unreferenced on the whole article. Vagary 09:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vagary-"Postmodern art" as described in this article tends to refer to a moment in time when the preponderous production of contemporary art in several directions at once tended towards an historical reconfiguration and redefinition of what constitutes a work of art, and a reconstitution of both artistic quality and the meaning of progress and originality, ultimately refered to as Postmodern art. The point being - a moment in time and overall context.

While the article discusses late developments in modernism including Pop art, and several of those movements could be described as being characteristic of what has come to be called postmodern art the context becomes crucial. Beginning in the late 1950s and early 1960s Pop art became a novel global development in contemporary art with antecedants in Dada, and Surrealism, while at the same time being intimately connected to the work of Robert Rauschenberg, Jasper Johns and Larry Rivers. Rauschenberg, Johns and Rivers work were connected to Abstract expressionism albeit with a radical infusion of imagery. I don't think there is any consensus as to exactly when what is refered to as "Postmodern art" begins. The popular idea is that the Postmodern era in art with roots in Dada, Anti-Art, Kitsch, Fluxus, Conceptual art, Pop art, Neo-expressionism, becomes more and more characteristic of contemporary art takes firm hold during the late 1970s, early 1980s. Modernist 12:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vagary This article has both sources and references, if you wish to add information and sources and references then add them. Modernist 13:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Why does it matter if Pop art is modern or postmodern? Isn't it more productive to focus on what Pop art is, and not try to tackle it's relation to these mega-categories? Can you tell me any reason why one need place Pop art more in one category than the other? Bus stop 12:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The modern/postmodern era (if they actually exist) tend to overlap in time with each other. As Pop art appears in this article it is loosely defined as an art movement and for what it is as art. Modernist 13:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not disagreeing that Pop art is an art movement. I think Pop art much more clearly defines itself than modernism or postmodernism define themselves. I agree with you if you were suggesting that Pop art refers to a moment in time. In that sense the Pop art movement is over. Nowadays anything can be said to display certain Pop art stylistic characteristics. An artist such as Keith Haring or Kenny Scharf I think would be examples. But I wouldn't think they are a part of the original Pop art movement. Similarly, when thinking about modernism and postmodernism, I think we can refer to the periods of time that they supposedly occupy. And we can think of the characteristics that they represent. In this sense, one can speak of the "modern" characteristics found in a given work of Pop art, and we can speak of the "postmodern" characteristics that we see in that same work. I don't see the point in trying to decide if all of Pop art is modern or postmodern. That is really my response to the question posed by Vagary. I'm no expert. These are just my rambling thoughts.Bus stop 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Bus stop, I think different philosophies (ie. modernism, post modernism) and different movements simultaneously occupy the same moment, - a lot of the time and there is overlap. As you probably know during the late 1950s early 1960s simultaneously there were several directions going on in abstract painting at once - the younger abstract expressionists even notable artists like Al Leslie, Michael Goldberg, and even Jules Olitski and Helen Frankenthaler were tagged second generation abstract expressionists by certain art critics, and either abstract expressionists or color field painters by others. I suppose both Keith Haring and Kenny Scharf - (who left art school in the early 1980s) could be described as second generation Pop artists. I think we agree that these distinctions and labels are unfortunate and miss the point of artists making art. The terms color field painting and lyrical abstraction are more aptly applied to Frankenthaler and Olitski and the paintings remain the same no matter the label. Modernist 16:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem I have with this article is that it is structured as a taxonomy. But the criteria used to sort art styles/movements into modern and postmodern is not explicit and certainly not referenced. If this article is written from the point of view that postmodern art is a movement/period, it should be more explicitly temporal and biographical. Whereas if postmodern art is a collection of themes (called movements in the article?), then the article should be structured around them. For example, the themes of High and Low and Appropriation Art were both influenced by Pop Art. And both the modern and postmodern sections include Performance Art!
As it stands, this article suffers from the common problem encountered when describing postmodernism: it describes late modernism and then says "and postmodernism isn't that". There are good references of specific instances of postmodern art, but nowhere near enough references to commentary and critique of the movements themselves. Without being an expert, it is impossible to tell that this isn't original research. Vagary 01:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Vagary - Thanks for your input. Much of this article discusses the connections between late modernism and what becomes thought of or understood as postmodern art in relative context. Initially for example the Judson Dance Theatre with increasingly radical performances that combine dance, technology, sound, sculpture, painting bridge the moment from one (modernism) to the other. Currently they are defined as pioneers of postmodern dance, however in context during the groups active period the era of c. 1960-1965, they were described simply as an experimental dance theatre. The section you tagged and others should be more completely referenced. I think I invited you to add references as you find them, as will I. Performance art as described in context during the 1970s or 1960s would be described in relationship to the modernist jargon in context, whereas the same or similar works described in texts after the mid 1980s would be more inclined to identify what came to be widely described as postmodern art. In this article I've referenced texts from both eras. Modernist 13:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Avant-Garde and Kitsch[edit]

Greenbergs essay was published in the 1930s and he made absolutely no reference to Pop art, (which didn't exist), Dada, Duchamp, or any particular fine art movement as being kitsch, and his ideas may or may not contradict ideas today, so what. Modernist 12:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Greenberg included Jazz in Kitch, I believe. Just because Clement Greenberg said it doesn't make it so. Greenberg is referring to what Jeff Koons eventually made art. Bus stop 23:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Two articles[edit]

  • Ethico- Although I think this article is perfectly good, because there is a strong and important linkage between modernism and postmodern art I'm beginning to wondering if Radical movements in Modern Art should become its own article. I think for now the interconnection between the modernist roots and the postmodern response are important. What do you think about that? Modernist 16:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Modernist, I'm glad you've raised this, because I've been thinking about the place of this section in the article as well. I've got no objection to a new article being started if you think there's a place for it. Or, perhaps some of the content could be added to High modernism or Late modernism, given that the Modernism article gets a bit skimpy after WWII? I definitely think the modern movements should have a place in the article (after all Duchamp, Pop and Minimalism are a bit more interesting than neo-expressionism!). As for how I see this section in the article these are my thoughts:
  1. Renaming the section something like 'Transitional movements between modernism and postmodernism' (a bit long winded but you get the idea). The fact that some of the movements might be considered wholly modernist can be included to introduce the section.
  2. Remove Abstract Expressionism, or at least edit it down to cover just Pollock and Process Art. Krauss reinvents Pollock as a 'postmodernist'. Frustratingly I can't find her applying the actual term to him, but it's quite clear what she's getting at.
  3. Edit the other sections so that they provide a briefer description of each movement. The whole history doesn't need to be included, just those parts that are relevant to whether or not and why they are considered to be postmodern.
  4. Put the sections into (roughly) chronological order.

Apologies for the long response to a simple question!--Ethicoaestheticist 18:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Ethico- I don't see renaming as the solution, I am leaning toward dividing the article. Modernist 21:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Radical Movements in Late Modernism[edit]

I just made a new article, Done. I'll gradually change it (wean it away from this article). Modernist 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing it develop.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Surrealism as most important precursor to postmodernism[edit]

This article seems to present Dada as the primary precursor for postmodern art. I'd argue that Surrealism is more directly significant influence on postmodern art, specifically abstract expressionism and pop art. Surrealism lasted longer (well into the fifties) and Surrealists had more direct contact with later artists. Dada was a brief, highly-influential movement. Surrealism built on that, gave it a positive direction (instead of just being destruction). Many of the postmodern techniques are in evidence in Surrealism: Max Ernst's drip paintings for example prefigure Jackson Pollocks. Also Jackson Pollock and many of the Abstract Expressionists had direct contact (when many surrealists escaped to New York during WWII, many of whom stayed in the US). Arshille Gorky is often seen as a bridging figure between the movements. Rauchenberg is seen as a bridging figure to the Pop Art scene. Much of the Pop Art aesthetic is prefigured in surrealism also: Ernst's collages, Dali's engagement with popular culture images (the Shirley Temple sphinx painting, for example). Much of this attitude is a hold over from Dadaism, granted (Ernst was also a dadaist, for example), but more direct influence is owed to Surrealism which was still present and highly influential during the shift to postmodernism. F. Simon Grant 17:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sandback.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Sandback.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Both removed..solved..Modernist (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

pictures[edit]

Why are the painting examples of postmodern art the exact same ones used for modern art? How can they be both? Moonraker0022 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Often images are used in order to clarify and describe certain points and aspects of the subjects..In the case of these subjects the imagery defines similar sub-texts in both articles; only in a slightly different context. Basically both articles discuss Pop Art for example, and the illustration used for Pop Art might be the same picture although a different one can be substituted. Although in the case of Abstract Expressionism, which also is focused upon in both articles, the Jackson Pollock is required because Pollock's work is specifically discussed in both articles...Modernist (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The End of Postmodernism[edit]

Since "Postmodernism" is clearly in its end phase, and there seems to be an increased interest in the ideas of Remodernism and Neomodernism, it would probably be a good idea to incorporate this into the article.

Arturobandini (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, not a bad idea, although frankly modernism never really ended; it continues and postmodernism was always a misnomer...Modernist (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I think finding sources will be a problem. Neomodernism isn't often applied to the visual arts, and remodernism is a self-created art movement with little coverage in secondary sources.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

See also[edit]

The article has two "See also" sections. --Keith111 (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

so what are we now? are we post-postmodernist? or is there a new 'ism I havent heard of, Im genuinely curious to know(talk) 09:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)