Does anyone else feel that post-moderninsm is the most pointless critical theory

Question: Does anyone else feel that post-moderninsm is the most pointless critical theory to have ever emerged!?

I mean it's just so ******* smug and aimless, isn't it!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote an essay in which he argued that outside of architecture Post-Modernism doesn't actually exist!. And even if it does what it has to say is completely vacuous!.

He states that the reason that those who self-identify as 'post-modernists' use a style of language which is largely impenetrable is to hide the fact that it has nothing to say!.

They may sound highly intellectual and cultured, but if you actually analyse the words there is absolutely nothing there!.

The next time somebody mentions 'post-modernism' (other than in the context of architecture) ask them to define what they mean by it!. I'll bet they can't give you an answer which satisfies the question!.

P!.S!. Dawkins' essay on the subject is included in a collection entitled 'A Devil's Chaplain'Www@QuestionHome@Com

In response to Shy-voo and Dawkins:

Post-modernism in literature is at the same time a response to and continuation of modernism!. The primary differences being that Post-Modernism is aimed at the society as a whole as an audience as opposed to having an academic audience and fragmentation is viewed as a good thing, not a bad thing!.

Here are some characteristics of the literature:
1) Reality is not fixed, the world is complex, it's uncertain
2) There is no absolute truth, it's all relative to the perspective of the person observing
3) fragmentation is good, ambiguity is normal
4) pluralism, preference for the local and specific over the universal
5) Language cannot access reality, embrace contradiction, paradoxes reveal meaning
6) Violating the conventional narrative, no "high" or "low" culture, breakdown between artist and audience, stylistic preferences for pastiche, parody, irony, the jump cut, bricolage, montage, hybridity, etc!.
7) Everything is a simulacrum, the border between art and reality vanishes, state of "hyperreality" where images interbreed without reference to reality or meaning

Hopefully that makes sense!. Anyway, my point is that it's absurd to say that post-modernism in literature doesn't exist, and the fact that it may not being saying anything at all is one of the points of the movement!. There is nothing to say, there is no reason for anything, etc!. It's easily identifiable, though, therefor ignorant to suggest it's non-existent (though I admit that denying it exists is very post-modern)!.

To the asker - I don't think it's pointless, but I do think it's a little too all encompassing to be extremely useful!. It's basically everything - or so it claims, I think that is absurd!. And I certainly disagree with some of it's core ideals, for instance the no separation between high and low culture!. I think that is absurd, but you can certainly see it being acted on in the publishing industry!. What are you gonna do!? I have my own theory about what's going to be happening in the next few years in regards to post-modern literature, but many scholars are even saying that post-modernism is ending!. That emphasis on local and specific, and the self referencing nature of it are no longer reflecting/responding to society, and are going to evolve!. Globalization will change a lot more than just the economy after all!.

So, I guess to sum up, I don't think it's pointless - in fact it's my favorite - I think it's hilarious and relevant!. But I do think there needs to be some refining done on the term, but the study is on going, obviously!. So as time passes it will be narrowed down!. Hind sight is 20/20 in literature too!. It will probably end up being split down into sub movements or something!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

It isn't a critical theory as such!.

When the art movement classed as 'Modernism' - exuberant, inventive, brave, optimistic - was petering out, something darker, more brooding, ironic, self-referential took its place!.

If 'Modernism' was the inventive, genius child using every scientific, artistic, cultural innovation of the century's turn to its own creative purpose, 'Post modernism' represented the jaded adult, no longer optimistic, its nihilism formed by the experience of world wars - the promise of the child compromised, disillusioned and debased!.

Even the word 'modern' had a stale old fashioned ring to it!.

That's all the phrase means in art history use really - 'Post-Modernism' encompasses the idea that, in the light of 20th century knowledge of genocide, it had been naive to think Modernism was 'modern' -

If you want to throw tomatoes at a critical theory - (and I think it a perfectly acceptable way to spend Friday night - better than watching Big Brother anyway) - I'd go for Structuralism, Post-Structuralism and, in terms of art history, Conceptualism!.

By the 1970s, this critical theory (inspired by Duchamp's work in 1911), gave precedence to the artist's thought process in selecting / choosing the work of art over the artist's production of any artefact!.

Who would believe they would still be using precisely the same rationale - (surely the longest -ism in art history), forty odd years later!?!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Most people I should imagine - except the oh so clever critics who dream up these terms, which means sweet fanny adams to everyone else!. It is just as meaningless in architecture as it happens, but didn't hurt Charles Jencks' career!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

That's precisely the point!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

mmm, ive often thought that at 9pm on a friday nightWww@QuestionHome@Com