From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:38:55 +0100
Subject: Re: Popmart Levinas


Mathew and All

My take on this is slightly different in that I suspect that Lyotard was haunted
more than he admitted by the accusations of conservatism that followed the
postmodern arguments - it's the Habermas and Badious question which has not gone
away.

Lyotard in one of his late texts refers to ‘rewriting modernity’ which does
indeed refer back to the modernist past, which Lyotard as ‘old continental
philosopher’ cannot help but have a relationship with. He places the rewriting
in a context that avoids the usual postmodern headings and titles, which we and
he have to deal with. In this context they became and are the same thing,
interestingly by this late text (which is why this is being mentioned) he was
suggesting that modernity and postmodernity cannot be ‘clearly circumscribed as
historical entities…’ In this relation the postmodern must follow the former
which is contrary to other statements elsewhere. (This may well be true if you
do not accept that postmodernity is in some major sense a way of addressing the
economic changes which is contrary to Lyotards non-economic and what I would
take to be his culturalist approach). However Lyotard argues that the postmodern
is implicit in the modern because it is the movement towards excess which the
modern achieves through the postmodern. ‘Modernity is …. Pregnant with the
postmodern….’ The true opposition to the modern is not the postmodern but the
classical age, the primitive age. This makes sense if you consider that
postmodernity and modernity have related understandings of time and the
dis-unity of meaning, the classical and primitive eras have a sense of a unified
sense of meaning, which began to die with the beginnings of industrialisation
and the transformation into an information economy. Modernity according to
Lyotard is endlessly involved in the act of perpetual reconstruction and
rewriting, is then late modernity which we commonly call post-modernity just
another of latest variety of this rewriting, which always fails to enable the
completion of any of the grand narratives…

I do not believe so rather the grand narratives have become frozen in aspect as
we struggle to rework the narratives in the new circumstances – which are of
course in part the recognition that the two great founding revolutions of the
industrial era – 1776 and 1917 both failed to free and un-alienate the
participants and their descendents,(Lyotard only speaks of the 1917 revolution
but the logic is the same), it is necessary to recognise the similarity of
failure. The postmodern in this sense is perhaps his attempt at establishing a
new advance, however he’s a philosopher, a cultural theorist, especially at this
stage and not a political theorist.

 What Lyotard rejects explicitly which may be obvious but nonetheless worth
saying is the way in which the postmodern has become ‘the market of contemporary
ideologies’ endlessly using quotations, returning to traditional reactionary
forms of narrative. Postmodernity for Lyotard is about placing forms of
knowledge into question. It is this which makes him a worthwhile continental
philosopher… Where I disagree is that he denies that this is in any sense a new
age – I believe that the evidence is there now, possibly it wasn’t previously,
that this is a different age than the industrial period that preceded it.
Culture was an industrial process, it has been for a very long time, at the
present however it is also an informational process… To suggest that
postmodernity is simply a continuation of modernity is to deny that there is an
economic shift which is precisely what Lyotard's postmodern condition
references, albeit without the necessary references to the economic.

Cultural response:

Not being based in New York I cannot comment directly on your related statements
to that city - however its worth recognising that the truly innovative cinematic
and musical work is not happening in the pop/mass cultural areas but in the
minoritorian areas - what Hollywood mainstream movie has the power and
intelligence of Code Unknown or Scenes from the second floor? What pop musician
has the innovative power of Mathew Shipp, Myra Melford or Baaba Maal? The
reality it seems to me is that the only the industrialisation of culture holds
back the recognition that the pop/mass cultural forms personified by Madonna
endless girl bands and the tedious Bowie...

regards

sdv

Matthew Levy wrote:

> I love that opening passage, in which Lyotard's attitude towards the idea of
> postmodernism seems most apparent to me, especially because the essay it
> opens is an appendix to _The Postmodern Condition_.    The book as a whole
> is historical, an attempt to understand a moment.  But that essay gives an
> abstract definition for postmodernism, as the incipient stage of modernism,
> as the moment of flux in which new systems are tried, which later harden
> into accepted modernisms or die out.  So many people use "postmodernism" to
> describe an attitude contrary to "avant-gardism," in the mode of "this is
> what's wrong with today."  Lyotard's analysis, by contrast, gives a
> topography of the moment in the monograph that is rather bleak--information
> needs to be free, but that's not likely--and then the essay suggests an
> attitude that lets us be joyful (while pessimistic) that things can be done
> in this situation (though no one could rightly expect them to correct or
> "fix" the situation.  His idea is to reinvigorate the avant-gardism of the
> "modernist" movement.  So the terms are set up in a chiasmic relationship.
> The modernist movement had a postmodern attitude towards the modern period.
> In the postmodern period (for the sake of argument), we don't need a more
> modern attitude (a la Jameson), we need to continue the spirit of the
> postmodern attitude.  So, the postmodern attitude is the avant-gardism that
> shakes up hardening modern systems.  The modern attitude is the nostalgia
> that wants to firm up old structures in the face of terrifying changes.
>
> Having said all of this (I apologize for the lecture... I guess I am asking
> if you all read it the same way), I would agree that the observers of
> popculture tend to live at the extremes of this spectrum, especially if we
> are focusing on the corporate and critical theory intelligensia.  And I
> would add that pop culture itself doesn't usually pick a side, but embraces
> both extremes simultaneously.  The Talking Heads, Public Enemy, David Bowie,
> Madonna would be good examples.  Both savvy to the market and strikingly
> inventive.  David Bowie issued bonds for goodness sake.  Even Laurie
> Anderson said that she felt more free playing to the open market and
> supporting her art through sales than trying to survive in the conservative
> academy or depending on grants.  Now I realize my examples are very
> particular to my age, but even the corporate groups aimed at pre-teens are
> having to develop their styles at an extremely rapid pace.
>
> Let me try this one on you:  What's different now than in the period of high
> modernism is that, except perhaps in NYC, the "high culture" no longer feeds
> what is really new.  It's like Cromwell came in, threw the court out and the
> artists had to learn how to make a buck on the streets.  (There are, of
> course, people like Merce Cunningham who would have no hope of surviving
> through sales and still are able to work) Perhaps some of you Marxists have
> a more precise economic analysis that would uphold or contest my feeling.
>
> mal
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mary Murphy&Salstrand <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net>
> To: <lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 6:54 AM
> Subject: Popmart Levinas
>
> > Steve and all,
> >
> > Good to hear from you again. I want to write some more about Levinas and
> > Lyotard.  I was just taking a breather since you were out of town.
> >
> > There have been several posts now that mentioned Transavantgardism. Can
> > anyone tell me more about this art movement?  Who were its main artists?
> > What kind of work did they do? I tried some time back to find out more
> > about Transavantgardism and came up empty.
> >
> > Lyotard is certainly critical about this movement.  He writes: "There is
> > an irrefutable sign of this common disposition: it is that for all those
> > writers nothing is more urgent than to liquidate the heritage of the
> > avant-gardes.  Such is the case, in particular, of the so-called
> > transavantgardism."
> >
> > It appears to me that observers of what is loosely termed pop culture
> > tend to fall between two extremes.  At the one extreme, there are the
> > corporate cheerleaders who argue for market populism. Corporations are
> > simply giving the people what they want. Critics who argue that the
> > media is tasteless are simply practicing a form of elitism. Instead, the
> > marketplace represents our true democracy at work.  The people vote with
> > their credit cards.
> >
> > At the other extreme are the heirs to the Frankfort Institute. They
> > argue that the culture industry socially constructs commodification and
> > desire, foisting it on passive target markets to manipulate them for a
> > profit.
> >
> > My argument would be that the reality usually falls somewhere in between
> > these two extremes and for those of us on the left who want to
> > understand pop culture it is not enough to critique it from above. It is
> > necessary to dig in and understand it from below to truly understand its
> > potential at times to surprise and shock us and even make us become more
> > aware.
> >
> > I have been reading C.L.R. James recently.  I find him a very
> > interesting figure and, perhaps, I'll talk about him more in a later
> > post.  Anyway, back around 1950 he wrote a manuscript eventually
> > published posthumously as  "American Civilization."  In it, he said that
> > in order to understand the potential for radical change in society we
> > need to examine more closely popular culture.  Writers like Hemingway,
> > Fitzgerald, Faulkner and Steinbeck (remember this was the fifties!)
> > provide only limited insight.  Instead, it would be better to look at
> > films, comics, and music to really grasp what is going on.
> >
> > I recognize this view has its own limitations, but I would be perverse
> > enough to argue that "The Simpsons" and "South Park" are more
> > avant-garde than Damien Hirst, and certainly have had a much greater
> > effect.
> >