Lyotard's "Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism" (Summary)

 

 

In this era, there's a feeling that things are getting worse, and this is reflected in how people think and act. There's a trend to resist trying new things, not just in art but in other areas too. For example, some people are promoting realism in art as a way to express themselves differently. Others are treating art movements like "Transavantgardism" as products to sell. Architects, claiming to be influenced by postmodernism, are moving away from the Bauhaus style and focusing more on making buildings practical rather than experimental.

 

Some people are unhappy with the way certain influential works, like "Mille Plateaux" by Deleuze and Guattari, are written. They say these works lack clarity, especially when discussing complex ideas. A respected historian thinks that some avant-garde writers and thinkers from the 1960s and 1970s are making it hard to understand important concepts. They suggest using language that's easier to understand, like what historians use.

 

There's also criticism of Continental philosophy for not being connected to real life. Some say it should focus more on how things are in reality. A well-known expert in theater thinks that postmodernism's playful approach isn't helpful, especially when there are serious issues like authoritarianism and the threat of nuclear war.

 

Someone else is defending modernity against neoconservatives who want to get rid of ideas from the Enlightenment period by saying they're outdated. They argue that modern life has become fragmented because different parts of society are controlled by different experts. This fragmentation makes people feel disconnected, similar to how the poet Baudelaire felt over a hundred years ago.

 

To address this disconnection, Habermas suggests rethinking how we experience art. Instead of just focusing on what we like, we should consider the historical context and think about big questions about life. This broader perspective connects art with how we think and what we believe is right or wrong. Habermas believes this can help bring together different areas of thought, like how we understand things, how we decide what's right, and how we organize society. He wants to create a more unified experience.

 

However, it's not clear exactly what this unity would look like. Does Habermas mean everything in society should fit together perfectly, like parts of a machine? Or is he talking about integrating different ways of thinking—like understanding, morals, and politics—into one larger framework? And if it's the latter, can this really work?

 

Some people think Habermas's idea is influenced by the philosopher Hegel, who believed everything in society should fit together perfectly. Others compare it to Kant, who argued that we should carefully consider different perspectives before making judgments. They think Habermas's idea needs to be looked at closely, especially because some people don't agree with the Enlightenment's belief in one perfect way of doing things. Critics, like Wittgenstein and Adorno, say we shouldn't try to force everything together seamlessly. They consider we should think carefully about different perspectives, even if they're not what Habermas had in mind.

 

 

2

The demands in the art world are not all the same; some conflict with each other. Some people want art to reflect objective reality, while others prefer subjective expression. Despite these differences, there's a common desire for order, unity, identity, and popularity among artists. They're encouraged to reconnect with society and even help heal it if needed.

 

Many people feel it's urgent to move away from the avant-garde style. Instead of rejecting it outright, some suggest blending it with other styles to create something new. They believe this approach is better than sticking to old-fashioned ways, especially since capitalism is changing how we see things. In today's world, ratings and trying new things are often more important than traditional experiences.

 

Photography and cinema didn't threaten painting and literature; they completed them. They made it easier for people to understand and relate to images and stories. However, this can lead to a superficial understanding of reality. Artists and writers must avoid being used for superficial purposes and question old rules that might hold them back.

 

Some artists stick to traditional rules and find success by pleasing the majority. Others challenge these rules but risk losing their audience's trust. The clash between these approaches is seen in the avant-garde movement, which challenged traditional art but also risked losing its meaning.

Realism in art often avoids questioning reality and can sometimes be seen as boring or tacky. When those in power support a certain ideology, they might prefer realistic or neoclassical art over experimental styles. They might even ban experimental art if it doesn't fit their views. This happens when the images and stories in art match what the ruling party wants and what the public seeks for comfort.

 

When governments crack down on artistic experimentation, it usually means they want art to follow strict beauty rules. They don't let art explore new ideas or find its own audience. Instead, they decide what's beautiful and what's not, without considering different perspectives.

 

In capitalist societies, a mix of different cultural styles becomes normal. This leads to confusion about what's good or bad in art, and everything becomes about making money. If art can sell, it's considered valuable, no matter if it's truly good or not.

 

Artists and writers often feel pressure to create work that's easy to understand and appeals to a broad audience. This focus on making art profitable undermines creativity and encourages following popular trends.

 

Science and industry also face doubts about what's real. Technology often determines what's considered true or important, rather than traditional beliefs. This shift has big implications for how we understand reality and how society functions.

 

This idea of questioning reality isn't just about history; it's also about bigger philosophical concepts like nihilism and the sublime. The sublime is a mix of pleasure and pain when faced with something too big or complex to understand. It challenges our ideas of beauty and pushes us to think beyond what we know.

In modern art, artists try to show things that are hard to see or understand. They use techniques like making things look formless or abstract. This idea is based on Kant's theory of the sublime, which says that art can make us feel awe by showing us things we can't fully grasp. Artists often make artworks that challenge viewers and might even make them uncomfortable.

 

The avant-garde artists, a group of innovative painters, follow these ideas. They use visible images to hint at things we can't fully understand. They believe in Kant's idea that reality and concepts don't always match up. So, they create art that challenges how we see the world.

 

These artists often question traditional art techniques, like drawing and color mixing, to show how art can manipulate our perceptions. They want to expose the tricks that art uses to make us see things in a certain way.

 

Some thinkers, like Habermas, see this as a way to break away from reality, similar to Freud's idea of sublimation. But their ideas about aesthetics, or what makes art beautiful, might be different.

3

Postmodernism is a part of modern art that questions the rules of making images and telling stories. It challenges what was accepted just yesterday and pushes us to think differently about art. Artists like Cézanne, Picasso, and Duchamp challenged previous ideas about art and made way for new ways of thinking.

 

There are two main ways of thinking within modern art. One focuses on the feeling of loss and longing for what's real, while the other celebrates the power of imagination and invention. These two ways often mix together in art, showing a tension between sadness and experimentation.

 

To simplify, imagine modern art as a chessboard. On one side are artists who express sadness and longing, like the German Expressionists. On the other side are artists like Braque and Picasso, who push boundaries and experiment with new ideas. Both ways of thinking are important in shaping the direction of art.

In the works of Proust and Joyce, they hint at things that can't be fully shown. This hinting, called allusion, is crucial for expressing the sublime in their art. In Proust's writing, he suggests that the core of consciousness is hard to pin down because time changes it so much. But in Joyce's writing, the problem lies in the nature of writing itself, which gets overwhelmed by the vastness of books and literature.

 

Proust mainly uses conventional language and storytelling techniques to suggest the unpresentable. He changes the way novels are usually written by focusing on inner thoughts and challenging typical story structures, but his writing stays consistent, like in Hegel's ideas.

 

On the other hand, Joyce embraces chaos in his writing. He tries many different styles and techniques, not worrying about making everything fit together neatly. He sees traditional language rules as limitations that stop him from expressing the unpresentable fully.

 

The main difference here is that modern aesthetics, like Proust's, presents the unpresentable as something missing within a recognizable form, giving comfort to readers. But postmodernism, like Joyce's approach, presents the unpresentable directly within the art itself. Postmodern artists break away from traditional forms and rules to convey a stronger sense of the unpresentable, even if it's uncomfortable.

 

Postmodernism can be seen in essays like Montaigne's, where there's a freedom to explore different ideas without needing to follow strict rules. Modernism, on the other hand, is seen in fragmented works like The Athaeneum, where there's a more structured approach to art.

 

Our job as artists isn't to show reality but to suggest things that can't be shown directly. This doesn't mean we'll ever fully reconcile different ways of thinking, as Kant and Hegel realized. But we can embrace the idea of not needing total unity, instead focusing on embracing differences and acknowledging the limits of what we can know.