Lyotard highlights certain issues regarding
the term 'postmodern'. Rather than seeking to conclude the debate, his
intention is to initiate and nurture it, steering clear of specific confusions
and ambiguities wherever feasible, thus enabling its organic development.
The term 'postmodern' brings up
several debates, and Lyotard discusses three of them. First, there's a debate
between postmodernism and modernism, especially in architecture from 1910 to
1945. Some say there's a clear break between them. For example, Paolo
Portoghesi talks about a shift away from traditional geometric styles like
those in De Stijl. Another architect, Victorio Grigotti, thinks the main
difference is that postmodern architecture doesn't focus on big societal
changes anymore. Instead, it works on smaller-scale projects and doesn't aim to
completely redesign everything. This opens up new possibilities for
architecture.
In this perspective, there's no
longer a grand vision of progress and freedom for postmodern people, including
architects. The absence of this idea explains the unique style of postmodern
architecture, which involves mixing elements from different styles rather than
focusing on environmental considerations.
Regarding the term
'postmodernist,' the 'post' simply indicates a shift from one period to
another, like turning a page. It's worth noting that this idea of chronological
progression is a modern concept rooted in Christianity, Cartesianism, and
Jacobinism. But today, instead of truly breaking away from the past, we seem to
just repeat or ignore it rather than moving beyond it.
To put it simply, using elements
from past architectures in new designs is like how Freud described using
memories in dreams. This repetition can be seen in contemporary art trends like
'trans-avantgardism' and neo-expressionism.
The second point. Another way
'postmodern' is understood is as a decline in the belief in progress that
marked the past two centuries. This belief was rooted in the idea that
advancements in arts, technology, knowledge, and freedom would benefit humanity
as a whole. While there were debates over who exactly would benefit from
progress – whether it be the poor, workers, or the less educated – everyone
agreed that progress was essential for human liberation.
After two centuries, we've become
more aware of signs suggesting the opposite of progress. Economic and political
liberalism, as well as various forms of Marxism, aren't free from suspicion of
crimes against humanity during the past two centuries. We can point to specific
events, like Auschwitz, to highlight the failure of past ideologies to truly
liberate mankind.
This realization has left a sense
of sadness in our time. We may react with sorrow or even seek utopias, but we
struggle to find a positive direction forward.
The advancement of technology and
science often seems to create more problems than it solves. It's not really
progress in the traditional sense anymore. Instead, it seems to happen on its
own, without regard for human needs, and often leaves us feeling unstable both
mentally and physically. It's like humanity is constantly chasing after new
things without fully understanding why or what the purpose is.
We're caught up in a world where
everything is becoming more complex. Our desire for security, identity, and
happiness seems irrelevant compared to the demand to make things more
complicated, to remember and synthesize every detail, and to constantly change
scale. We're like Gulliver in a world where we never quite fit in. So, the idea
of simplicity now seems primitive in comparison.
Now, let's consider the division
of humanity into two groups: one dealing with the challenges of complexity and
the other focused on basic survival. This division is a significant aspect of
the failure of the modern project, which was supposed to benefit all of
humanity.
Moving on to the third argument,
postmodernity also relates to how we express our thoughts in various fields
like art, literature, philosophy, and politics. In the art world, there's a
sense that the era of avant-gardism is over, and there's a tendency to mock it
as outdated. However, I believe it's important to understand that avant-garde
movements were actually serious investigations into the assumptions of
modernity. To grasp the work of artists like Manet, Duchamp, or Barnett Newman,
we should see it as a process similar to psychoanalytic therapy. Just as a
patient explores past experiences to understand their current issues, these
artists were examining and reworking the ideas of modernity. If we neglect this
responsibility, we risk repeating the same problems and conflicts of modernity
without making any progress. So, in the context of postmodernity, the term
'post' doesn't mean going back in time but rather analyzing, remembering, and
reflecting on the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment