I am wondering if people think we are in a new art-historical period now, after postmodernism, and if so how this new period could or should be defined. This is the main topic of my new book Le Cafe which you can find at www.geocities.com/genius-2000.
Excellent reply Philip! I'll definitely read this and respond. I see quite a few ideas and words in common with my own book at first glance. It can be like dueling banjos!
I think your chapter is excellent. I would even go so far as to say I mention several of the same topics and ideas in Le Cafe.
I think you are completely correct that Postmodernism is a big cause of the errors and why art and science are estranged, and I cite the same four Postmodernists: Barthes, Foucault, Derrida, and Lyotard (indirectly by mention of the concepts).
I don't know if it is acceptable in today's crazy world, or "anxious and confusing" as I think Miguel Amado called the post 9/11 era on the recent cover item or featured commentary item, to advocate for a move to something other than Postmodernism. In my book I consider the idea that Postmodernism is exactly the helpful kind of illusion to calm the world down and thus reduce total planetary catastrophe.
Or to put it another way, an alternative to Postmodernism might disrupt the art market and academia, which would cause discomfort for the New Museum and cause them to take down Rhizome completely because of the excessive economic damage your idea of Complexism would cause if discussed in detail, acted upon, etc.
Ideally, they would permit your new hypothesis or proposal and even say "hey this is great Rhizome helped articulate a really great alternative to Postmodernism!" I think that is the better option and worth exploring.
I'll try to write some additional and more specific commentary tomorrow. However I can definitely say that a good portion of what I think is important for the current aesthetic-evolutionary situation is addressed by your chapter.
So great job and thanks for posting it!
Max
P.S., Brett Stallbaum has done some writing about autopoetic or self-organizing systems as they relate to cognition, the human mind, etc., and I think such ideas also connect to the greater system or culture i.e. "art history" and the current art-historical period. In Le Cafe I refer to this by comparing the new kind of art to Wolfram's "a new kind of science," and I think you are certainly correct that science is looked at by Postmodernism very weakly as you mention in section 4.2.
I forgot to mention that I quote Francis Bacon's Novum Organum in Le Cafe. He mentioned a problem almost identical to the "performative contradiction" you mention vis-a-vis Postmodernism. So, I think you could say that art or aesthetic authority has always had thorny relations with reason and logic, Socrates being the oldest example or one of the oldest.
thanks for the kind words. I wish I could respond to your Le Cafe, but given its book length it takes time to simply read let alone reflect on. Skimming it it certainly looks like we share a number of interests.
I do want to clarify something, however, in response to the above posts here. I don't view postmodernism or modernism as a mistake per se. Both were the right sets of ideas for their time. But it is now no longer the time for either.
Whatever is to come next will probably have to subsume both modernism and postmodernism. At first glance their directly contradictory world-views might seem to make such a thing impossible.
But I believe I have found such a way. That is what the chapter I linked to here is about.
You make a good point about preserving the good elements in both Modernism and Postmodernism to carry that valuable content forward into the new period, or model of things if you will, as that is good science as well as good art. I can sometimes be too rambunctious against Postmodernism, but I think there is also sometimes a tendency not question it enough so there's a dynamic tension there.
A few main points where I agree very much with your chapter:
1. importance of dynamism 2. object/process comparison 3. value of a manifesto (I hearken very much to Wordsworth's 1802 "Preface to the Lyrical Ballads" lately) 4. political inflection of Postmodernism 5. long time period required to develop the new period (decades or centuries) 6. great value of bringing science and the humanities out of a counterproductive estrangement 7. key relevance of systems theory and its many related concepts 8. relevance of biology, esp. recent discoveries in this area 9. possible limitations to a "very high technology" focus alone 10. evolution as a crucial fundamental principle (what I call "aesthetic evolution" in Le Cafe) 11. The following from your chapter section 3.5: "A primary observation of this manifesto is this sad fact; despite a relatively recent superficial embrace of trendy technology-based art, the arts and humanities in the 20th century have developed a growing antipathy towards science at the level of fundamental philosophy. Until the sciences and the humanities can be reconciled, it is likely that evolutionary art will be denied its crown as one of the most complex forms of generative art, and robbed of its culturally transformational power." 12. Your overall section 4 13. the noun-verb idea 14. forms being important, and new system-oriented ones particularly 15. theory and practice blending (similar to C5's idea of "theory as product") 16. the idea of Feedback is very important
I would say my own differences are slight but would filter in to section 5. I believe that "connectionism," a term I also use in Le Cafe, is relevant but can have a downside if considered as too efficacious taken alone. There is also the issue of personal freedom, boundaries, and individual development and achievement. Deriving from this are additional but I think not insurmountable or completely unapproachable questions of cultural and political authority, coercive power used to prevent unacceptable outcomes, negotiations and creative tension thereon, but also kind of counter-utopian realities of necessity and what might be called "the nightmare of history." Churchill alluded to this when he called history something like the "age-old litany of human crimes and misery."
Additional aspects that I also think are very important to consider and that I discuss in Le Cafe:
1. heroism 2. brain biology 3. communication and communication theory 4. Norbert Wiener 5. Security and power in a network environment (as discussed in Galloway's recent book I think) 6. Possible disinclination of contemporary art institutions to a new period (outsider factor) 7. Political pragmatism and stability 8. Globalization and instability, war on terror, etc. 9. Importance of cycles 10. Unification theory of quantum and relativity (physics analogies to aesthetic systems)
All in all I think your chapter is a great resource for relevant science and theory, and makes the overall case for a systems-inflected new art-historical period quite strongly and accurately.
I also wanted to mention that I think religion is important for numerous reasons: its art-historical relevance, as well as historical, social, and even political ongoing importance, but also because of its view of the universe often on systems terms (as you note with Islam and its generative art). Religion also I think relates importantly to new science, as Michio Kaku has written about, as well as art as Benjamin wrote about.
I went to see one of Kaku's lectures and talked to him about art relating to science, and we agreed that although art had come to terms with Einstein's theory of relativity in the 20th c. there had not yet been an incorporation of unification theory with art. So this is another main area of aesthetic development that I see for the 21st c., along with systems and complexity theory.
I just noticed that Manuel Castells may be relevant to the new art-historical period. Wikipedia states he is one of several famous theorists who think in terms of a current phase of modernity, rather than being in postmodernity. This is in the Wikipedia article on Postmodernism
Generally in this article I agree with the "Pro-modernity critiques" section, like Habermas. I think that modern development kind of got stymied because the 20th c. was so violent and getting to the new art-historical period after Postmodernism is so tricky.
Comments
wow
Hi All,
I am wondering if people think we are in a new art-historical period now, after postmodernism, and if so how this new period could or should be defined. This is the main topic of my new book Le Cafe which you can find at www.geocities.com/genius-2000.
Best regards,
Max Herman
The Genius 2000 Network
Le Cafe now online
www.geocities.com/genius-2000
+++
I believe I know what *should* come after postmodernism. Here is a recently published chapter I wrote on this.
http://www.philipgalanter.com/downloads/complexism_chapter.pdf
I believe I know what *should* come after postmodernism. Here is a recently published chapter I wrote on this.
http://www.philipgalanter.com/downloads/complexism_chapter.pdf
Excellent reply Philip! I'll definitely read this and respond. I see quite a few ideas and words in common with my own book at first glance. It can be like dueling banjos!
Hi Philip,
I think your chapter is excellent. I would even go so far as to say I mention several of the same topics and ideas in Le Cafe.
I think you are completely correct that Postmodernism is a big cause of the errors and why art and science are estranged, and I cite the same four Postmodernists: Barthes, Foucault, Derrida, and Lyotard (indirectly by mention of the concepts).
I don't know if it is acceptable in today's crazy world, or "anxious and confusing" as I think Miguel Amado called the post 9/11 era on the recent cover item or featured commentary item, to advocate for a move to something other than Postmodernism. In my book I consider the idea that Postmodernism is exactly the helpful kind of illusion to calm the world down and thus reduce total planetary catastrophe.
Or to put it another way, an alternative to Postmodernism might disrupt the art market and academia, which would cause discomfort for the New Museum and cause them to take down Rhizome completely because of the excessive economic damage your idea of Complexism would cause if discussed in detail, acted upon, etc.
Ideally, they would permit your new hypothesis or proposal and even say "hey this is great Rhizome helped articulate a really great alternative to Postmodernism!" I think that is the better option and worth exploring.
I'll try to write some additional and more specific commentary tomorrow. However I can definitely say that a good portion of what I think is important for the current aesthetic-evolutionary situation is addressed by your chapter.
So great job and thanks for posting it!
Max
P.S., Brett Stallbaum has done some writing about autopoetic or self-organizing systems as they relate to cognition, the human mind, etc., and I think such ideas also connect to the greater system or culture i.e. "art history" and the current art-historical period. In Le Cafe I refer to this by comparing the new kind of art to Wolfram's "a new kind of science," and I think you are certainly correct that science is looked at by Postmodernism very weakly as you mention in section 4.2.
Hi Philip,
I forgot to mention that I quote Francis Bacon's Novum Organum in Le Cafe. He mentioned a problem almost identical to the "performative contradiction" you mention vis-a-vis Postmodernism. So, I think you could say that art or aesthetic authority has always had thorny relations with reason and logic, Socrates being the oldest example or one of the oldest.
Dear Max,
thanks for the kind words. I wish I could respond to your Le Cafe, but given its book length it takes time to simply read let alone reflect on. Skimming it it certainly looks like we share a number of interests.
I do want to clarify something, however, in response to the above posts here. I don't view postmodernism or modernism as a mistake per se. Both were the right sets of ideas for their time. But it is now no longer the time for either.
Whatever is to come next will probably have to subsume both modernism and postmodernism. At first glance their directly contradictory world-views might seem to make such a thing impossible.
But I believe I have found such a way. That is what the chapter I linked to here is about.
cheers,
Philip
Hi Philip,
You make a good point about preserving the good elements in both Modernism and Postmodernism to carry that valuable content forward into the new period, or model of things if you will, as that is good science as well as good art. I can sometimes be too rambunctious against Postmodernism, but I think there is also sometimes a tendency not question it enough so there's a dynamic tension there.
A few main points where I agree very much with your chapter:
1. importance of dynamism
2. object/process comparison
3. value of a manifesto (I hearken very much to Wordsworth's 1802 "Preface to the Lyrical Ballads" lately)
4. political inflection of Postmodernism
5. long time period required to develop the new period (decades or centuries)
6. great value of bringing science and the humanities out of a counterproductive estrangement
7. key relevance of systems theory and its many related concepts
8. relevance of biology, esp. recent discoveries in this area
9. possible limitations to a "very high technology" focus alone
10. evolution as a crucial fundamental principle (what I call "aesthetic evolution" in Le Cafe)
11. The following from your chapter section 3.5: "A primary observation of this manifesto is this sad fact; despite a relatively recent superficial embrace of trendy technology-based art, the arts and humanities in the 20th
century have developed a growing antipathy towards science at the level of fundamental
philosophy. Until the sciences and the humanities can be reconciled, it is likely that
evolutionary art will be denied its crown as one of the most complex forms of generative
art, and robbed of its culturally transformational power."
12. Your overall section 4
13. the noun-verb idea
14. forms being important, and new system-oriented ones particularly
15. theory and practice blending (similar to C5's idea of "theory as product")
16. the idea of Feedback is very important
I would say my own differences are slight but would filter in to section 5. I believe that "connectionism," a term I also use in Le Cafe, is relevant but can have a downside if considered as too efficacious taken alone. There is also the issue of personal freedom, boundaries, and individual development and achievement. Deriving from this are additional but I think not insurmountable or completely unapproachable questions of cultural and political authority, coercive power used to prevent unacceptable outcomes, negotiations and creative tension thereon, but also kind of counter-utopian realities of necessity and what might be called "the nightmare of history." Churchill alluded to this when he called history something like the "age-old litany of human crimes and misery."
Additional aspects that I also think are very important to consider and that I discuss in Le Cafe:
1. heroism
2. brain biology
3. communication and communication theory
4. Norbert Wiener
5. Security and power in a network environment (as discussed in Galloway's recent book I think)
6. Possible disinclination of contemporary art institutions to a new period (outsider factor)
7. Political pragmatism and stability
8. Globalization and instability, war on terror, etc.
9. Importance of cycles
10. Unification theory of quantum and relativity (physics analogies to aesthetic systems)
All in all I think your chapter is a great resource for relevant science and theory, and makes the overall case for a systems-inflected new art-historical period quite strongly and accurately.
Keep us posted on further developments please!
Best regards,
Max
+++
Hi Philip,
I also wanted to mention that I think religion is important for numerous reasons: its art-historical relevance, as well as historical, social, and even political ongoing importance, but also because of its view of the universe often on systems terms (as you note with Islam and its generative art). Religion also I think relates importantly to new science, as Michio Kaku has written about, as well as art as Benjamin wrote about.
I went to see one of Kaku's lectures and talked to him about art relating to science, and we agreed that although art had come to terms with Einstein's theory of relativity in the 20th c. there had not yet been an incorporation of unification theory with art. So this is another main area of aesthetic development that I see for the 21st c., along with systems and complexity theory.
Max
Hi Philip,
I just noticed that Manuel Castells may be relevant to the new art-historical period. Wikipedia states he is one of several famous theorists who think in terms of a current phase of modernity, rather than being in postmodernity. This is in the Wikipedia article on Postmodernism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernity
Generally in this article I agree with the "Pro-modernity critiques" section, like Habermas. I think that modern development kind of got stymied because the 20th c. was so violent and getting to the new art-historical period after Postmodernism is so tricky.
Also, I just e-mailed the link for Le Cafe to Dr. Castells, so if he replies at all I will definitely inform the group.