Metamodernism

I personally like McLuhan's model of it, although he talks about it in terms of the "literary" and the "electric" age.

In the electric age, the centre achieved instantaneous communication with its periphery, which accelerated all the points along those lines of communication and dissolved the centre-periphery relationship, achieving a state where all points are equidistant from each other.

I didn't really understand it ro be honest. Been a while since I read it, but I remember one of their main points being an 'oscillation between irony and sincerity' (parapphrasing). Do they really belive postmodenism was entirely ironic? I've read my way through a decent chunk of postmodern (fiction and non), and there is no way any of them weren't already switching between the two.

On a side note, anyone reas that essay about what comes next by some professor in 2006, and he talked about the participation midel of reality tv. Pretty interesting, wrong though. I'll see if i can find it later

top kek

It's cute when toddlers have matching outfits, but really now you have to grow up someday.

I'm not entirely sure what it is. This excerpt from Shia Labeaoufs amphetamine psychosis manifest makes it out to be pretty fucking dumb though:

>the mercurial condition between and beyond irony and sincerity, naivety and knowingness, relativism and truth, optimism and doubt, in pursuit of a plurality of disparate and elusive horizons.

you're blind

kek

postmodernism is going to be with us for much longer. critics pronouncing its death to this or that new tendency simply lack the dialectical imagination proper to criticism. what seems like the "end" of postmodernism, namely its absorption into popular consciousness through its appropriation by mass media, is simply its apotheosis, the blossoming of its highest form. meta-theatrical commercials that undermine their own status as commodity are the telos of Barthes' Lost in the Funhouse.

astute observation

metamodernism.org

Inderdasding

today i learned some new words

glad i could help

>What are Veeky Forums's thoughts?
I think that we are probably living in a "meta-modern" world but I also think these fellows are fucking faggots.

The question of what comes after postmodernism is stupid.

In fact the use of the prefix "post-" is stupid because modernism never really went away and the prefix implies linear progression which is simply not true.

Modernism and postmodernism arrived relatively quickly around the same time. Postmodernism is a reaction to what was seen as the core assumption of modernism, the universality of reason.

Modernism in the arts begins at roughly the mid to late 19th century and postmodernism beings at the beginning of the 20th in the wake of WWI.

From then on there have been excursions and permutations on both but in general it has been an ongoing argument about that core modernist assumption with the modernist response being that postmodernism critiques but offers nothing in response.

Metamodernism is nothing. Some internet fuckers attempting to cash in by coming up with a phrase that sounds good as quickly as possible. It's a name before a movement when movements are always organic and arise naturally.

I suggest you stop worrying about these labels and do something worthwhile.

lol that's not post-modernism. Post-modernism is treating seriously the mental illness that comes from the self-obsession and nihilism of being a pylon.

I hate how DFW popularized this idea that postmodernism is just irony, and how we need to bring sincerity and sentimentality back. Honestly, Gravity's Rainbow was probably just as sentimental as Bleak House, and Bleak House had it's fair share of cynical irony. The two usually exist in tangent, unless DFW had been reading really lame postmodernist stuff.

As far as I know, DFW was perfectly aware of Pynchon's work, also the comments about irony in pomo are commonly taken out of context and he didn't really meant it as to define the postmodern art/fiction, he attacked irony when speaking about the postmodern state of consciousness and how it defends itself through the infinite loop of irony.

I meant moreso like it frustrates me how people take it out of context yknow?

>Modernism in the arts begins at roughly the mid to late 19th century and postmodernism beings at the beginning of the 20th in the wake of WWI
The fuck? modernism (or rather the more easily recognisable form of high modernism) didn't come about until after the end of the 19th century, and is recognisable as a bona-fide 'event' or moment of crisis, usually coinciding with the first world war. Pomo, on the other hand, was a development in fiction which came about during the 1960s as people were becoming disillusioned by the grand metanarratives of enlightenment and progress espoused by modernist thinkers. You're right in your general distinctions between the two but I don't see how you can be so wrong about their points of origin

We can speak of proto-modernism and proto-post-modernism. You're speaking more when they became dominant in the arts rather than first observable.

The Dada movement appears to me to be distinctly post-modern

Great works create movements, not academics and marketing teams.

This is why postmodernism was never a thing. Name a single postmodern novel anyone outside the literary community gives a shit about.

I have no comment about 'metamodernism', it sounds even more fake.

catch 22

Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy :)

>what seems like the "end" of postmodernism, namely its absorption into popular consciousness through its appropriation by mass media, is simply its apotheosis, the blossoming of its highest form
this, desu.
accelerationists (((see))) ahead of the game, and like doomsayers are constantly calling the end too soon, but that's because they are not (((in))) the game. postmodernism is at its strongest, we're nearing the plateau, and there will be no metamodern shift until culture has been saturated by it, not (((affected))) by it, but (((saturated))) by it. defined by it. then there will be a shift back towards the modern with postmodern devices, techniques, and components, which is metamodernism, but postmodernism as a cultural motif is still held at arm's length as tryhard hipster bullshit.
god damn I wish we had italics.

To be fair, no one reads any more. So the only way it could make a splash is in a literary community.

Luckily for the doomsayers. They never have to show anything just declare over and over that it's happening and then reinvent themselves in the image of whatever that is.
>art is post-modern, eh tv news is post-modern, eh rap is post-modern, eh grafiti is post-modern, eh the internet is post-modern, eh memes are post-modern
gee just around that corner post-modernism is bound to happen.

ps you can tell it's dead when French philosophers start writing about the re-emergence of history in art, lol. I guess 1966 isn't the new 2016.

modernism started with Baudelaire and ended with ww1

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_literature#Examples_of_postmodern_literature

That's some German tier efficiency without lacking the sense of humour right there.

LOL

>implying the next art movement won't be atemporality, discarding a linear view of history

>treating seriously

What comes after atemporality?

What's the problem?

I don't think there is a probem per se, but I can't understand what you wrote.
What did you mean by this?

>Dutch

I bet they're talking about a green planet, the benefits of diversity and Spinoza as a guiding light in all that, right?

the problem with the metamodern thesis is that it's not clear how the "return to modernist tendencies" is any different from postmodernist pastiche/parody and reification. i would say that metamodern is simply the name for the final pastiche of postmodernism, which is the pastiche of the modern itself. the problem is that at that point, there will be a moment where the difference—between the postmodern "essence" and what will by then be the metamodern "appearance"—will be totally indistinguishable, like a kind of philoso-critical poe's law.

a little criticism would do you good. you'd know that the self-conscious creation of "movements" by the artists involved was a modernist flash in the pan. you think Goethe was self-consciously aspiring to Romanticism? au contraire: he had an ideal that critics called romanticism.

Postmodernism is a response, a critique, and/or allusion of modernism. It calls back to a pre-established paradigm. Modernism is the established technique, the medium as we know it, a (((something new))). Postmodernism mocks it. Turns it on its head, looks at it in a new light, admires it. (((Responds))) to it. It builds on the "something new".
Metamodernism will be another (((something new))), but in the context of a postmodern society. It will use postmodern building blocks, but it will be a response to nothing, it will be new.
It will be more apparent in other mediums, literature is kind of a clusterfuck when it comes to this sort of thing

This might actually be it. A lot of the Senior thesis film projects in my class are working with a vague/anachronistic aesthetic regarding when they're set. Maybe it's a sign of what's to come.

i agree with you that lit is a wreck, but i believe we should take this as a sign that it's always been bunk. your concept of the postmodern seems apt, but i think it is lacking, insofar as you think the metamodern is possible as you've described it: postmodernism will not have been realized as such until the art object is apparently new: at this point it's appropriation of the modern will be complete, total, and if we aren't careful our narratizing tendency, which resists postmodernity's infectious gravity, will be destabilized and sucked up along with everything else. thus if the concept is to be useful at all, the metamodern should be left open as a utopian ideal that reality could never quite manage, an empty seat left open for the totally new, the anti-Gesamtkuntswerk whose body has no original matter, a theory to which practice should tend but which it knows it can never grasp—call metamodernism the death drive of the postmodern, its inherent, virtual difference with itself: the euphoric nihilism of the absolute negation, for it must be absolute, given the totality postmodernism has so obviously become.

What building is that in the background

fpbp

Stupid bullshit for tryhard faggots.

Metamodern visual arts faggot nodding on opiates sent from /pol/ via Google Alerts.

If Modernism was the reaching for a universal enlightenment ideal, Postmodernism could be viewed as the rejection of the universal for highly personalized truths. Metamodernism is trying to create some kind of consensus truth from these values. The only validity being their shared overlap in the subjective.

Science (Ultimate truth) -> Personal Truth -> Social Media Echo Chambers

In the view of the visual arts we are seeing a turn from purely deconstructive techniques and material exploration (for it's own sake). Rather then simply creating, deconstructive techniques are used to break subjects apart and then create. These techniques are still used in a constructive fashion to explore traditional subjects rather then simply the medium itself.

18th Cen Oils > Modernist Abstraction > Collage > Collage + Tradition

If you look at holy icon paintings the only way saints are understood is through the symbols they are near (Saint Agatha: Pair of Tits on a plate, St Paul the keys to heaven). PM approaches to deconstructing icons keep the aesthetics and explore the material, but remove the subject. A MM approach would be to recreate a saint using these symbols applied with the overall aesthetics/structure of a .ico created from say cigarette packs or some shit.

Fuck i'm high. But consensus truth.

Please fuck off with your shilling

For the ravagings of an intoxicated user this makes a lot of sense.
I'm probably going to try and find a way to apply a philosophy similar to this to my films.

>Postmodernism could be viewed as the rejection of the universal for highly personalized truths. Metamodernism is trying to create some kind of consensus truth from these values.

too simplistic. there is a difference between rejection and historically determined unavailability. the commitment to the new, the communal, the revolutionary, that animated the modernists, is no longer thinkable as such in the postmodern, and when it appears that we have grasped it, it is hypostasized as an object of contemplation beyond all actual creative power. metamodernism is simply the name for the moment when postmodern nihilism doubles back on itself, and the vacuous simulation of the values of yesteryear finally grabs hold of the ethos of creation of the modern itself.

any luck finding it?

>excerpt from Shia Labeaoufs amphetamine psychosis manifest
link?

metamodernism.org/