Scan barcode
buddhafish's review
4.0
142nd book of 2020.
A "simple" insight into postmodernism. The definition of postmodernism is elusive. There's a great line in the first few pages of this book: postmodernism may feel very much like Narcissus’ reflection in the water, which disintegrates the moment one reaches out to grasp it. I would say that's fairly apt; and when we reach out to grasp it, ripples are sent rolling in all directions, disturbing everything: art, literature, music, film...
I recently read Butler's [b:Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction|74647|Postmodernism A Very Short Introduction|Christopher Butler|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1386924261l/74647._SY75_.jpg|72200] and found it enlightening to an extent, but his stance was too scathing to be truly interesting; by introducing something at the same time as discrediting it, your opinion comes off as being rather redundant. My review of Butler is here. Enough about Butler though - Heartney takes a more neutral stance and it pays off. She outlines elements of postmodernism and explains, briefly and without much jargon, some of the philosophy and context behind some famous pieces. For example: Kosuth's "Clock (One and Five) English/Latin Version" [pictured below] is a piece I have seen many times and often disregarded, but now it is perhaps one of my favourite pieces of postmodern art.
Heartney covers Feminism, Multiculturalism and the idea of the Anti-Aesthetics; it is not a long book but everything is covered to a good measure, brief but not lacking in content, with interesting examples. It was published by Tate, so with it is the level of trust, especially since postmodernism tends to defy all logic and (simple) explanation. There is still room for one to ask if critics are forcing meaning on some of the displayed artworks - as ever in the art world, particularly the modern art world. It's probably impossible to be in the Tate Modern nowadays and not to hear "I could do that," multiple times. Or else claiming a child could do it. (This is a tangent but I saw this book in a bookshop recently and feel very inclined to read it, what a great title and subject matter: [b:Why Your Five-Year-Old Could Not Have Done That: Modern Art Explained|15917028|Why Your Five-Year-Old Could Not Have Done That Modern Art Explained|Susie Hodge|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1420787757l/15917028._SX50_.jpg|21667004].)
Even artwork that appears to have no meaning at all finds meaning. Koons' piece above is one that I have seen a thousand times now as I have spent the last few months researching postmodernism and one I have continually ignored. Heartney says this, which I will leave here without reflecting on myself:
I will say - its creation is far more impressive than I ever previously imagined. (Mercury! Suspended! Salt water!)
And, like Butler's conclusion, Heartney ends with questioning the lifespan of postmodernism. Is it already dead? Have we reached the post-postmodern era? She says, There is evidence everywhere of the return of the real. Interestingly, postmodernists even conceded that postmodernism has become discredited by its very popularity. So, is it dead? Or, rather, did it lose? I'll end with a quote from Hal Foster -
We did not lose. In a sense a worse thing has happened: treated as a fashion, postmodernism became démodé.
A "simple" insight into postmodernism. The definition of postmodernism is elusive. There's a great line in the first few pages of this book: postmodernism may feel very much like Narcissus’ reflection in the water, which disintegrates the moment one reaches out to grasp it. I would say that's fairly apt; and when we reach out to grasp it, ripples are sent rolling in all directions, disturbing everything: art, literature, music, film...
I recently read Butler's [b:Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction|74647|Postmodernism A Very Short Introduction|Christopher Butler|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1386924261l/74647._SY75_.jpg|72200] and found it enlightening to an extent, but his stance was too scathing to be truly interesting; by introducing something at the same time as discrediting it, your opinion comes off as being rather redundant. My review of Butler is here. Enough about Butler though - Heartney takes a more neutral stance and it pays off. She outlines elements of postmodernism and explains, briefly and without much jargon, some of the philosophy and context behind some famous pieces. For example: Kosuth's "Clock (One and Five) English/Latin Version" [pictured below] is a piece I have seen many times and often disregarded, but now it is perhaps one of my favourite pieces of postmodern art.
Heartney covers Feminism, Multiculturalism and the idea of the Anti-Aesthetics; it is not a long book but everything is covered to a good measure, brief but not lacking in content, with interesting examples. It was published by Tate, so with it is the level of trust, especially since postmodernism tends to defy all logic and (simple) explanation. There is still room for one to ask if critics are forcing meaning on some of the displayed artworks - as ever in the art world, particularly the modern art world. It's probably impossible to be in the Tate Modern nowadays and not to hear "I could do that," multiple times. Or else claiming a child could do it. (This is a tangent but I saw this book in a bookshop recently and feel very inclined to read it, what a great title and subject matter: [b:Why Your Five-Year-Old Could Not Have Done That: Modern Art Explained|15917028|Why Your Five-Year-Old Could Not Have Done That Modern Art Explained|Susie Hodge|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1420787757l/15917028._SX50_.jpg|21667004].)
Even artwork that appears to have no meaning at all finds meaning. Koons' piece above is one that I have seen a thousand times now as I have spent the last few months researching postmodernism and one I have continually ignored. Heartney says this, which I will leave here without reflecting on myself:
in which three basketballs inflated with water and mercury were unnaturally suspended in aquariums full of salt water. Again, Koons' point was that stasis and equilibrium are states reserved for inanimate objects. Thus, in works like these, he suggests that commodities are our more perfect selves, and that our desire for them is the desire for unsustainable states of being.
I will say - its creation is far more impressive than I ever previously imagined. (Mercury! Suspended! Salt water!)
And, like Butler's conclusion, Heartney ends with questioning the lifespan of postmodernism. Is it already dead? Have we reached the post-postmodern era? She says, There is evidence everywhere of the return of the real. Interestingly, postmodernists even conceded that postmodernism has become discredited by its very popularity. So, is it dead? Or, rather, did it lose? I'll end with a quote from Hal Foster -
We did not lose. In a sense a worse thing has happened: treated as a fashion, postmodernism became démodé.
schmidtmark56's review
5.0
Extremely enjoyable and easy-to-read prose. I would highly recommend this for anyone scratching their heads over sharks suspended in formaldehyde or crucifixes bathed in urine. It doesn't attempt to justify the postmodern era of art, but instead intends to describe it in a way understandable to human beings who exist outside of the bubble that is the art world.
More...