I am not alone in my dissatisfaction for the term "postmodern art." My sense is that is a place-holder term for something entirely more descriptive, accurate, and sustainable. Witness E.H. Gombrich, author of the seminal Story of Art:
Certainly the 'tradition of the new' that had maintained such a firm hold on twentieth-century art had not weakened in the intervening period. But for the very reason it was sensed that the Modern Movement had become so universally accepted and so respectable that is was by now 'old hat'. Surely it was time for another turning of the tide. It was this expetation that crystallized in the new slogan of 'Post-Modernism'. Nobody claims that this is a good term. After all, it says nothing more than that the adherents of this trend consider 'Modernism' to be a thing of the past.
Exactly my point below. If the terms "Archaic" and "Traditional" and "Modern" are difficult to define because for art each is so broad, "Post-modern" is even more difficult.
Jean Gebser, author of the widely-influential The Ever-Present Origin, suggests that there are five broad sociocultural stages of human evolution. In this view, there are stages of archaic, magic, mythic, mental, and integral-aperspectival (which Wilber reframes as 'existential-aperspectival'). Each of these comprise broad but more or less distinct stages of development in the sociocultural sphere. Each of these stages, or ages, is comprised of individual and collective consciousness that produce artifacts of infinite varieties. One class of artifacts we can simply call "art" (although calling any piece or work of art an "artifact" is, I believe, a helpful move).
Gebster characterizes each age according to extent evidence, as a means to understand the consciousness present during each age (as best we can). For example, with the archaic age, he cites evidence from early China, which suggests that "at the time, blue and green are not yet differentiated. The common word Ch'ing is used for the color of the sky as well as of the sprouting plant." Thus a predominant characterization of the archaic age is on of undifferentiation. Or as Plato wrote: "The soul ... [came into being] simultaneously with the sky.".
In terms of art(ifacts) of each age's dominant consciousness, I suggest we can use that sort of schema to shed light on what "postmodern art" might be. Given the broader conception from Gebser (an acknowledged light), it might be that with postmodern art (more or less art since the early 20th centurty) we can see just those currents that I believe define its character.
In the wonderful and exhaustive Art in Theory, 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, the authors Charles Harrison and Paul Wood suggest that postmodern art deals with three predominant themes:
1. Postmodernism as a critique of the myth of originality 2. Postmodernism as a critique of the grounds of difference, and 3. Postmodernism as a critique of historical narratives.
Suzi Gablik, author of Has Modernism Failed?, and The Reenchantment of Art suggests that the
...pervasive need of the deconstructive mind to know what is not possible anymore would seem to represent an absolute terminus in the 'disenchanted' modern world view; the self-checkmating of a now dysfunctional but apparently immovable dominant social structure. Deconstructive postmodernism does not ward off the truth of this reality, but tries to come to terms with its inevitability, in what are often ironic or parodic modes that do not criticize, but simply declare art's pointlessness openly, and bait us with its indifference.
Thus we can see the reactive quality of much of postmodern art. The trusts are against what modernistic, hegomonic, monolithic culture and all that such a world view brings forth. Harrison and Wood, in each of their three themes of postmodern art, characterize it as a critique of modernism. While the evidence does not suggest that all of what passes as 'postmodern art' is reactive to modernism, enough of it does for us to realize that one of the major currents of postmodernism is, in healthy form, a reactive critique of modernism, and is a more pathological form, trangressive and deconstructive of ideas, growth, evolution, and even meaning of any kind.
As to the other major strain of postmodern art, I will get to that in the next entry.
I am going to be publishing an extended piece about an integral theory of music. Many people have been asking me about this topic, and of course being a musician myself, I have a great deal of interest in it. I think such a broad framework will, in done correctly according to the extent evidence, is going to be of great help to musicians, composers, instrumentalists, singers, engineers, electronic producers and DJs, and more. It would have to be able to touch all of those areas, else it wouldn't be integral. Here are some of the basic questions that I am considering.
What are the accounts of music from East, West, North, and South? How can we organize these in a flexible but coherant model that honors the truths, wisdom, and power of each? What are the basic elements of music, and how have these manifested in music past and present, in all major musical traditions? Are the contemporary genres of music truly different, or do the mere surface features vary, leaving music similiarity in the deep features? What are the values that music can speak to? What are the forms of architectural complexity in music? What are the major methodologies employed by musicians, instrumentalists, composers, listeners? What is the phenomenology/structuralism of music as its interior energy manifests in musicians and listeners? How can a theory of integral semiotics frame this? Is music an "artifact," or something greater? How can we best frame "the effects" of music on musicians and listeners? What are the various intelligences in play in music? What is the role of "classical" forms in contemporary music? What has been reflected in the historical periods of music? What is a means for a contemporary musician to take all of this into account, fashion a usable "integral" model, and still be able to compose/play music unencumbered by information overload?
Stay tuned for my scholarly and poetical statements on an integral theory of music. This is exciting stuff!
"Postmodernism" is a terrible term. While it is certainly seen that cultures have a difficult if not impossible time defining its own Zeitgeist while it is still living and breathing, the problem of defining "postmodernism" appears to be a particularly difficult one. Why do I say this? Look around! Pick up ten books that proclaim an understanding of "postmodernism", and you'll get 35 different definitions.
One of the problems with the term is that is so damn open-ended. "Postmodernism" is literally anything after modernism. It could be positive, negative, optimistic, pessimistic. It could point towards the future, it could regress to the past. The only requirement is that it happens in a way not directly "modernistic", and in the case of art, it was created in the last 100 years in a developed country.
I must admit that I am starting to wonder about this whole bogeyman that is the era of "postmodernity", as it is known in virtually every disipline in highly developed countries around the world. I am starting to wonder if the confusion and to some degree chaos of culture, worldviews, morals has to do with the transitionary period we find ourselves in. James Elkins, in his Stories of Art suggests that postmodernism is not a period, but a state. Thus in this view, postmodernism does not qualify as a historical wave unto itself, but the muddled froth between major waves. The pomo puddle.
I am starting to wonder if, for example in the art world, the common genre of "postmodern art" known as "pop art" is a confluence of two discreet currents, one at its end and one at its earliest beginnings. The one at its end is a current where it is believed that there is only one way to look at art, in terms of its interpretation, meaning, and effects. Pop art, such as Andy Warhol's work, blows such a mindset to bits. On the other hand, the current at its beginning is the realization, if unconscious to many artists up to recently, that not only is there not one meaning or interpretation to art, but that meanings possibly meant by the author/artist are sometimes completely missed, and instead interpreted by viewers in a radically different way. Thus, and I think the various accounts of artists tackling this issue will bear this out, there is not a singular, monolithic "meaning" of any artifact, but instead a "spectrum of meaning" from the most fundamental to the most discreet.
It is literally impossible for a piece of art, or "artifact", to not say something. Even if the art says, "there is nothing for art to say anymore", that in and of it self is a meaning conveyed by the art. Thus arises the contradiction of the extreme nihilistic art. In the manifest realm, it is beyond possibility for an artifact to be about nothing. Every artifact makes some sort of statement. Some are more transparent than others, naturally. But a clouded or muddy statement is still a statement. Duchamp's famous porcelain toilet, even if deconstructionist in intent, still has both an intent, and a meaning. It is impossible for an artist to escape either of those in the artifacts he or she produces.
Of course many artists try to accomplish just that task. They try to remove themselves from the artistic process, or claim that in no way shape or form does an artist make meaning. All meaning, the thought goes, is created by viewers. That is fine. I see nothing wrong with that. But carried to its logical conclusion, the basic point emerges that the artist is a viewer, too. The artist witnesses the birth of an artifact (performance, song, poem, sculpture, and so on) in a more intimate and connected way than the other viewers. It is not that there is a huge distinction between artist and the lay viewers. The difference lies in the degree of distance from the creative process that produced the artifact, even if the artifact itself is meant to lay dormant until viewers come along to "create it". Potential art, in this sense, is still born in the awareness of the artist. And art with meaning unconscious to the artist at the time of conception provides opportunity for artists and viewers to share in the discovery.
So, carrying my assumption forward (the thought that maybe "postmodernism" is actually "late modernism", and thus a subset of modernism), we would have to account for a great deal of contemporary art that is, incorrectly I believe, characterized as "postmodern art." We would have to deal with the large current in "postmodernity" that is nihilistic, deconstructionistic, and transgressive in intent. We would have to flesh out the currents of the "postmodern" that align with the end of modernism, and those that are legitimately non-modernistic. We would have to lay this out in a broader manner that includes archaic/ancient, classical, medieval, renaissance, baroque art along with modern art and art that is beyond modern. And in fact, this "beyond modern", I believe, is simply "integral art". Thus in this sense we might have ancient to classical to medieval to renaissance to baroque to modern to integral. Mind you, this is the traditional structure (minus the inclusion of integral) for the visual arts. Other arts, such as music, proceed in a slightly different order (though unfortunately using similar terminology).
In this framework, we can start to see how contemporary artists, in efforts to escape from some of the modernistic trappings and problems, are actually intuiting a spectrum of a deeper, wider, more embracing and inclusive kind of art. We might see how various "proto integral" artists and lovers of art have provided the various insights and bits of wisdom that we are incorporating and honoring as we put together a truly "integral model" of the art world.
We will see how this small intuition of mine - that "postmodernity" is more accurately framed as "late modernity / early integral" fares in the coming months and years. We will see if such a view is a helpful means to view, reflect upon, and thus evolve past the current morass of thought around the broader period we currently live in. We shall see if such a view provides a sustainable means to transcend and include the variety of truths and wisdom that fly around the world like little bees.
Hannah and I were in Philadelphia over the weekend. We took in her sister Maggie's graduation from Bryn Mawr University. What a beautiful campus! I never thought I'd see a prettier campus than my alma mater, Washington University in St. Louis, but I have to say that Bryn Mawr is at least a couple orders more beautiful.
We had a great time. The festivities run over two days. The first day was the convocation, for all of the main speeches. I was excited when a woman, who received her PhD in Biology, talked about studying squid and living a balanced life, with family, friends, and everything else that arises from simply being a healthy, multifaceted human being.
That is everything that integral practice is all about. Inspired by the framework of ITP, integral practice draws some broad lines so as to cover all the areas of a "balanced life" that appear to exist. To hear most of this (in non-integral terminology) was inspiring, and provided further cement to my commitment in doing what I can to make available the kinds of tools and guidance that help people live more balanced lives than they even thought possible.
"One always runs the risk of sounding self-indulgent when one discusses the manner in which one prays, meditates, or in general 'gets their contemplative groove on.'" Thus begins my newest essay, on my personal practice, posted here.
That is the title of a newly forming essay which is posted in Writings. It appears to me that the Art Domain incorporates at least three main "spectrums", which arise when all the evidence is looked at and coordinated according to natural patterns which emerge. Enjoy.
The weekend in Minneapolis was great. Saw lots of friends, zipped around town at 6 am to see all my old haunts, and most importantly had a very good recording sessions at my buddy Andrew Carlson's hip n' rockin' Dogtown Studios for my three new pieces of music.
Two of them -- Bliss Followed, a duet for violin & mbira; and Men of My Dreams, for jazz trio -- are soundtrack music for Hannah's film, Bliss Followed. The third -- Flirtasia, a canon for alto saxophone and violin -- will be on the upcoming record I Am Sound.
Adam Maas on alto sax is, as always, a dream to work with. Kale Olson Reed on violin is amazing as well. I don't have to do a lot of talking and explaining to these cats, which is a very fortunate place to be in as a composer. Both these guys have plenty of experience and reference points in jazz and contemporary improvisation, AND have their classical background in their respective instruments. Before you can be nobody, you gotta be somebody.
Look for all of this music soon on the website. I'm starting to put together I Am Sound. Still searching out appropriate album art, but content-wise, this is starting to feel like a pretty contemplative record.
I have drafted several papers for the upcoming launch of Integral University. I put four of the papers on Writings for you to check out and review. An Integral Art Manifesto discusses how to be an integrally informed artist. The Big Three of Integral Art talks about how the integral model can apply to the world of art proper in three primary ways. Wrench added some contributions to this paper. IOS For Artists in Real Time discusses how the model can function in an artist's everyday practice. All three will be part of the founding documents of the Art Domain, and will likely appear in slightly revised form. The fourth is Integral Art Games & Injunctions, and it contains various exercises to enhance a felt-resonance of the integral model.
RSS
