Wednesday, April 04, 2007

extracts from the panopticon vers. X.0

[2 surrounding maritime Topic 2]
"The acquisition of territory by subsistence level
organs ventilation light of the latest forms
under the feet of the Center on the aircraft
Central observer living.
within the limits of 124 or more cells
still ready to work with any partner
Verjeter message
this time even outside.
these homes are not likely Economic Sciences
P cell eyes of the very high potential criminals.
vertical cross-fourth of the cell Qatar circles
a slave, a respirator; complete constitution of the teeth
878 should be surprised, because Blinden division
Zhu Guang / write
It should be sufficient to adjust the test
for the most part we Box, So it is not. or a lot of freedom.
Inspector documents
still willing to work with any partner
[] each other in order to rescue prisoners of each client

11 Comments:

Blogger Geddy Lee Helium Voice. said...

Corporeal Foucault-u-like

6:11 am  
Blogger Cocaine Jesus said...

i had some serious doubts and misgivings about post modernism. i found a lot of it to be an overblown and pretentious load of tommy rot. however, i think your work and geddy lee HV's and matina's all probably fall into this odd catergory ( i say odd because i find all neat and convenient tags a little odd)but the three of you are certainly NOT pretentious at all but fun and i am beginning to change my mind.
yeah, i really like this. i like the way certain phrases and lines remain after being read.
also like the image.

9:27 am  
Blogger emily previn said...

Bentham certainly NOT post-modernist

me...pretentiousness not intended

thanx folks

everyone is giddily happy

the image was not to like but to describe

have fun in the cellblock

11:05 am  
Blogger Cocaine Jesus said...

bentham?

1:07 pm  
Blogger Cocaine Jesus said...

is this the jeremybentham? english philospher or have i yet again missed the point?

1:18 pm  
Blogger emily previn said...

Jeremy Bentham, yes, english whatever and designer of the panopticon

1:33 pm  
Blogger Cocaine Jesus said...

thank you.

2:39 pm  
Blogger Geddy Lee Helium Voice. said...

Foucault good on this form of punishment, CJ. Most interesting, somewhat sideways.

Postmodernism is a thorny one. Often caricatured or misrepresented. Most commentators don't understand or too-severely minimise the role Modernism plays in both franchising Pmodernism and in revealling its possible meanings. If you are interested, I'd say start with Charles Jencks - arguably, a logical starting point as Pm began life as a movement in architecture. From there - with notions of pastiche, trompe l'oi (sp?), appropriation/quotation of past styles being used in architecture - the same-ish moves were made in other artforms: painting, sculpture, writing and so on. Then there's the relationship between Modernism and Pmodernism and Structuralism and Post-Structuralism - in thought, philosophy, ideas; seen as underpinning these practical and artistic moves. Similar shifts - all somewhat a posteriori (after the fact) perhaps - can be detected in treaments in sociology, economics, and the rest. The best text I know of on the subject is David Harvey's The Condition of Postmodernity - that said, it is quite a few years since I bothered with this stuff, so I am by no means up to speed. Sometimes, Postmodernism gets used a catch-all term; to describe anything that looks, say, playful, ironic, and kind of un-narrow; the idea being that Modernism's various isms were directed, discreet, and seeking a form of exclusivity. One sees this in, say, Colourfield painting. A supposed Postmodern painting - by, say, David Salle - is apt to, say, quote the singularity of Colourfield painting, whilst spoiling that singularity and purism by introducing other elements, styles, and motifs seen, by Modernists, to be inimical and foreign to Colourfield in the strict sense. Salle might argue - after, say, Roland Barthes - that each iteration or element is merely a kind of sign or 'text'. Thus, one gets the idea, in Pmodernism, that everything - even art movements, paradigm shifts, historical events - are just features in the larger text which is life, perception, consciousness et al.

Personally, I find Modernism massively more interesting. But There are, to be sure, areas of cross-traffic between these two problematic isms, and I am no purist. Happy, in that sense, to take on board your notion, as food for thought. Cheers.

5:28 pm  
Blogger Geddy Lee Helium Voice. said...

A clarification:

By saying after the fact, I mean such things were neatly conceptualised by commentators sometime after - as often happens. Harvey is interesting, in positing the idea that it is shifts in the socio-economic fabric which presipitate reactions in art, literature etc. That is to say, these things play cause to arts reaction. On the whole, I tend to agree!

5:35 pm  
Blogger Cocaine Jesus said...

good grief GLHV, i will have to mull this over. incredibly interesting and not a bit like i thought. not at all. the little i knew, and i confess convenient tags bug me a little, was that the main body of argument against the post-modernist was that you cannot have post modern because that suggests the end of modernism and all things modern. but, as i said, i don't know enough and really only have a gut reaction against PM. a gut reaction that i am beginning to see was wrong and i do need to know more. let me mull over all you have told me.

9:20 pm  
Blogger Geddy Lee Helium Voice. said...

Glad you're interested, CJ, but it's worse! ... There are those who propound such a thing as Late Modernism; and there is the whole when did Mod become PostMod? ... Was it, in art, Minimalism - with its aesthetic and methodological dead-end, finality, and reductivism? Was it Colourfield, for something of the same reasons, in painting? One can see the discreet and austere object that is a classic period Mondrian, say - all squares of primary colours, an icon of Mod painting. It looks Modern, yes; but it is also singular, nonfigurative, non-narrative, following that hard and fast tendency, begun with - take your pick, mate - Cezanne, or Picasso and Braque's Cubism, or strains identifiable in Manet, maybe. It's an open-ish debate. There's a nice line through this made by Arthur C. Danto in his 'The Artworld'; wherein he uses notions of Imitation and Reality to differentiate between Modernist concerns and those occuring before Modernism (generally held to be ca. 1860). Briefly: artists before Mod sought to imitate nature - thus, Imitation Theory underpins; whereas Mods sought to invent objects alongside, as real as nature - your Mondrian, is not trying to be anything from nature, wanting to be in and of itself, etc. Thus, Reality theory underpins it. So, with that up our sleeve, the idea is that Postmodernism has broken with that tendency of refining the Reality Theory underpinned line - partly because Modernism, as a project, encountered problems. These problems range from Minimalism being an aesthetic dead-end - how white can one go, etc.? to notions that Nazism and Stalism are themselves Modernist projects, thus tainting Modernism per se. This is all moving quickly, but you get the gist hopefully. Deeper than this is the idea that Rationalism itself underpins Modernism. Rationalism is seen as an Enlightenment invention. So, tainted Modernism becomes tainted Rationalism, tainted Enlightenment. This brings us to Emily's picture - of that version of a prison complex. It is rational, the prisoners are rationalised, individuated whilst losing their individualism, they are unitised, made discreet. Meanwhile, authority has a 360 degree field of view; all-seeing, all-penetrating. The late French philosopher, Michel Foucault, wrote a great critique of this rational way of imprisoning the insane. He forwarded the idea that it was a less humane way to treat the mad than even torture and public ridicule. That sounds odd, perhaps, but - in discussing such things - Foucault highlights several interesting problems and shortcomings of Rationism as a cure-all.

9:50 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home