Pomo definition

I'd like to enter a plea of non placet for my definition of postmodern: when a phenomenon's meta completely consumes it. Art imitating itself; the postmodern simulacrum. Is semiotics language or is language semiotics? Art totally penetrating reality.

These are all the same thing, and are my working definition of the postmodern. But by sheer etymology, why should this be right? Rather, I'd call these phenomena hyperreality. This word works perfectly well, because it's not technical, like meta-reality, nor loaded like postmodern.

I can't exactly make out the road ahead, but I think the postmodern will be the human reaction to hyperreality, accompanied by Hegelian discourse on what constitutes reality, just to be safe.

Now I seriously can't foresee the philosophy of postmodernism. But I know it must be a collection of perspectives which may or may not entail a moral dictum, a change in the style of speech, or a newfound rejection of modernist art.

Browsing

I have a reaction to this article, in which the author tries to describe how a car-based city, Houston, can support vibrancy. He talks about how in terms of travel time, virtually the same amount of stuff is available to a Houstonite as to a Manhattanite. He then describes how, in terms of difficulty going out to do stuff, Houston and Manhattan are about equal, given the various difficulties of the subway and so forth.

But I think the biggest problem with his argument is that when you're driving you can't easily stop-- therefore you can't browse.

Picture this: say every new article of clothing you bought you had to come up with at home, then you went out and picked it up. You'd never get anywhere. Rather, we go to a store and browse around what's there, and designers give us ideas. In the burbs you come up with what would be fun in your house, rather than going out and seeing what's there.

The public forum of ideas of what to do and what to buy and what to make is what's at stake. And neither faster highways nor the internet can replace the sidewalk.

Theory of Art

It's about time I reformulated my theory of art. Thus far I've been adamant about the death of the artist-- since I cannot know the artist's intentions or any detail of his life, I cannot consider it in my reaction to the work. This is the classic dichotomy of Kant's noumenal and phenomenal worlds, which became important to me with Sartre's existentialism.

Recently I said to a loved one that philosophy was important to me because it made my life, and in particular art, so much more beautiful. The issue now is that my philosophical development, while not linear, is nonetheless a development. It changes; it's dynamic. Furthermore, to appreciate art with the philosophy requires that I know the philosophy before I see the art (excepting, of course, a vivid memory, which for simplicity we assume I don't have). So the philosophy precedes art-- the philosophy precedes the artist as well.

However, this isn't irreconcilable with my previous philosophy of abandoning the artist as a whole; it is, if anything, liberating. The reconciliation, however, will have to take place in the realm of epistemology as a whole-- in particular, the limitation of a single life lived. Art cannot be experienced outside of one's own history of philosophical development, so it is imprecise to assume it away.

My new philosophy is not yet fully molded. I am happy to report, though, that it is a brand new vector I haven't considered.