Week 10: Post traditions

Week 10: Post Traditions
Jackie Clark

This weeks readings were both understandable and slightly beyond my grasp. While I feel good about the basic tenants outlined in the Prassad text, I did have to keep a notepad close to create an outline of all the terminology, history, and prominent researchers.Without a background in philosophy, the finer points are like reading another language. I tried to mottle through and see if I could explain it to another person. Just trying to grasp the differences between modernity and modernism/modernist was a challenge. However, I once again relied on my art background to come at the ideas from a related direction. That did help, as many of these philosophical movements exist among the arts and literature. I also appreciated the honest approach to challenging vocabulary. As I continued through the reading, I can see how the vocabulary alone would be off-putting to those outside the field, and antagonistic to traditional theorists. I also found the discussion of postmodernism inviting whimsy and pastiche really intriguing. Again, I really see it in the art community historically, but cannot really fathom an intellectual piece full of whimsy, irony, and playfullness. I feel it might be slightly above my head at this point!!

I really liked the article about corporate tattoos, I had no idea this was even a culture. But it was a great application of postmodern work, especially how the author connected Baudillard's work into it. It was actually really clear to me how these tattoos were commodities on display in a culture that is having a crisis of identity. As representations of status, like owning a BMW, I can see how that connects in the same way. It was interesting how the participants thought of their choice as either group identity based or a co-opting of the art for a more subversive purpose. But even then, the author argues that it's it's a false act of rebellion, too close to simulacrum to be comfortable.

Post-structuralism was really challenging, and I am not sure I really understand it now. I think I understand smaller aspects, like how language is deconstructed (Derrida) and how power is connected to broader socal institutions (Foucault). But if the conversation goes too deep into the philosophic, I get lost. I think an entire class would be necessary to really grasp the magnitude of what is happening when you seek to disrupt past convention, critique language, and decenter texts.I did think the Madness and Civilization book would be so interesting, it's clear to me how the concept of madness has changed over time, and how social conventions have decided what about it is "medical." I start to think about the idea of women and hysteria, and then I see how clearly a social construction can be tied to power and control.

It got me thinking about writing about whiteness in a post context, about how it has been created and changed over time to reflect power structures.

Anyway, I have much more to learn about these concepts, they are truly interesting but hard to understand!