Hey, but aren't the Van Gogh's, Rembrandts, Beethovens et al of an earlier age the equivalent of what the likes of Lennon, Dylan, et al are to ours? And I don't think very many of these folks were born with silver spoons in their mouths. Also Springsteen and Mellencamp among others. BTW, might mention at the same time that Dylan turns 70 next week. Can you believe it?

************************************************** ***********************************

The Cultural Creatives by Paul H. Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson"...we are left to face...a great transition of the kind that occurs every 500 or 1,000 years....a climate change in our civilization."...we are living in the Between, in the time between eras. The passage between eras may be quite long."

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Hey, but aren't the Van Gogh's, Rembrandts, Beethovens et al of an earlier age the equivalent of what the likes of Lennon, Dylan, et al are to ours? And I don't think very many of these folks were born with silver spoons in their mouths. Also Springsteen and Mellencamp among others. BTW, might mention at the same time that Dylan turns 70 next week. Can you believe it?

While in London, I went to the Tate Modern and the National Gallery. I came away with the feeling the Western Civilization lost its way about 1914. The Impressionists were the peak of artistic achievement (at least in the visual arts) and not much has been done since.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

While in London, I went to the Tate Modern and the National Gallery. I came away with the feeling the Western Civilization lost its way about 1914. The Impressionists were the peak of artistic achievement (at least in the visual arts) and not much has been done since.

James50

Maybe it's my Asperger's, But I do not understand abstract art at all, my 4yo nephew could paint some of those things and they are selling for megabucks at auction? It seems to me that most abstract art all a bunch of crap catering to a tiny clique of snobs to whom art is a way to put themselves above anything else, they don't really care if the art is any good.

Ditto with Postmodern "philosophy", which seems to be pretentious word salad.

Originally Posted by Odin

Maybe it's my Asperger's, But I do not understand abstract art at all, my 4yo nephew could paint some of those things and they are selling for megabucks at auction? It seems to me that most abstract art all a bunch of crap catering to a tiny clique of snobs to whom art is a way to put themselves above anything else, they don't really care if the art is any good.

Ditto with Postmodern "philosophy", which seems to be pretentious word salad.

At Bubonicon I attended a lecture by Richard Berthold, a highly opinionated former professor of classics at UNM (long, LONG story!) on "the influence of the Greek mystery cults on Christianity." But what I took away from the lecture was something else entirely ---

If you look at the Hellenistic Era -- after Alexander, when the Polis was giving way to Cosmopolis and the old city-states that used to be strong nations in themselves had dwindled into pocket nations with pretensions or into plain old City Hall --- the entire post-modern schtick was going on then, too.

The Skeptics proclaimed that there was no such thing as Truth. The Cynics preached that they should be free... including being free from earning a living, and free to do their business (euphemism!) in the public street. All the philosophies, even the duty-oriented Stoics, preached that getting involved in society and in public affairs was futile and an obstacle to the Good Life.

Oh, man, does that sound familiar! And do google for Hellenistic Art and follow it through time. Or get Cahill's book "To Sail the Wine-Dark Sea." He includes pictures. Ugh.

Everything old is new again -- yea, verily, even post-modernism.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

My approach says we are living in a classic time. But we have not taken very much advantage of it. We still can, but it would be late; something like the Spanish and English "golden ages" that followed the Renaissance proper that was centered in Italy; that Renaissance being the previous golden age.

Golden ages are the classic ages within one civilization cycle. Silver is the Baroque, and Copper is the romantic. These are the 3 most creative periods within one cycle of civilization lasting about 500 years. Every cycle has them.

But some cycles of civilization are themselves more "classic" than others; sort of like cycles within larger cycles. My thought is that our age is the golden age within a "hellenistic" kind of cycle, analogous to the Roman Empire era. The Augustan Age was a golden age, but it was also part of the Hellenistic Age (between Alexander the Great and the Fall of Rome)-- which itself was not as "golden" as the Greek Golden Age of Pericles in Athens.

I'm using a different meaning of "golden age" to the one Grey Badger refers to above.

Uh-uh. The Hellenistic Age per se ended with the Roman Takeover and then we were in another civilization entirely, though closely related. Roman values now informed society and culture.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

The Cultural Creatives by Paul H. Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson"...we are left to face...a great transition of the kind that occurs every 500 or 1,000 years....a climate change in our civilization."...we are living in the Between, in the time between eras. The passage between eras may be quite long."

That we're in transition from one age (1485-1914) to another is indisputable. That the Cultural Creatives will lead us into a great burst of creativity and an artistic golden age is so much wishful thinking and egoizing on their part.

Originally Posted by James50

While in London, I went to the Tate Modern and the National Gallery. I came away with the feeling the Western Civilization lost its way about 1914. The Impressionists were the peak of artistic achievement (at least in the visual arts) and not much has been done since.

James50

Music split into 'classical' = 'NOT popular" and "popular" about the same time. Or why after a certain time, I consider show tunes and movie theme music to be the real heirs of 19th century popular (YES! POPULAR!) genres like Opera.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

At Bubonicon I attended a lecture by Richard Berthold, a highly opinionated former professor of classics at UNM (long, LONG story!) on "the influence of the Greek mystery cults on Christianity." But what I took away from the lecture was something else entirely ---

If you look at the Hellenistic Era -- after Alexander, when the Polis was giving way to Cosmopolis and the old city-states that used to be strong nations in themselves had dwindled into pocket nations with pretensions or into plain old City Hall --- the entire post-modern schtick was going on then, too.

The Skeptics proclaimed that there was no such thing as Truth. The Cynics preached that they should be free... including being free from earning a living, and free to do their business (euphemism!) in the public street. All the philosophies, even the duty-oriented Stoics, preached that getting involved in society and in public affairs was futile and an obstacle to the Good Life.

Oh, man, does that sound familiar! And do google for Hellenistic Art and follow it through time. Or get Cahill's book "To Sail the Wine-Dark Sea." He includes pictures. Ugh.

Everything old is new again -- yea, verily, even post-modernism.

History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes! :-)

Originally Posted by Odin

Maybe it's my Asperger's, But I do not understand abstract art at all, my 4yo nephew could paint some of those things and they are selling for megabucks at auction? It seems to me that most abstract art all a bunch of crap catering to a tiny clique of snobs to whom art is a way to put themselves above anything else, they don't really care if the art is any good.

Abstract art I have to understand to some degree in order to understand most 20th Century plays (1920s - now). A lot of it is trying to get people to break out of their normal worldview and see things differently--a most uncomfortable experience for most people. Others are trying to spark revolution by offending its audience (Futurism). Others are trying to express what modern life does to the individual. Others are exploring the realms of insanity and mental disease. All in all, most of it is an attack on Middle Class values and virtues of realism, balance, proportion, propriety, and domestication.

Ditto with Postmodern "philosophy", which seems to be pretentious word salad.

But Odin, you're one of the most vocal proponets of Postmodernism on this board. Afterall, Feminism, Deconstructuralism, Multiculturalism, etc. all classify as different parts & tools of Postmodernism.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Abstract art I have to understand to some degree in order to understand most 20th Century plays (1920s - now). A lot of it is trying to get people to break out of their normal worldview and see things differently--a most uncomfortable experience for most people. Others are trying to spark revolution by offending its audience (Futurism). Others are trying to express what modern life does to the individual. Others are exploring the realms of insanity and mental disease. All in all, most of it is an attack on Middle Class values and virtues of realism, balance, proportion, propriety, and domestication.



But Odin, you're one of the most vocal proponets of Postmodernism on this board. Afterall, Feminism, Deconstructuralism, Multiculturalism, etc. all classify as different parts & tools of Postmodernism.

~Chas'88

I've never thought of Feminism and Multiculturalism as "Postmodern".

Originally Posted by Odin

I've never thought of Feminism and Multiculturalism as "Postmodern".

Oh heck yeah they are--especially in Theatre. They certainly don't belong to the mainstream Middle Class values.

POSTMODERNISM - It involves the belief that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs, as they are subject to change inherent to time and place. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations; in particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial. Rather, it holds realities to be plural and relative, and dependent on who the interested parties are and what their interests consist of.

Feminism argues that gender is a social construct.

Example:

Post-Colonialism & Feminism - Cloud Nine by Caryl Churchill

Cloud Nine is a two-act play written by British playwright Caryl Churchill after workshops with the Joint Stock Theatre Company in late 1978 and first performed at Dartington College of Arts, Devon, on 14 February 1979^[1].
The two acts of the play form a contrapuntal structure. Act 1 is set in British colonial Africa in Victorian times, and Act 2 is set in a London park in 1979. However, between the acts only twenty-five years pass for the characters. Each actor plays one role in Act 1 and a different role in Act 2 - the characters who appear in both acts are played by different actors in the first and second. Act 1 parodies the conventional comedy genre and satirizes Victorian society and colonialism. Act 2 shows what could happen when the restrictions of both the genre of comedy and Victorian ideology are loosened in the more permissive 1970s.
The play uses controversial portrayals of sexuality and obscene language and establishes a parallel between colonial and sexual oppression^[2]. Its humour depends on incongruity and the carnivalesque, and helps to convey Churchill's political message about accepting people who are different and not dominating them or forcing them into particular social roles.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Oh heck yeah they are--especially in Theatre. They certainly don't belong to the mainstream Middle Class values.



Feminism argues that gender is a social construct.

Example:

Post-Colonialism & Feminism - Cloud Nine by Caryl Churchill



~Chas'88

Not the Feminism I'm familiar with and follow! The Feminism I know and practice is "the extraordinary belief that women are people." [As opposed to a specialized subset of the human race that can be described in a few simple tropes and dealt with accordingly.]

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Not the Feminism I'm familiar with and follow! The Feminism I know and practice is "the extraordinary belief that women are people." [As opposed to a specialized subset of the human race that can be described in a few simple tropes and dealt with accordingly.]

Not to generational bash, but could that be the difference between Silent women feminism and boomer women feminism?

"Gender is a social construct" I do think that is what is taught at most universities although I maybe wrong.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Not the Feminism I'm familiar with and follow!

Middle Class Values:

a specialized subset of the human race that can be described in a few simple tropes and dealt with accordingly.

Feminism as according to Pat:

The Feminism I know and practice is "the extraordinary belief that women are people."

Feminism as according to PMists:

the humor... helps to convey Churchill's political message about accepting people who are different and not dominating them or forcing them into particular social roles.

It's the same thing, only explained in a more "technical" way. Gender is a "social construct" means that the traditional Middle Class values of a woman is SOLELY a wife/mother who is just a "WOMAN" and therefore must be treated & subjugated in such a manner due to her "WOMAN" status--is just that a social construct--aka a collective myth our society agreed upon in order to work as a society. You take away the social construct, and you see women as people, not as "women" defined by the collective myth.

Postmodernism is about tearing apart & tearing down the collective myths of society. Or in other words, being the kid who points out that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Not the Feminism I'm familiar with and follow! The Feminism I know and practice is "the extraordinary belief that women are people." [As opposed to a specialized subset of the human race that can be described in a few simple tropes and dealt with accordingly.]

I'm a Boomer and my definition of feminism is the same as Pat's. To add, I recognize real differences between men and women (I did, afterall, spend 9 months pregnant and then another 9 months nursing). In most respects, though, the difference between individuals of the same gender is much greater than the differences between the averages for the two genders. People are individuals, in all our wonderful, maddening glory.

What Chas is describing is what I would call "radical feminism". Fringe cranks, in my opinion.

Some authors see another Hellenistic Age. Others see another Middle Ages. Imagine mixing traits of both with late twentieth-century modernism. A combination that sounds very unlikely. But that would make for an interesting transition period.

When the next era fully gels, what will be its character? One may try to get hints from history, from civilizations that completed their lives and are now gone. But all of those were pre-industrial. Scientists have speculated about revolutionary new technologies. The problem is, if one tries to project much beyond the present, it begins to sound like science fiction.

One possible hint from history - if change is not too extreme, one possibility is a reformed society. Will our grandchildren see a Babylonic phase?

Originally Posted by pizal81

Not to generational bash, but could that be the difference between Silent women feminism and boomer women feminism?

"Gender is a social construct" I do think that is what is taught at most universities although I maybe wrong.

I have to admit I never found the descriptions of the University Women's Studies programs appealing. Appalling, in some cases ... not being into either Marxism or Victimology. Ditto many of the Spanish courses above the 4th semester fluency level where they involved Latin America.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I'm a Boomer and my definition of feminism is the same as Pat's. To add, I recognize real differences between men and women (I did, afterall, spend 9 months pregnant and then another 9 months nursing). In most respects, though, the difference between individuals of the same gender is much greater than the differences between the averages for the two genders. People are individuals, in all our wonderful, maddening glory.

What Chas is describing is what I would call "radical feminism". Fringe cranks, in my opinion.

I breast-fed both my daughters until they sprouted teeth, and highly recommend it for babies, though I would not presume to tell other women what to do. (Though it hurts to keep my mouth shut when I see other people's babies sucking on what the mother fondly calls "juice" and what I know to be fruit punch, i.e. fruit-flavored sugar water.)

Originally Posted by TimWalker

One possible hint from history - if change is not too extreme, one possibility is a reformed society. Will our grandchildren see a Babylonic phase?

Definitions, please/ It sounds interesting, but I never acquired all 12 volumes of Toynbee. (Maybe I should?)

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Not the Feminism I'm familiar with and follow! The Feminism I know and practice is "the extraordinary belief that women are people." [As opposed to a specialized subset of the human race that can be described in a few simple tropes and dealt with accordingly.]

I agree with you, Pat.

As for multiculturalism, I don't that that in itself is "postmodern", it's the notion that all social norms are inherently equal and you are a bigot if you criticize them that is "postmodern".

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I have to admit I never found the descriptions of the University Women's Studies programs appealing. Appalling, in some cases ... not being into either Marxism or Victimology. Ditto many of the Spanish courses above the 4th semester fluency level where they involved Latin America.

IMO there is too much trying to shove everything into one's pet theory rather than looking at people's actual experiences.