Could it be true? Could postmodernism really be dead, gone, buried, and irrelevant? According to Dr. Alan Kirby, it has been. “Postmodernism—whatever it is—is an attempt to make sense of what is going on now—and we can see the present clearly only in retrospect” (Powell 17). Retrospect by definition is the “contemplation of the past; a survey of past time, events, etc” (Dictionary.com).
That seems a bit ironic doesn’t it? That what was happening 40 or 50 years ago would be able to tell us what is happening today. How could people back then possibly have imagined the things we do today? If we had a chat with someone from the past I highly doubt that they could have predicted us having cell phones with internet capabilities so that we can update our facebook status. That just seems absurd to me. Looking at the past to see what is going on today would be like trying to drive on the freeway with your head turned around and looking at the cars behind you. The reason why we don’t do that is because we’ll crash!
Maybe that’s why Dr. Alan Kirby thinks that postmodernism is dead and gone. Because in an ever-evolving world we can’t let the past hinder or dictate what we want to do or where we want to go.
Dr. Alan Kirby says that “In postmodernism, one read, watched, listened, as before. In pseudo-modernism one phones, clicks, presses, surfs, chooses, moves, downloads” (The Death of Postmodernism and Beyond). In postmodernism, things happened to us; we watched and listened. In pseudo-modernism we are the ones doing the doing; downloading, clicking, phoning, etc. We no longer live vicariously through the world around us, the world lives vicariously through us. That seems like a narcissistic and egotistic thing to say, but think about it. All those call in shows where we cast our votes wouldn’t have a fraction of the success they have if no one called in. Shows like The Office and Parks and Recreation and movies like The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity have the success they do not only because they are entertaining, but because they actively engage the audience. They make us feel as if we are right there crapping our pants or right there listening to one of Michael Scott’s lectures. The line between spectator and participator seemingly disappear.
When surfing the web or watching TV, we leave an inerasable footprint of the things we’ve clicked the channels we’ve visited. To Dr. Kirby “This is a far more intense engagement with the cultural process than anything literature can offer, and gives the undeniable sense (or illusion) of the individual controlling, managing, running, making up his/her involvement with the cultural product.” And to some extent I must agree with this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCdpdK8lbUQ
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yet again, my man Aman Brah is doing it big with another great post on his godly blog page. I am still astonished by the fact that there is already another newly developed world view about literacy which calls postmodernism dead. I mean, this thing was so new to us and now people are just calling it dead and tossing it out the door? Anyways, I think I’m finally getting a better grasp on this concept of pseudo-modernism after reading your post too. It really does make sense about how the audience themselves are creating the reality of certain programs seen on television. I also love the insight you give about the hilarious comedy ever created by man called the Office and those insanely suspenseful movies like Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield. It really does feel like I am fully engaging with the bizarre, lunatic words of the crazy workers at Dunder Mifflin Paper Company. Then we see the movies shooting from first person like Cloverfield or the movies being shot through the view of a camcorder which give a whole new meaning to cinematic perspective. All in all, I really enjoyed the postage you have greatly enlightened me with. I look forward to your writings in the future.
ReplyDelete