Speaking about the threat of "cultural policy" and the art and book market, Lyotard writes that "What is advised, sometimes through one channel, sometimes through the other, is to offer works which, first, are relative to subjects which exist in the eyes of the public they address, and second, works so made ("well made") that the public will recognize what they are about, will understand what is signified, will be able to give or refusal its approval knowingly, and if possible, even to derive from such work a certain amount of comfort" (Lyotard, 76). From this statement I gather that realist art, or any art that attempts to mimic real life is really not art at all in Lyotard's view, but simply commodity. Artists are advised to appeal to pre-negotiated cultural laws, and make references that are easily communicable. It is in this condition that artwork exists as something to be bought and sold at market. Its beauty, it would seem, is correlated to its trendiness. Real art, for Lyotard, then, must escape definition and referentiality. Its focus should be on the sublime. Does this mean that art should become a more private endeavor? I feel this is an especially important question in regard to making the "unpresentable" become "perceptible." Is Lyotard assuming that there are absolute concepts whose essences we have similar capabilities of imagining?
Also, Lyotard states that “our business is to invent allusions to the conceivable which cannot be presented.” Again, I am wondering if there are some universally discernable absolute concepts. Furthermore, I am concerned with whether Lyotard subordinates the private experience and self-expression which art makes possible to the communicative ability of art.

-Daliso Leslie
4/26/07

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Each of the theorists we have read for this week seems to have their own definition of what modernity is versus what postmodernity is, which I find to be very confusing. In his essay “Modernity versus Postmodernity”, Habermas uses the word “modernity” and multiple variations of it numerous times, but I did not really understand what his definition was. According to Habermas, what is modernity? Does he think modernism is a good thing, or does he prefer postmodernism? What is the difference between modernism and postmodernism?
Throughout the essay, there appear to be different types of modernity, such as classical, cultural, and aesthetic. Do all of these mean different things, or are they just different ways of saying the same thing? If they are different, does Habermas prefer one type of modernity over another?
On page 6 of his essay, Habermas talks about Daniel Bell, who “argues that the crises of the developed societies of the West are to be traced back to a split between culture and society. Modernist culture has come to penetrate the values of everyday life; the life-world is infected by modernism.” What does Bell mean when he refers to the split between culture and society? Is he making a point about the lack of ethnic diversity in society or am I misreading that quote completely? Does Bell view modernist culture as a bad thing? Referring to modernity as an “infection” of society would suggest that he is against it, but I could not tell just from this quote. Reading this reminded me of a scene from the end of “The Matrix” when Agent Smith is talking to Morpheus (sorry, I could not resist). Agent Smith refers to the human race as a disease, as the cancer of the earth, and they (the agents) are the cure. Is this what Bell is trying to say about modernity? Is modernity the cancer of society? What is the cure?
- Monica M. Carvalho

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?