There were two words used in this week's readings that I did not understand, and which I feel are probably essential to understanding Post-Modernism: simulacra and simulacrum. Through context, I thought that they may have something in common with the Saussurean notion of signified and signifier. After introducing the word "simulacrum," Rajchman says "there is nothing real, nothing out there for words or images to refer to, and therefore, nothing can be true" (390). I guess that would mean that the simulacrum functions as the signified, but in a reverse way. Whereas the signified is the idea that the signifier refers to, the simulacrum would be the concept which the simulacra falls back on. I hope these words will be expounded upon in the lecture for my own better understanding.
Also, Rajchman opens his essay opining that Post-Modernism may well be on the way out of use. On this, I have to agree. His reason being that it consumes itself, that it gives no point from which we can jump off into another sea of thought. He cites the "ironical" ceaseless integration of everything via appropriation (390). Richard puts the problem another way when he says that "all singularities immediately become indistinguishable and interchangeable" (357). What it is is what it is, and though it may "change" with time, there is no threat/hope of release from stasis. So, where does it go? I think we're determining that now. I think it will arise from organic, sincere responses to our changing ways of communication. I think it will stem from lightness in theory as well as heart.
Rajchman, John. "The Lightness of Theory". Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. pg 390.
Richard, Nelly. "Postmodernism and Periphery." Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. pg 357.
After reading this blog I thought about similar things. Julie's rationale was linking the simulacra and simulacrum to prior lectures. Julie states, "Through context, I thought that they may have something in common with the Saussurean notion of signified and signifier." I also thought the same, but in a different context. I thought about linking moderinty and post-modernity to language. Which brings me to my point, if the signified and signifier are always inconsitent to one another then isn't modernity and post-modernity inconsistent with each other. One is always deconstructing the other, by breaking it down to meanings that end up being misinterpreted to begin with. If modernity is signifing post-modernity then post-modernity is the signified that is breaking down the language to mean completely opposite ideas to another person. As Julie implies, "I hope these words will be expounded upon in the lecture for my own better understanding."
ReplyDelete