American humanists, untutored in sociology, are knocked out by Foucault’s daring: analyze crime and punishment, prisons and penal codes! Gee, I wish I’d thought of that! Well, Foucault didn’t think of it either. It’s in Durkheim’s The Division of Labour in Society. (SAAC 1992)
That's a retarded thing to say. The analogy has no validity. I find postmodern thought quite useful in understanding culture, especially contemporary art, most of which doesn't make much sense without some knowledge of it.
-
-
Most contemporary art is notoriously bad, and all art has to be its own best explanation. Bad artists who possess the same conformist, careerist mindset as academics jumped on the Pomo/post-structuralism bandwagon and use it to excuse lack of skill, talent, vision and quality.
-
A lot of it is bad, I agree. But a lot of it is stuff that I thought was bad until I sat down and studied it, learned what it meant and then was able to appreciate quite a bit o it. That's why I wrote "Art After Metaphysics" to help people understand it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You're not substantively addressing the argument though. Are you sure I'm the one being retarded? I'm sure plenty of theists find all sort of meaning in interpreting the world through scripture. That says exactly fuckall about the validity of such interpretations.
-
Also, gosh gosh gosh, I wonder why postmodernism might help in understanding art derived from postmodern thinking. Is it possible that the same could be said of religious themes in art? God you are stupid.
-
We're not talking about theology. We're talking about French postmodern thought. Try to stick with the subject. French postmodern thought. Have you read Foucault, Derrida, Virilio, Baudrillard or Deleuze? If not, you're missing out.
-
Do you genuinely not understand the analogy? How sad.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
