Postmodernist ideas aren't so much the issue that are hard (i think). The underlying belief, or lack thereof, that nothing is immutable is understood.
Being part of generation Y, we are submerged in postmodernism to an endless degree. Children's books, TV commercials, movies all use some form of the dubbed 'postmodern theory'. Referring to an old post (which was hideously and amsuingly flamed) We do live in a postmodern society.
Boudrillard's simulacra has been expressed since the first advertisements came out telling us that 'coke' will help score free chicks and other 'hyper real' notions. That form of advertising is natural to us; we understand that these ads are to create a new 'reality' for us. With globalisation being at a peak, and the huge advent of education, we are brought up with a more accute knowledge of other cultures and history, we understand that what we believe is in fact due to the context, and we see examples our learned histories or foreign countries.
Postmodernsim as a concept is not hard!
However, what i do believe is hard, is the actual putting together of everything into an essay that the board of studies will actually like.
As a 'way of thinking', 'postmodernism' as a theory, as pointed out earlier is in fact contradictory. There is no theory, it is simply a perception of the world that is taken. Even the postmodern 'theorist' accept that what they are saying can and will change.
And aside from all the above verbosity of words,
Is our use of texts for 'actual' analysis, or is it for examples in the ideas of postmodernism? How much of 'techniques' are needed, i.e. does the techniques that for eg. Williamson use have to be pomo, or is the ideas we are allowed to take. Cause, DWM is brilliant in explaining the 'pomo' concept in his play, but in terms of techniques to discuss for pomo, i find it hard to use.
Any insights? Thanks
Being part of generation Y, we are submerged in postmodernism to an endless degree. Children's books, TV commercials, movies all use some form of the dubbed 'postmodern theory'. Referring to an old post (which was hideously and amsuingly flamed) We do live in a postmodern society.
Boudrillard's simulacra has been expressed since the first advertisements came out telling us that 'coke' will help score free chicks and other 'hyper real' notions. That form of advertising is natural to us; we understand that these ads are to create a new 'reality' for us. With globalisation being at a peak, and the huge advent of education, we are brought up with a more accute knowledge of other cultures and history, we understand that what we believe is in fact due to the context, and we see examples our learned histories or foreign countries.
Postmodernsim as a concept is not hard!
However, what i do believe is hard, is the actual putting together of everything into an essay that the board of studies will actually like.
As a 'way of thinking', 'postmodernism' as a theory, as pointed out earlier is in fact contradictory. There is no theory, it is simply a perception of the world that is taken. Even the postmodern 'theorist' accept that what they are saying can and will change.
And aside from all the above verbosity of words,
Is our use of texts for 'actual' analysis, or is it for examples in the ideas of postmodernism? How much of 'techniques' are needed, i.e. does the techniques that for eg. Williamson use have to be pomo, or is the ideas we are allowed to take. Cause, DWM is brilliant in explaining the 'pomo' concept in his play, but in terms of techniques to discuss for pomo, i find it hard to use.
Any insights? Thanks
