Andreas Huyssen
I have recently--almost accidentally--been introduced to Andreas Huyssen. Well, not in the face-to-face, how-do-you-do, handshake sort of way. I am writing my MSA paper on Modernism and Celebrity and came across Huyssen's name attached to "The Great Divide." So, now I'm reading After the Great Divide and I love it. He makes the distinction between Modernism and Postmodernism so much clearer. Just thought I'd share a quick quote:
"The Modernist dogma has become sterile and prevents us from grasping current cultural phenomena." He is in no way degrading Modernism. What he's saying, I think, is that the way critics still view Modernism as high art that purports to separate itself from the mass cultural movement is ridiculous. And, in fact, not many (if any) critics take the view that Modernism itself incorporates the popular and vernacular representations of their culture. In reality, there are Moderns who incorporate popular culture into their art (T.S. Eliot's reference to that "Shakespearean Rag"; V. Woolf's own double volume of The Common Reader, but neither of these High Moderns incorporate the vernacular as much as, say, Faulkner and Gertrude Stein.) Fascinating.
Huyssen further posits that "[t]he boundaries between high art and mass culture have become increasingly blurred, and we should begin to see that process as oen of opportunity, rather than lamenting loss of quality and failure of nerve." He nicely bridges one of "the great divides" that separates Modernism from Postmodernism and reassures us that while most critics--and frankly some of my own colleagues--lament the lack of "high art" (you know who you are) what they are failing to realize is that high Modern art oftentimes did include the pop. cultural aspect. The critics just have to catch up :)
More on this later, I'm sure.
"The Modernist dogma has become sterile and prevents us from grasping current cultural phenomena." He is in no way degrading Modernism. What he's saying, I think, is that the way critics still view Modernism as high art that purports to separate itself from the mass cultural movement is ridiculous. And, in fact, not many (if any) critics take the view that Modernism itself incorporates the popular and vernacular representations of their culture. In reality, there are Moderns who incorporate popular culture into their art (T.S. Eliot's reference to that "Shakespearean Rag"; V. Woolf's own double volume of The Common Reader, but neither of these High Moderns incorporate the vernacular as much as, say, Faulkner and Gertrude Stein.) Fascinating.
Huyssen further posits that "[t]he boundaries between high art and mass culture have become increasingly blurred, and we should begin to see that process as oen of opportunity, rather than lamenting loss of quality and failure of nerve." He nicely bridges one of "the great divides" that separates Modernism from Postmodernism and reassures us that while most critics--and frankly some of my own colleagues--lament the lack of "high art" (you know who you are) what they are failing to realize is that high Modern art oftentimes did include the pop. cultural aspect. The critics just have to catch up :)
More on this later, I'm sure.
