|Just another Perl shrine
Re: Modern vs postmodern?by BrowserUk (Patriarch)
|on Aug 07, 2009 at 08:22 UTC
The modernist movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in art, architecture and music, were all about rejecting the accepted wisdoms, forms and dogmas that existed up until that time. These essentially aped the values and forms of the Ancient Egyptians and Greeks which were rediscovered as the Dark ages gave way to the Renaissance. The basic premise was to deconstruct and simplify what had gone before.
So, in art, they rejected the stiffly posed, formal portraits; formulaic 'perfect' landscapes and repetitive, fussy, still lifes, in favour of exploring line, form and color in the abstract. Primary colors and rectilinear forms were depicted and explored for their own sake.
In architecture, the ornate decoration and complex structural forms were again simplified. Favouring function over form; rejecting the Greek proportional orthodoxy and Gothic detailing; they moved to clean lines, light facades and simple outlines; whilst adopting and advancing the latest technologies in construction.
Post-modernism in these fields to some extent returned to utilising the formalism and rules of the ancients, seeking to combine them with the techniques pioneered by the modernists to produce realism, and 'character'. Along with that formalism came complexity--both of forms and the rules governing them--and weight.
To that end, Moose is very post-modern.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.