Although this post on Jameson doesn’t deserve any title what-so-ever! I gave it one anyway. I was so frustrated by this 50 something page, thing, that I don’t even know what to write about. I’ve been trying to avoid having to write this post, but it’s inevitable. Jameson talked me into circles of a mess of things I didn’t understand. This may sound ridiculous but I couldn’t even understand whether he was for postmodernism or thought it was terrible. I think coming out of reading this and out of our class discussion the only thing I slightly understood was his example of the Van Gogh and Warhol pictures and how they do or don’t reflect history. THAT’S IT! Which is awfully sad, but I guess I’ll just write a little about that.
So, two main points I guess he’s saying about each of these artists works is that:
- Van Gogh’s painting is a more accurate description of history because the shoes in his painting have depth and they show wear and tear. Because of the shoes worn and dirty appeal along with their two dimensional look, they become a part of history because someone has used them, existed in history with them on? The shoes represent a lived experience, if I understand it correctly.
- Warhol, on the other hand, has a picture of shoes that are flat and show no signs of use. Thus, they show no history or connection to real history. These shoes have no history because they have no depth, and represent more of a contemporary consumerism look. Rather than acting as an image of history, the picture connects more with capitalism, and the need to make the shoes look appeal for consumers.
Basically, Jameson’s obsession with a very defined history and the fact that we must be looking at history in the wrong way is all I could really grasp from all of this. I was looking for class discussion to help me a bit more but it happened to just confuse me even more. I did find out that Jameson is not so much for Postmodernism, and just as I thought I understood Lyotard and his ideas of postmodernism, Jameson had to come in a ruin it all. Postmodernism acts as a cultural dominant, according to Jameson. He says on page 4, “…to grasp postmodernism not as a style but rather as a cultural dominant: a conception which allows for the presence and coexistence of a range of very different, yet subordinate, features”. I think I can see here how Jameson beings to reject postmodernism and he does so by first attaching its lack of style. I get the feeling he’s basically saying postmodernism is a mess and modernism is much more clear and concise. I’m not too sure how I feel about Jameson…I’m going to now turn back to Jameson and reread it…then I’ll be back for more. I’m determined to get at least one more thing from him
Jameson confused me too. I was also confused as to whether he was for or against postmodernism, too. It felt like he didn’t really like it but I was in such circles I didn’t know. I was glad it was declared in class that he was decidedly anti-postmodern. In my own post on Jameson, I looked at the circular logic of his argument and how it leads us nowhere. How can he real reconcile the things he says to a connected whole? He can’t. The shoes also helped me (especially seeing them in class). I was able to visualize what he was talking about there.