Habermas’s article Modernity-An Incomplete Project was tough for me to grasp. I did get a few things out of his writing though. One of the things I found to be interesting was the quote” the term ‘modern’ again and again expresses the consciousness of an epoch that relates itself to the past of antiquity, in order to view itself as the result of a transition from the old to new” (98). This got me thinking about the whole idea of modernity. What is considered modern is always changing. Something cannot be modern forever. Back in the day, electricity was considered modern but now it is a thing of the past. What we consider to be modern today will not be considered modern in a few years. The article uses art as a primary example and it made me wonder about so called “modern art.” The works of Andy Warhol and artists today are considered to be modern art. Modern art is avant-garde. The artists of the art movement push the limits and create new ideas that have never even been heard of. One day, these ideas won’t be so new anymore and will seem outdated. Will modern art then be labeled something different when that time comes? Will it be considered classic or will there be a new name made to label it?
One concept out of many that I didn’t understand was the idea that modernity is “dominant but dead.” This idea seems to contradict itself. How can something be outstanding but dead at the same time? Also, doesn’t Habermas talk about how modernity is always changing? If it is dead, how could it possibly do that? This is something I hope we discuss in great detail in class. I look foward to discussing the article because I need some light to be shed on Habermas's theories and ideas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think the best way to understand dominant and dead is to watch any recent episode of CSI or ER. Good job struggling with a text that is very tough to read.
Bumble: Response:
I found your response very interesting, because it is almost frightening that nothing could ever be NEW or MODERN. The moment it is new, it is suddenly old. Can there ever truly be something that is modern? Modern can not be created before hand and it vanishes once it is created so it is IMPOSSIBLE TO achieve being modern. What I had originally classified as modern is a fixed category much like mathematics or science would be and describes a replicated style. Those are simply older styles though, so even something like Avant-Gard is not modern anymore, but rather a repeated style that is already old.
We can not predict what has not yet been created. Can we ever actually make something entirely original? It seems as though we can actually feed off the past and so nothing seems new anymore. Also, once something new has been established, it seems like it has been solidified into our culture as though it is old. I remember when the internet seemed like such a new thing... When was that switch that made it old or habitualized?
Post a Comment