Nate Dogg, Lyotard

This article illustrates a growing trend between Lyotard and the other theorists we have read and that trend is that they are all out to make me feel exceedingly stupid while reading them. Based on what other students have posted, I do not feel that I am alone in my view point. I like what Lyotard has to say about the complaints against postmodernism, specifically the bit at the beginning from a “reputable historian that writers of the 1960 and 1970 avant-gardes spread a reign of terror in the use of language, and that the conditions for a fruitful exchange must be restored by imposing on the intellectuals a common way of speaking…” (38) because this is a major problem I have with the article. I have an extremely hard time understanding what the hell he is talking about, precisely due to the vocabulary Lyotard uses. I realize that it is probably not Lyotard’s fault that I am not intelligent enough to understand the vernacular of historians, but it never the less demonstrates a problem: if I can’t understand what Lyotard is saying, then I have to take meaning from the parts of the article I do understand.
In this way, Lyotard’s article becomes art in itself. I can read it, understand parts of it and take pleasure or pain away from what has been said. Despite the fact that the pain I take away from the reading takes the shape of a splitting headache, I do take pleasure in the way Lyotard discusses the notion of “taste”, and how it affects the art, literature, music and media we consume. “Taste, therefore, testifies that between the capacity to conceive and the capacity to present an object corresponding to the concept, an undetermined agreement, without rules, giving rise to a judgment which Kant calls reflective, may be experienced as pleasure.” (43)
If taste is in the eye of the beholder, how does one differentiate between the unseen and the seen? If a historian sees qualities of work that make it “post-modern”, and another historian sees qualities that define the work as “realism”, then who is correct? Does the creator of the work decide if the piece is “post-modern”? If so, who is this person to decide what “will have been done”? Certainly, all works created by mankind have a predisposed bias, because everyone has let some form of art influence them in some way or another; are those influences not reflective of modernity? If the past shapes the “post modern”, then it shapes the modern and the past and modern cannot be separated from each other.
I enjoyed the article, but I have one massive bone to pick with it. “We can conceive the infinitely great, the infinitely powerful, but ever presentation of an object destined to “make visible” this absolute greatness or power appears to us painfully inadequate. Those are Ideas of which no presentation is possible.” (43) Where was Lyotard when Superman comics began? The character of Superman is SPECIFICALLY infinitely great and powerful! Superman is a visible icon, akin to the heroes of greek mythology. Conceiving the infinitely powerful isn't just possible, it has been an obsession of artists and writers at every age of civilization. While I agree that the infinitely powerful (Superman) isn't as entertaining as the human (Batman), I think that Zeus, Captain America, Hercules, etc. are all perfect examples of how infinite greatness has been created and displayed. It’s a shame Lyotard never bothered to consider comic books as an art form capable of “making visible” the emotions and consequences of infinite power or greatness.