Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Postmodernism is Just a Corporatized Celebration of Ugliness and Decadence" video.

  1. I actually agree with this criticism. Too much glass...I hate glass. A building made of glass, LOL. Does allow for some neat geometric designs but it's too much...glass, lol. And the lighting is a big don't too...there is some soulless lighting, we need to go back to having big torches or something (kidding...that's probably not going to work...how about those big mirrors to reflect light like they did in ancient Egypt!) And the colors are too light, you're right. Too much pastel-looking crap.
    4
  2. And conflating concepts.
    3
  3. There is a reason modern architecture is "rootless" i.e. devoid of any cultural influence. Just like post-modernism in general, the goal is to destroy distinct cultures, and replace them with a nihilistic, globalist consumer society. Only partially true. Modernism is that which you describe, which is intrinsically attached to Postmodernism. Postmodernism is simply a return to form, in the sense of the Architect having their own personal "spin" on the work, a la, Classical Architects, that is to say, the biggin's whom made the Great Works, like the Sistine Chapel, for example. But the thing is, the "personal spin" is no long engendered with the longing, for say...God...or some higher power. Now it's about "Art" (a fairly abstract concept that I think most people have a crack at but aren't very good at it...Postmodernist 'art' is mostly just..."Pop art & design" and then it's like "whoa conceptual" but it's more like just pretentious and not very woo'ing unless you're already either a simpleton or just a louse who WISHES they were an artists but could never be...) and it's about "making a statement", and it oft times is ugly- though corporate structures have always been the same, big and ugly, PoMo seems to make fun of that, in architecture, outside of corporate buildings, which is still ugly. But HOMES on the otherhand, can be quite nice...see there are distinctions there. Wright houses for example (modernist) are spectacular....but the corporate buildings...always ugly.
    3
  4. LOL
    3
  5. Correct post is correct.
    3
  6. Save the fact that none of the above was addressing any postmodernist structures, and instead opted for discussing/critiquing MODERNIST structure...but I guess the difference is fungible, depending on the wont for accuracy.
    3
  7. Co-opting something doesn't mean it was invented by the co-opt'or.
    2
  8. You're talking about Structuralism/Post-Structualism ie Sociology -- you are confusing that aspect of "postmodernity" with postmodernism. That isn't Postmodernism. Heidegger could be considered one of the forerunners of the particular school of thought- but the title really belongs to such as Quine and Derrida (whom is hated amongst even PoMo philosophers...also, though, even Peterson, with his hatred of Derrida [lol, which is not ironic, many people hate him] admits that he fundamentally is right about his concept of "Deconstruction" ["Language games"] and he is...everyone plays with their Rhetoric and Dialectical thinking to convince people of things, not JUST Logic. True story).
    2
  9. What's "Postmodernist" about it? the fact that it exists in the current year?
    2
  10. Yikes, you spent a semester in art school. So, let me guess...that wasn't so fun.
    2
  11. LOL OK. But no.
    2
  12. This is actually true. Institutional Critique addresses this.
    2
  13. Yes, believe everything you read.
    1
  14. No, no. It isn't. But you can also do that with writing. Modernist architecture was "also" made to intentionally demoralize people, too. People then misapprehend the notion, and confuse the two. Some PoMo architecture is shite, but then again, it's mostly the corporate structures that are shite, and they are always a bit shite. The Piazza d’Italia Public Plaza is nice. Some PoMo looks kooky in a good way (the non-giant corporate buildings which always demoralize -- unlike classical-style 'big buildings')- some of it is overblown and an eyesore- there needs to be some reason to have it, in the civic center maybe, where it can be shown...but less is still more, in my opinion.
    1
  15. Regarding Modernist architecture. LOL
    1
  16. Yeah, it's that simple.
    1
  17. It certainly isn't.
    1
  18. At least someone here notes the commonality and telos of the use of such terminology. Modernism, postmodernism, classicism...all a call and response of the same essential thing. We aren't even in "postmodernism" anymore. Metamodernism. That is the current new thought of the era...most PoMo's don't even agree on anything, for the most part...but that's in Philosophy, not in Art. In art, they seem to all mostly agree on the bullshit they swill and sell. Institutional critique is the most important and valiant section in 'this modern art', but it's not really "art" at all...but people in the new era really HAVE lost the meaning of art...these schools of theirs did that.
    1
  19. Um. No. You''re thinking of Frankfurt School of Economics and maybe some conflated notion of Marxist Critical Theory, or some shit. LOL
    1
  20. It started with Modernism.
    1
  21. Accurate.
    1
  22. LOL yes, that is it. And the Classicists they just express, what? Trees and shit, so what's teh difference? it's all so "stupid". facepalm
    1
  23. Institutional Critique.
    1
  24. Everything in that documentary is fucking Modernist architecture. LOL
    1
  25. People design chairs you know.
    1
  26. Oversimplification. Even Styx gave some credit, and he doesn't even know the half of the topic he's trying to address. Postmodernism should maybe be given a better treatment; Styx, in my opinion, should clear up some things, some not too serious, but potential qualms, that people could have with his treatment which is too reminiscent of others' treatments, and just then finally destroy the term "Postmodernism" once and for all...people don't even realize that we aren't in "Postmodernism" anymore...."Metamodernism". Look it up and face your true "enemy" of this contemporary era.
    1
  27. Yeah, I make that distinction in my video on Postmodernism, saying that Post-Structuralists often get conflated with being "postmodernists" even if they only are in some self-prescribed or pre-prescribed fashion. Like Foucault, ok...is he really Postmodernist? I mean, if I look, on Wikpedia or any other source, there is no mention of Postmodernism; only in this silly article from "Powercube" written seemingly anon, where right off the bat "...the French Postmodernist..." No he isn't. This person who wrote that article just ASSUMES....and if/when Foucault claims it, then i'll change my mind, but that's besides the point...so we are basically on the same page, you and I, Iam Bob...by the way, are you Security Of Mainframe Bob...or...?
    1
  28. LOL, yeah, and we can all just make up names and labels for things, isn't that what PoMo propounds?
    1
  29. You can slap "Postmodernism" onto anything and use that "lens" (the notion of being able to deconstruct language) with anything...just like you can slap "Marxism" onto anything. Anything can be looked at through the lens of Marxist thinking...just because you study Capitalism through the lens of Critical Theory, is it not Marxism? Just because you are studying capitalism, doesn't mean the study isn't Marxist, in effect, and thus not capitalism, in outcome.
    1
  30. Agreed. Try Spock's Beard.
    1
  31. Styx is right about postmodern music though, holy shit, does it suck...mostly only some electronic music (the out there stuff like Aphex Twin or Autechre) and metal and then the progressive stuff that's good...that's all good, mostly, but popular music, rock, rap now [:(] and so much more is shit...unless you can stand Jazz or Classical music, which remains the same as ever, you don't have much options for good tunes that aren't decades old...lest you want to check out the new "waves" online! 4:56 -- LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
    1
  32. "Perception over reality." "...It's not an apple, it's half an apple." -- Styxhexenhammer666 Postmodernist Language Games!
    1
  33. No, it isn't. It's Modernist. Holy shit, people don't know whole lot about shit they talk about.
    1
  34. MOMA is one example...in London, whoo boy, it's the same crap...but again...a tiny blip of the actual art scene at large.
    1
  35. Correct.
    1
  36. Supply examples.
    1
  37. They look like blocks, or if they are postmodernist, like blocks/random waviness and geometric design.
    1
  38. How postmodern of him. Oh wait...it's not just an 80's thing, this postmodernism?
    1
  39. Name one non-female "Postmodernist" (self-proclaimed) that isn't a Feminist (pre-postmodernism, you'd have to presume, right?) that claims that we need the kind of diversity you speak of.
    1
  40. Dude, I know, it's retarded garbage- that shit might have been edgy in the 70s but it's outdated...Feminism came up with that shit, too. Sure it's of "postmodernity", as in the era...but I don't see how it pertains to Postmodernist philosophy, at all- and postmodernism IS a philosophy. In and of itself, and within Architecture (as alluded by Styx, and I am actually, upon thinking about it, leaning more towards Styx's opinion regarded that), and within Literature (often misattributed to writers whom don't claim to be 'postmodernists') -- I guess what Styx is saying is fundamentally true, but no one even talks about the conflation going on here. I ask people to name me one Postmodernist philosopher that ascribes to "patriarchy", or "32 genders" that isn't also a VEHEMENT Feminist/Gender Studies Guru (which is more like Sociology, don't you think? Conflict Theory/Critical Theory...Structuralists/Post-Structuralists...all of these things get conflated to mean "Postmodernism", but I defy anyone to tell me of any of the OLD (late 50's, early 60's) Postmodernists, or tell me how the theory of Language Games is wrong (the Feminists and Gender Guru's love that shit, and people love debunking it, because you CAN deconstruct language...but NOT Biological FACT...HAHA, THEIR fuck up- they don't know of what they even speak! And the "skeptics" don't even realize they are tackling this with Language Games to PROVE their assertions (that Biological Fact is not able to be "Deconstructed"- not by the means they wish...they can only hope to assign Gender Roles LINGUISTICALLY, but that's it...(and the law issues, if you are thinking i'm anti-Peterson-fucking-telling-them-to-fuck-theirselves, you'd be wrong; that shit, legally speaking, disturbs me. But the morality involved also does to- I dislike vehemently hateful and vile people, on any side of any debate.) Sorry for the ramble- the only way to get my thoughts out on this subject, it makes my head spin. I think the WORD Postmodernism is STUPID. Anyways, Metamodernism is the new thing now, and people should focus, at LEAST, on BOTH, and have a dialectic debate about the merits of disabusing people of either/or, for the sake that they are the most prevalent. Modernism is also ATTACHED to Postmodernism, intrinsically, I might add. It should all be critiqued, but NOT CONFLATED- just like fucking White Nationalists (whomever they may be) shouldn't be conflated with Supremacists or Nazis;...the logic i'm applying there is the same I apply the absent-minded misuse (or OVERUSE) of the damn stupid word Postmodernism. It's just Stupid.
    1
  41. Postmodernity* in a nutshell.
    1
  42. LOL, Peterson is equally as clueless about "postmodernism". Pomo is dead. Metamodernism is the new "thing", anyway. Fuckin' 70 year old Postmodernism, and now it's in the limelight...cause of Peterson and his tirades. LOL Still like his lectures though. "Fuckin' Feminsm is POMO!" is stuff you hear now, thanks to him and his misapprehension. LOL
    1
  43. I WILL grant that, you are correct. My main contention is his semantics (after all logic and language are intrinsically tied, so...), I question his use of the term and conflation with so many other fields and schools of thought, that do NOT pertain to postmodernism. But the issues he is addressing are dire, indeed. We all, at the very least, know him for the whole "Misgendering" debacle. So i'll admit it...yeah, my beef is mainly semantic. But it's an important distinction to make, it's making a huge conflagration of misuse, of the term, and of many another term's conflation with the term. Marxism...peh...Um...no. It's not the SAME as PoMo like so many people suggest after listening to Peterson. Other than that, I love his lectures, like I said. (Maybe some people, because of the schools conflation of terms, TOO, are to blame just the same? I've said it before, and now again, if I study Marxism and I conflate that with the capitalism I am critiquing through that Marxist lens, I am not really correct in asserting that that "Capitalism" i'm critiquing is still "Capitalism" after running the study through such a Marxist lens of thought.)
    1
  44. Why isn't everyone getting paid then?
    1
  45. That's good. People need as natural a light source as possible...fucked up light, I dunno...It just ain't right.
    1