Is what is modern considered what "the new" (Habermas 4) is? Regardless of the essay, I was taught that modern equated to the technologically advanced — in other words, it was always known as the better option when choosing between the antiquated and the modern. Clearly, humanity has the knack of discarding the old; people are always searching for something better and faster. But aside from thinking of modern as "the new," Habermas suggests that modernity is closely related to the classical. Trends are constantly forgotten and replaced with new trends; what is trendy today may very well be obsolete tomorrow. However, work that is considered modern turns into "a classic because it has once been authentically modern" (Habermas 4). This, in return, reminded me of Benjamin's notion of authenticity vs. authority.
"Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative" (Habermas 5). On the other hand, Habermas later remarks that "the avant-garde... is supposedly no longer creative" (Habermas 6). If modernity is the rebellious act of challenging the normative, and if the new is no longer creative, does this effectively mean that modernity disallows creativity? The belief that the unusual is uncreative seems outrageous, but so is the thought of thinking the norm is creative. An "abnormal" image shown on the media is called for being too ballsy, and never for being creative. So where exactly does the line lay in determining a work's modernity, and thus/also its creativity? Who decides where it should be?
Heaven knows.
No comments:
Post a Comment