The posmodern work

1996- The posmodern work: beyond the intertextual. 

By abdel Hernández San juan

guest of the classical and hispanic studies at rice university in semiotic theory, anthropology and theory of art, Fondren library lectures auditoriums, rice university

 "The posmodern work", a theoretical paper/essay written by Abdel Hernández San Juan was lectured by him throught a 45 minutes conference read in person at the fondren library lectures auditorium as part in the meetings, dialogues and activities developed by abdel during his travel as guest theoretician writer and lecturer of the faculty of classical and hispánic studies at rice university to discuss his conjuntion of semiótic theory,  theory of contemporary art and anthropology.

The paper lectured focussed in avoiding speculative generalizations on posmodernism seen as a social, económic or history diagnosis on modernity, to instead discuss that the idea of posmodernism must be regarded, framed, cutted, logically identify as certain under empirical experience as a matter of subjectivity, a subjectivity phenomenologically expressed at the level of the "configurational paradigms" on how an "author work" as a whole of parts or fragments should be made  and understand both at writing works, --books of thought--or literacy as at any other language

Abdel examined this "configuratiónal paradigms" as a matter of languages in between defining "ideal types" as this concept was attempted to work in comprehensive sociology, from max Weber to Alfred shutz, or "tipifications", semiotically unveiling the levels of contrained signs in languages procedures and how it is entailed later as relations between subjectivity and culture.

1-Mixing or mixturing as cultural sincretization or as yuxtaposing, collecting or quoting cultural texts?

For example, we have recognized Ventury architectural ecleptisism as "posmodern" since an architectural building aesthetically speaking shows to be composed by fragments of styles clues we have never seen before mixed according to diacronical, logically linear, historial parameters of styles, this might be identified on a first level as a "sincretization" agains style, meaning negating style, but sincreticism itself is nothing but an ethnological culturalist concept far to be easely tangibly operated in terms of languages procedures by an author. 

One of the usual hiphotesis on this regard might often be regarded to a kind of overflows of culture over the author control of forms procedures and as such reduced to be seen as an expresión of the author permeability and or metamorphosis in a culture, the well know so-called analysis of forms as expresión of cultural identity issues, an overflows easy to be asigned in terms of sake as a result of the pop artists game with non-artístic massive and popular culture aesthetics so lossing control at the language level and becomings expresión of cultural dinámics

For examples, "remedos" and "pastiches" analyzed not as intentional language aesthetics to be seen instead as what is posible socioculturally to an author who can't do more than remedos of culture texts in currents sociocultural situations.

Another ussual hipothesis focuss from the oposites perspectives, instead of seen the author as losing control at the level of language in regard to culture, understanding it as a kind of artifice about which the author is full concient to be some one who act as a external collector of cultural codes as this codes may be recognized under visual culture icons, so that what before was seen as an ecleptisism resulted from overflows of culture over form triggering sicretism as an ethnological result of reacting agains the codes of style, is now be seen, gazing exactly the same motive, as an illusionist control of spetial effects by an author who quotes prevouslly unrelated codes of culture throught what Jameson defined as "an spectacle of availability", here the author appear as a collector who join or gather anything as quoting. 

So, from this another perspectives, "remedos" and "pastiches" appears not as a sociocultural condition of posibility on what any author might do with the texts of culture remedating it, but remedating as a voluntary procedures of cultural quoting, 

However, in both cases 1-reacting to styles codes from a mixing ethnologically sincretization of cultural overflowings over forms --the eclepticist cultural identity hiphotesis or 2-by intentionally yuxtaposing it -- the empty artifitial parameters of quoting--, the "ideal types" in both cases unveil at the configuratiónal level-- (paradigms of the work of an author as a whole--), how the relation between language, subjectivity and culture have changed.

"The posmodern work" must thus be seen in terms of idealizacion as one in which form and morphology are less a point of departure and more a point of arrivals, while as ever making a work as procedures level presupose working with a media, a matter or a form what a "posmodern work" imply might thus be identify as modalities from which style ever result from logically operating over form with cultural codes instead of operating from form, morphology and styles of departure over culture

2-Diferend, differed destinatary or difference: Avoiding the reader, viewer or receptor?

All this suposes the question about if a "posmodern work" in terms of the pluralist, heterogéneous, polisemic understanding of sociocultural environments should be considered as an "open work" remembering umberto eco and Claude Levis strauss discusion when the later reacted to eco "the open work" claming a "closed work' one, eco "Open work" was based and inspired in John Cage aleatorist work with fragments and suposed as inclusive understanding sociocultural environments mainly as entropic spaces of múltiples irreductibles, endless of interpretations pluralist spaces, have "the posmodern work" turned out it ending the ideals of the aleatorist "open work" or must it be intérpreted as less open?

A yes or a not in answers to this question shows major regards about how subjectivity --the authorial one--, feels itself in the universe, or we feel ourself as particular relational atoms under an Infinity irreductible universe or we feel ourselves under an enclosed universe, this might then be discussed less around styles and codes of culture and more around how subjectivity work at the configurational level in between the work language and the kind of reader and or viewer the work anticipates as adressed to it.

In this sense the paper discuss and sustain that avoiding the idea of a concrete destinatary, reader or receptor must be defined as another "ideal types" typical of "posmodern works"

The concrete reader, viewer or receptor is avoided in favour of a disuation instead of a persuation, diferends and diference.

Instead of taking responsability letting the work to be completed by the interpreter as it was often under late modernism or to change the receptor mind as it was often under modernist parameters, the posmodern work tend to avoid it.

3-Irony and parody as a disuasive actitudes regarding the content level of the themes or topics which contrain the author work

Focussing the relation between subjectivity, language and culture another "ideal types" must thus be entailed with irony and parody, the author choice a theme or topics to him or her work but will never compromise him or herself with something to be say on it,  ironing and paroding the say with the saying, this must thus be entailed again also with avoiding and with narcisism

4-de-(s) narrativization or rearticulation of fragments as disjuntures of fragments

Instead of a happy universe of fragments under aleatorial, fractal armony of atomized elements of relational ludric interactions as it was the "ideal types" paradigmatique of Cage paraboles of noises and silences, or recorded collected noises as sound typical of electroacustics, another "ideal types" looks to regulate the configuratiónal level of parts and wholes under posmodern works, the fragments are acepted less as a position of elements under an universe and more as a de-narrativization procedures, such attention on narrative is attempted to do both fragmenting narratives avoiding the often dramaturgical organizations of clímax and rearticulating it, such rearticulation finds a variety of forms, it might be seen as a resignation to fragmented subjectivity ironizing it or as abyections but must be seen too, at the same time, as a procedures to recapture narrative when entailed to cultural memory or the past, for example in the ways Wilson de-narrativize the mise in scene of classical motives in theater de-teatralizing it toward a visual yuxtaposition of a plastic surface of shadows, the actor as image

The paper lectured discussed around ten "ideal types" 

Max Weber, Frederic jameson, Julia kristeva and linda hutcheon are mentioned inside the paper toguether with somes united states visual artists such as ventury, bárbara kruger and Cindy Sherman, between others from the late eighties, references in bibliography included Susan Rubin  Suleiman on "naming and differences: reflexions on modernism versus posmodernism in literature", a paper about posmodern literature, pavao pavlicic "modern and posmodern intertextuality' and Hall Foster "re-post'.

The lecturer was introduced to the audience by Surpik angelini, included the presence of Stephen Fox, Richard ingelson, lane Kauffman, Stephen a tyler and Julie Taylor, between others, simultáneous translation by Graciela daichman

Rice university, Houston, texas