This is what I get for living in a portion out in the country that only offers the speed of the Internet that only the Amish would ever tolerate.
Okay, after reading the article "Postmodern Architecture and Art," I think that I have a much different, and thorough, I think, understanding of the postmodern concept than I did the first time I was assigned to write about it. So, if you don't mind, I am going to re-teach the idea to myself before I proceed in mentioning Cat's Cradle-because I need to. Sorry, ahead of time. Evidently, postmodernism was established by some intellectual Englishmen, who were intrigued by the technological advances being made in America in the 1960s. So, what I got from that was that it was a focus on "more." What more can be done? How can we progress even further? Because we can always have more, BETTER. Also, mentioned in the article were these people called 'futurists.' So it is a focus on the future. Postmodernists placed their focus on the future, always anticipating. Charles Jencks defined Postmodernism as "double coding: the combination of Modern techniques with something else in order for architecture to communicate with the public and a concerned minority..." In Postmodern architecture, said double coding is played out through eclecticism, "[creating] parody, ambiguity, contradiction, paradox." Again, appealing to that idea of more. Postmodernism is there to make people think. And not just a specific group of people; it is there for the most intellectual adult AND the most simple-minded of people, even children. Because it takes simple objects and adds a sophisticated, complex feel-even something as simple as a teapot. It takes the popular and adds classic, to add sophistication, while still remaining simple, thus appealing to all audiences.
Okay, rant over. I think I'm clearer now.
Well, it was much toward the beginning of the book, but I recall Asa Breed's son resigning from his job at the Research Laboratory because he claimed that everything a scientist ever did was set out to become a weapon. Now, I see this as a Postmodern idea, not because he was so focused on advancing for a more technological future (which, as a scientist, in fact, that is precisely the case) but because he saw that any advancements and discoveries he made, being a scientist and all, would contribute to others' uses of his discoveries for society's advancements in the future. So, no, this was not her son's way of portraying Postmodern beliefs, but he was aware of the fact that society is all about the future, and better, and more. And scientists are the ones who even give us the ideas for better and more because they are the ones doing all of the research; we just put it to use to make for a more "efficient" tomorrow. Okay, I think I may be going in circles, and I may not even make sense. But that is what I came up with, and it kind of makes sense to me. So there.
