modernism

People don't know nearly enough on say, 50's modernism. Or the Bauhaus aesthetic.

> It was in 1909, the nadir of this milieu, before the advent of modernism and world war, that The Harvard Classics took shape. I think he means zenith, not nadir.

It has a very nice mix of cutting edge modernism and the former east german sections which are still relatively inexpensive. And I just like germans.

Anigbrowl mentions "Rousseau" and here come "noble savages", Gaugain, Picasso, modernism, cubism, and "the left wing". Huh?

The ideals that defined the modernism movement were based on the tangible. What if a "non-flat" design improved communication/interaction?

You're kinda mixing skeuomorphism with modernism in your design, which is a natural result of making real world analogs on iPhones, but the one place it hasn't seemed to blend well is that font. Great looking app, and especially the icon is really well done.

It's a disturbing feature of modernism that people are hyper-focused on "evidence". Most studies are pretty inconclusive anyway.

Whatever the fuck that means, I'm assuming it's a reactionary stage against postmodernism, which would make it plain modernism. There's no reason a reaction against post-modernism would have to be plain modernism.

Then again, it does help clarify that the real purpose of the article is not criticism of Green Building but an attack on modernism. Everyone in Seoul or Mexico or Rio or Helsinki will not be served by a house designed for the Bayous of Louisiana.

And even then, at the height of modernism, a wide spectrum existed. Edit: Obviously, reading literature is an entirely optional activity.

Also they seemed actively hostile to cross-subject questions like post-modernism's impact on self understanding in a psychology class discussion. That disdain of learning about multiple subjects is modeled by their undergraduate and graduate students.

He was probably referring to the already dying branch of leftist academics who engaged in "post-modernism" and "critical studies." They were not really anti-intellectual, but definitely viewed science and objectivity with a jaundiced eye.

See, for example the art of Gaugain, Picasso and early modernism. Unless your liberterian ideaolagues acquantences were closest cubists or something.

People wonder why painting went to modernism and post-modernism; part of the story is that the entire skillset of "faithfully rendering the real" had been rendered economically obsolete by cameras, so an artist who didn't want to starve had to render something else. Similarly, it matters little how much discipline, effort, and grit it takes to perfect an on-stage juggling routine if the audience doesn't bother to come to the stage.

The basic idea is that modernism is the idea that there exists a state that is somehow better, more advanced, more organized, for a given system, and the goal of human endeavor is to move towards that. Postmodernism is basically a skepticism towards that viewpoint, trying to pull the teleological aspects out of it, saying that there's no intrinsic metric by which a given system can be measured to determine its relative state of progress towards more advanced forms.

I suspect there is a point or ideological agenda to the lie "People earlier in more 'primitive' cultures were lucky to live to see their 30th birthday", its the old "life was brutal without civilization and a state to keep you safe and well" which then suggests we should also be lucky today to have all this modernism and be thankful to have "progressed" so far as to live to 31.