Check. And since the Dadaist were part of the modern movement, relating postmodernism to something that moderns were doing, actively, is part of the terrible word, right? Art's definition, the French philosophical perspective, literary and critical theory...non of them match up. I've read that it is a extension of modernism and I've read that it is a rejection of it. I swear to baby Jesu it's an intellectual Emperor's New Clothes. If a concept is *difficult* to understand, that's one thing, but if it is almost too nebulous grasp, then it's lost it's meaning. But mostly I agree with Jephla, this conversation is a bunch of horeshit.
evan - bingo. and that's another reason why post modern anything usually sounds full of burning hot air. what's funny is that the original modernist movement was basically like punk for the turn of the 19th century. so punk has what? like another 60 years or so before it's the new old fogey style to rebel against.
post modernism, post modern, post modernist, any of the available versions of that term are incredibly strange to me. they have no discernable meaning, i've yet to read or hear any definition that makese sense or is cohesive. the only thing that i can get out of post modernist anything is that it does define 'unfalsifiablity' to me. so, there's that.