Postmodernism? (1 Viewer)

[tashl]

How did you interpret the question? More specifically, how did you interpret "originality"?

I didn't really have much to say about originality itself so instead I talked about "original ways of thinking" and how pomo subverts them.. Probably not so clever in hindsight.

 

[frieda]

Ah I talked about like you how pomo subverted original ways of thinking by aiming to be individual in their technique, while at the same time psotmodern texts often use similar techniques which paradoxically makes them unoriginal.

I hope I don't confuse the examiners haha

 

[trao06]

Hmm I had a number of different viewpoints.. pomo texts attempt originality through construction of reality and negating past convention, but cannot achieve originality due to the intertextual nature of all texts. Also, the reader, rather than the author, is the creator of originality.
That's what I remember, at least, haha.

 

[NickyFM]

Ah lamee
i was also really literal about the q
i said how some pomo theories subvert previous thinking and hence is original, whilst some are an extension on previous ideas and are therefore unoriginal

 

[nhurlstone90]

That was a hard question.
I hated it but i went along the lines of PoMo cant' be original due to its nature, with all idea merely being a repetition, however the responder is the one to create meaning and therefore the meaning can appear original, even though it may not be.

 

[RandyCambell]

Mmmhi,

My take on the question was that Postmodernism, in its challenges to previously held certainties and conventions was an original way of thinking (although I did refer to the fact that there is "no originality" but that may have weakened my argument) and also, like someone above me, owing to the responders role in creating meaning, there is an element (dynamic, eh? eh?) of originality in all texts.

Time will tell really.