On the question of the history and roots of literary postmodernism (based on the materials of the apologists of the artistic direction)

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Baku Slavic University, Azerbaijan

On the question of the history and roots of literary postmodernism (based on the materials of the apologists of the artistic direction)

Yusifova Khadija Ramiz

Associate professor

Russian and world literature and culture history as a whole is now being rethought in line with the complete technical replacement of all natural with artificial. There is no exaggeration in this process. A new round (or stage) of literature, culture and art differs from all the previous ones by the probability of the disappearance of former aesthetic values and ideals. Russian critic, for example, the well-known modern critic Y.Borev, linking this issue, which is disastrous for all mankind, with the deep subconscious of the individual, was forced to state that "a person today can no longer withstand the pressure of the world and becomes a kind of post-human" [1, p.311]. And according to another authoritative apologist of literary postmodernism, B. Watels, "the omnipresence of modern technologies puts pressure on people's consciousness, while forming a special techno-culture, because in order to fully use the full power of these technologies, people should strive to change their consciousness as much as possible. Otherwise, they have a real risk of becoming post-humans" [5, p.53]. In these statements, we see how two critics of different nationalities come to a single decision. Russian literary postmodernism is linked by genetic ties with various technogenic processes and such a technical take-off did not exist in the previous decades, when modernism was gaining strength in the first place. In this regard, it is necessary to highlight the prefix "-post", which over time has already taken on a fundamentally different meaning compared to modernism itself. Moreover, the very thinking of the people of the XXI century has changed dramatically. On the one hand, it turned out to be subordinate to technology in general. On the other hand, postmodernism, unlike its previous stages, has developed (although not in its final form) own signs and criteria of writing.

So, starting with a dotted examination of the main philosophical and aesthetic categories of postmodernism, we consider it appropriate to say a few words about the difference in the concepts of "postmodern" and "postmodernism". It would seem that it should be completely insignificant (it is necessary, at a glance, to talk only about changing the grammatical form). However, he is a prominent researcher of the latest literary trends and trends. I.S. Skoropanova thinks otherwise. In the first case, we will take as a basis its following definition: "In a very broad literary context, the term "postmodern" should first of all be understood as factors of the global state of modern civilizations in recent decades. More precisely, it should be about the whole sum of cultural and philosophical tendencies, moods, which in turn are closely related to the sense of completion of a large stage of cultural development. This is a sign of the obsolescence, the "death" of a person of earlier times during the abrupt transition to a new phase of "modernity", the entry into the modern era of evolutionary crises and social upheavals" [3, p.8]. Therefore, in the second case, the scientist continues his thought, in relation to philosophy, literature, art and to characterize the corresponding trends in cultural studies in general, a derivative of this term is used - the concept of "postmodernism" [3, pp.111-112]. As we can see, this minor modification of a purely grammatical order for I.S.Skoropanova, and after her and many other researchers, played an important role. The second concept is more capacious, accommodating historical-literary, philosophical, socio-cultural categories and attitudes.

Let us turn to the history of the origin of the term. It has been established that this term was first used more than a hundred years ago in his book by Rudolf Pannwitz. Russian culture was already at a crossroads in the crisis of European and Russian culture, but it turns out that even in those distant times, the memorable year of 1917 turned out to be borderline. In 1934, this term was used in his works by F. de Onis. He, in particular, operated on them, pointing to avant-garde poetic experiments at the beginning of the XX century. Some of A.Toynbee's ideas turned out to be so resilient and effective that a recognized meter of this direction, J.F. Liotar, partly began to rely on them. After separating modernism from postmodernism, he established the latter as a linguistic and historical-philosophical concept. The mood of complete or partial disillusionment with the ideals of Renaissance and Enlightenment is recognized as a specific worldview of literary postmodernism. In this regard, the ideas of progress and educational humanism are subject to debunking. At the same time, the game principle of mastering the world invariably prevails. Even in cases where its use seems illogical. But this does not bother at all, for example, A. Bitov, V. Pelevin, Sasha Sokolov, T. Tolstoy, as well as those Azerbaijani writers who adhere to the basic norms and rules of the direction. Moreover, the deliberate fragmentation into parts of a single whole, the oblivion of any systematics becomes the norm, and deviation from it in favor of a different way of thinking is permissible only to an extremely small extent.

That is why the leading positions of postmodern aesthetics, according to the above, are primarily anti-systematic and adogmatic. A new concept of beauty appears, manifested in the orientation to the concept of beauty in assonance and asymmetry. Disharmony in the perception of beauty, contrary to the well-known formula of F. Dostoevsky is there. The beautiful is sometimes transformed into obscene images, and the comic begins to occupy a central place in literature and art.

Strictly speaking, art itself, in the understanding and corresponding interpretation of postmodern writers, looks very far from standardized realistic views. Postmodernism with its "new approach to science" (wedging formulas from mathematical linguistics into the text, etc.), as well as, we repeat, adogmatism, has decisively destroyed these frameworks. At the same time, it actively interacts with a number of peripheral arts, as well as with mass culture. The quite usual opposition of the high - to mass art, the scientific - to ordinary consciousness in the aesthetics of postmodernism is not perceived as significant and even more relevant. Similar trends are also evident in the erasure of boundaries between outdated (in their opinion), traditional and the newest genres in art. Among the most significant philosophical differences of postmodernism is the gradual transition from anthropocentric classical humanism to universal modern humanism. According to V. Kuritsyn, who analyzed V. Pelevin's prose in one of his works, "the writer in his novels operates with a text akin to an ecological dimension that literally encompasses everything living: nature, man, space, in a word, the entire Universe" [2, p.175]. The very boundaries of the text are being pushed to such an enormous extent, moving away from both receptive aesthetics and hermeneutics, that he, according to the expression. M.Epstein, straightforwardly equated with the world. This is not at all the text that is parsed by writers or linguists according to the usual, almost school- university schemes (sections, fragments, general content, plot, grammar, language categories, etc.). No, it, as the named scientist writes, "consists of endless transcoding and the game of signs. The text essentially turns into a game of unconscious and conscious borrowings, becoming like a set of cliches and quotations". That's why, - M.Epstein concludes his thought, - "in postmodern discourse, concepts such as "simulacrum", "citation", "deconstruction", "intertextuality", "the game of traces", "death of the author", "disappearance of reality" actually reign supreme [4, p.125- 126] and many others. And then the scientist points out a lot of characteristic concepts, signs and features of postmodern writing. genetic literary postmodernism beauty

We, in turn, believe that the definition of postmodernism cannot be borrowed in some ready-made form: this should always be the result of independent research, not a prerequisite, but the final knowledge of any work on this topic. Due to the vastness of theoretical, psychological, ethical and philosophical material, in this article we have tried to focus our attention on the ideological categories of postmodernism, as well as their interaction with the poetics of the latest orthodox literature.

References

1. Борев Ю. Эстетика. Теория литературы. М.: Астрель, АСТ, 2003, 402 с.

2. Курицын В. Пелевин: «Только оборотни настоящие люди». В его книге: Русский литературный постмодернизм. М.: ОГИ, 2001,288 с.

3. Скоропанова И.С. Русская постмодернистская литература. М.: Флинта: Наука, издание второе, дополненное и переработанное, 2009, 635 с.

4. Эпштейн М. Постмодерн в России: Литература и теория. М., 2000, 367 с.

5. Waters B. From Human to Posthuman. Christian Theology and Technology in a Postmodern

6. World. Chippenham: Anhgate Publ. Limited, 2006, 166 p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru