Austinist: Austinist Interviews The Fiery Furnaces

Benj

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:43:33 -0600

Nah. At one time 'modern' meant (relatively) current. No more, obviously. Same with pop. Today 'pop' has more to do with nostalgia, bubblegum, and (often ironic) commercialism, however treated. Also, 'high art', when the term is even used, hasn't been limited to paint for nearly 40 years, and in the art world is almost as meaningless as 'low culture,' due in large part to Warhol. I think, really, art as a whole has gotten more pragmatic. All these labels become increasingly useless, as newer sought-after stuff seems to fulfill only two criteria: 1., it's both new and recognizable (see interview re 'breaking the right rules') and 2. it's interesting in an engaging way.

MalleableMan

Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:33:52 -0600

Well, none of that stuff is postmodern in and of itself, but inserted into the right context (say, a symphony) it becomes postmodern since the traditional barriers between high and low culture have been blurred, which is why Andy Warhol's soup cans are considered postmodern, since high art is supposed to be reserved for painting sophisticated subjects and shaply French women, not some dollar-item that rolls off an assembly line. Now, is the pop song as a medium so different (or more sophisticated) than advertisements and greeting cards to warrant calling their assimilation something like "postmodern?" I don't think so, but I also don't think the Fiery Furnances make pop music, since that term is derived from "popular."

mimi

Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:17:41 -0600

I don't see how puns in advertisements, greeting card language, and Paul McCartney lyrics aren't postmodern...?