Modernism vs Postmodernism

Where do I stand?

I have always had this inner debate in understanding what sort of designer I would categorise myself as which is why I was thrilled when we had a lecture on modernism and postmodernism. I used to have a very narrow and simplistic idea of what differentiates a modernist from a postmodernist which was simply that Modernists played by the rules of  the principles of design while postmodernists would rebel against systematics in general, however, as true as that is to some extent it did not capture the essence of the two conflicting styles.

During the lecture we were asked a question, 'Do you think that perspective existed or was it invented?' Straight away in my head I thought it existed as quite literally we come across it alot in real life. One object alone can prove the theory that it looks different from different angles. I came to the realisation that this was quite a modernist thought as literal or 'say what you see' is quite the basis of a modernists ideology. However, if I was asked to view this from a design point of view than I would have declared invented as I believe that a good design requires creativity and wit.

Relativism denies, 'that any standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.' We would not privilege linear perspective as 'true'. It is merely a different kind of visual representation. 

Coherence: for postmodernists, the truth, 'is not something lying outside of human collective decisions; it is not, in particular, a "reflection" of an objective reality'.

So linear perspective was collectively accepted as the better form of visual representation in the Renaissance, but this does not make it 'true', it is just more coherent than the alternatives. 

Constructivism: 'The most radical postmodernists no not distinguish acceptance as true from being true; they claim that the social negotiations among influential people "construct" the truth'.

We were given the task to find binary oppositions in one of the three posters above. I chose the second one and stated that the binary opposition in the poster was lines/color, serif/san-serif and mechanical organic. I later found out that I took the task in quite a literal manner like a modernist. If I had thought like a postmodernist I could come up with war/nature.

Speech is authentic. Writing is merely a supplement to speech. We should be on our guard against writing to ensure it doesn't got the upper-hand. It is a dangerous supplement.

Speech is no more authentic than writing. Indeed speech is already a kind of writing. We should overcome our fear of the dangerous supplement.

Modern design treats ornaments, or decoration, as a dangerous supplement. It seeks the foundations of design and rejects the unnecessary.

In Western art, pictures have underlying structures that are seen as the bases or foundations of the image. In this sense, colour and detail are the supplements of design and structure. This is the idea behind a foundation course.

In summary, I learnt what it truly means to be either a modernist or postmodernist as modernists follow correspondence which is to describe or state something and postmodernists following coherence which is that things only make sense within language. It was an insightful lecture which answered my question and hence I believe to have both sense of thought processes. I like to think that I have the discipline of a modernist however simultaneously am curious of the hidden meaning behind the everyday occurrences.