To Post Modernize or Not. That is the Question.

I'm going to relate and say that I am with Rosa on the fact that I was a little bit lost and confused at one point throughout the discussion that we had.  So to reiterate what Rosa said specifically relating to the question of, "Does art need to have a meaning?" I'm going to go ahead and say no for the reason that I mentioned at the end of class, which was the fact when I listen to music or watch it for pure entertainment. Unless I want to watch or listen to music based on my mood whether that may be sad, happy, angry, etc, I choose the music based on that.

I also don't see what the big deal is about Post Modernism, for me, if a song or art is so historical and carries so much meaning, then that meaning and historical concept should never leave just because of changes in society.  Fashion is a big art statement within itself, like Louis Vuitton will never lose its true high class meaning of being Louis Vuitton which is why it is so expensive because if we're being realistic here, if you can afford to carry around thousands of dollars on your arm, then you're clearly making a statement that you have money.  Like fine pieces of art, only people who can afford it will buy it, if not they will just keep enjoying the view.

So yes, post modernism can suck in the way that everything that was good is starting to be swept under the rug with all this new and "modern" hip music, fashion and art, but I don't think that art needs to always have a meaning.  Sometimes stuff is just created for pleasure, and of course for money.  Regardless, even an artist puts a meaning on something they have created, doesn't mean that I have to agree.