Talk:High modernism

untitled

This reads very anti currently. Secretlondon 04:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Aye, it does. Everyone I've read who speaks of "high modernism" uses the phrase pejoratively. Perhaps this should be made more explicit. Smerdis of Tlön 04:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, Wolfe shouldn't be listed as the only go-to guy in the further reading section, as his slant prevents a fair assessment. Ann Ardis, Charles Altieri, and a good many other scholars in the journal Modernism/Modernity have begun challenging the notion of literary high modernism.

Seriously, who the heck thought "Bauhaus-inspired box architecture" are essentially unliveable? I grew up in such box architectures (in Shenzhen, China) and they are pretty alright. pony in a strange land (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Note to self: Someday, add a section on Singapore. It seems like the most severe example of high modernist regime currently in existence.

• Centenary paper: Urban planning in Southeast Asia: perspective from Singapore (2011)
• Albert Winsemius and the Transnational Origins of High Modernist Governance in Singapore (2019)

need to read against its grain for the 2ᵗʰ paper.

The success of machines for living in Singapore, Hong Kong, and other East Asian cities problematizes critics of Bauhaus-inspired box architecture, and the hubris of central planning.

pony in a strange land (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

In the arts section

Why is Steven Pinker headlining this section, let alone even in it? Shouldn't an art historian or period art critic whose work dealt with and defined "high modernism" headline it? Moreover, shouldn't it begin with a positive review of high modernism, like that from Clement Greenberg or Michael Fried? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.1.160 (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

Should the "M" be capitalized? (High modernism to High Modernism) Dude1818 (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Taylor is lacking

The footnotes that refer to Taylor's work do not lead further than that, we see Taylor's name, a page number, but no book title. This should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.194.252.40 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean footnote number 2? I find quite a lot more there: "Peter J. Taylor, Modernities: A Geohistorical Interpretation (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1999), pp. 18, 32." Subsequent entries are shortened to author-page format, as with several other references. I suppose we could complain about the lack of an ISBN.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This page violates NPOV

I'm calling this page out for violating the NPOV principle. As of now, every single evaluation of High Modernism in this page is negative. If the term "High Modernism" is defined to be a negative phrase, then it is better to state it out in the front. As of now, this page looks like a regurgitation of James Scott's anti-high-modernist viewpoint.

High Modernism has certain undisputed successes, such as metric standardization, timezone standardization, electrification, railway gauge standardization, standardization of data formats, etc. We won't even be writing on Wikipedia if there is no standardization of the TCP/IP technology stack. To ignore such successes and only discuss its failings is a clear violation of the NPOV principle.

And what is with the "the essential unlivability of Bauhaus-inspired box architecture"? I grew up in Shenzhen, China, in a box building. Many buildings in China are boxy as shown in the photo. Nobody I knew seemed to suffer from some kind of dehumanization symptom from living in boxy buildings. If there is some psychological study showing that living in boxy buildings can lead to some kind of dehumanization, please cite it, I would love to know about that. pony in a strange land (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Well actually what it does is parrot Scotts views without apparently mentioning him and recounting them as if it was a major current in anthropology, sociology or i dunno consensus social science if there were such a thing, which there isn't. And even if there was this wouldn be anything in it other than Scotts schtick. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Some ideas for future addition

• The tomato harvester. Ambiguous case. A small group of plucky scientists, labored many years, to design the perfect tomato and the perfect harvester to allow massive production across California, squeezing out small-time tomato harvesters in the process, decreased variety, made tomato production legible, and made tomatoes a lot cheaper. In particular, it made ketchup so cheap it became the iconic flavoring sauce.
• plattenbau, Urban planning in communist countries
• Metrication

pony in a strange land (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)