Talk:Metamodernism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Disruptive Editing

This article talk page is a terrible mess. I won't say that the article is a mess, but the discussion on this talk page has not helped. Wikipedia depends on collaborative editing, and that has been in short supply on this article.

doxing; allegations of sock-puppetry. Since any further disruptive editing probably will result in a Request for Arbitration, and since the ArbCom requires posts to be limited to 500 words, each editor should limit their posts to a readable length. I suggest that, in order both to avoid arbitration and to prepare the way for arbitration if all else fails, each editor state, in 500 words or less, what he or she thinks should be done both to improve the article and to improve the collaborative editing environment. Do any of you really want arbitration? If not, state clearly, without personal attacks, what should be done. If you do, state clearly, without personal attacks, what should be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

@
harass other editors, obscuring the healthy discussions about the content of the article that have been taking place between the legitimate editors here for some time. Since the latest sock ceased their activity - their exact status pending the findings of a sock-puppet investigation - calm has returned. Since the disruption appears to have nearly all stemmed from this one disruptive user, I hope that in future admins will be able to act quickly to prevent this behavior returning. If this can be achieved, I'm optimistic that a collaborative editing environment will prevail. Although the talk page is currently a mess, I believe that thanks to the efforts of editors such as Steelpillow, Inanygivenhole, Ricky81682, and others, the article itself is in largely good health. Esmeme (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@Robert McClenon: Can I suggest that several kinds of cleanup are needed:
  • The first is the deletion of any material which pushes outing and doxing to the fore. At least some has already been removed by an uninvolved editor, but there may still be more.
  • The second is retractions and apologies for the most outrageous accusations still current. These include, but may not be limited to; accusations of outright lying (by Inanygivenhole). and persistent accusations of sockpuppetry before investigations have concluded (by Esmeme) (redacted per collapsed apology below).
  • Third can come the deletion of long and unproductive rants, possibly by archiving whole sections. I think this has to be done by someone not involved in the discussion, as it is bound to make snap judgements on the material to go.
  • Not so much a suggestion, but a plea for personal recognition by the editors remaining that their discussion skills are appalling and that endless repetition of accusatory rants is just as much their own trait as anybody else's and actually harms their case each time they indulge.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Update] All the things that matter have now been done, IMHO: material archived, recognition that accusations of bad faith have gone stale, I am content that things are now as good as we will get. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic or too on-topic but retracted nevertheless
@
WP:DUCK is sufficient here. Another uninvolved user, Anthonyhcole, has also been kindly assisting me over on my talk page with handling the abuse and disruptive editing that the sock has been causing, if you'd like to read the additional evidence of their clear deception that I have posted there. Esmeme (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The editor in question over at ANI seems unwilling to explain their comment to me, nor even whether they agree with your own analysis. I have now read the discussion you link to on your talk page, and I agree that you have suffered misrepresentation on several occasions. Since you were merely retaliating against confirmed abuse, the persistence of your accusations is understandable. I am redacting my suggestion that it requires apology, and I hope you will accept my apology in turn for piling one distress upon another. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Steelpillow, and apology accepted. I know that your comments have always been well-intentioned, and I'm simply glad that you're better acquainted with the facts now, which the disruptive user had tried to obscure. I just hope that we've now seen the last of these disruptive accounts, so that the friendly collaborative atmosphere can return here. Esmeme (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that I will not retract my claim until the untruths uttered by the user, out of ignorance or malice, have been adequately retracted and apologized for. Coming out of nowhere with accusations of SPA is blatantly disruptive and trolly. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:AGF and have since ignored the warning also posted on your talk page by another editor. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
You've moved goalposts again, I see. Your initial claim that most of the major editors were SPAs remains patently false, and you refuse to retract it. But it appears that we've moved on, so I'm willing to drop it, even if you don't have the decency to apologize. Inanygivenhole (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I archived everything else here. Other than this discussion, the last discussion hasn't been commented on in a week and focuses more on the theory of what the other editors want to do with the article rather than its actual content. Prior attempts got reverted but at this stage, I'll ask that people make a link to the prior discussion if there's actually something work discussing. This article is a hivemind for accusations because it's a combination of being something with little concrete RS and is based on public individuals who seem to be watching this page. Editors here either need to accept editing to their work and AGF even if you may be repeating it a dozen times or move to another article. I think discussions that aren't appropriate (general forum-like complaining) should be archived and ignored rather than engaged. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to pick at one thing--it's not so much that there's little concrete RS as it is that those sources don't offer much to work with. We have plenty of RSes, just not enough to say with them! The real problem is that the only people who feel like speaking about metamodernism in any great detail are the metamodernists themselves. 3rd party, high-quality sources have been a constant nightmare for this article since its birth. Inanygivenhole (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

I don't think we can categorise metamodernism as relevant to architecture unless independent architectural commentators explicitly reference metamodernism. The fact that a couple of metamodernist writers drag architecture into their view is not significant. Can we remove these categories here? (I tried but got reverted) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metamodern architect is talked about in secondary sources, such as [1], p. 563, [2] and [3]. --Mark viking (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are no use, they are just three more metamodernists claiming architecture as potential territory. You need to find architects or established architectural critics who have put forward buildings and overtly stated them to be metamodern. To my knowledge, none of the architects mentioned in your sources has done this. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the reasoning behind your assertion that these sources are of no use. Do we reject sources discussing algebraic geometry because they were written by algebraists, not geometers? --Mark viking (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is an inappropriate example because
faith healer to be cited as a reliable source on curing cancer just because some of them claimed they could? Would you add Faith healing to Category:Cancer on that same rationale? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Your example is inappropriate, as a building is not going to fall down if someone declares it metamodernist. I consider metamodernism as a school of thought and like other young schools of thought, it is mostly talked about by the adherents and mostly considered rubbish by the non-adherents. Requiring sources outside the school of thought to verify aspects of the school of thought is taking our policy of independence to an unreasonable extreme. With regard to categories, I can see your point and agree with you--there is not yet enough in the reliable sources to consider architecture as a defining characteristic of metamodermism. But if there are reliable sources, even by adherents, that discuss application of metamodernism to architecture, they are fair game for this article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So are we agreed that this article can be removed from any architectural Categories? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal would be fine by me. --Mark viking (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vermeulen's and van den Akker's 2010 paper in the Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, which is the foundation of the academic conversation in question and is featured prominently in this article, focuses on architecture on pages 10 through 12 and mentions the field in a few other places, too. This article actually mentions that discussion in its seventh paragraph, although not in much detail. Related movements such as
WP:CON. 73.230.140.196 (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
You don't get it do you? Nobody in the architectural field has validated the claims of Vermeulen's and van den Akker. I take your point about art in general and have restored that Category, though I have removed a few other irrelevant ones while I was at it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Modify

I'm checking in here before I make a modification to this page, because I'm aware of possible Conflict of Interest issues, and yet I feel some flexibility may be warranted. I am the co-author of a blog called What Is Metamodern? We catalog and discuss exemplars of the metamodern sensibility in culture and the arts, in non-academic language. We are updating it regularly, in contrast to Notes on Metamodernism and The Metamodernist Manifesto, both of which are useful resources, but have not been updated for several years. I would like to at least have What Is Metamodern? included in the external links section of this article, alongside the aforementioned resources, and possibly mentioned in the body itself. I am aware that it's not standard for a person to insert their own stuff into a page, but I feel some flexibility about that standard may be warranted in this case, because the community of people writing about Metamodernism is, as of yet, relatively small. What do people think? Greg Dember (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Greg Dember, April 6, 2017[reply]

I tried to rationalize and update the page with fresh materials, but it was refused. No explanation given. It doesn't seem very democratic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickwick2000 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation was given in the edit description. The reason it was removed for now was that the notability of the added material on Vittorini is not apparent, given that it has a single primary source. If secondary sources can be found that do demonstrate notability, then the material should be included. However, I don't think it justifies restructuring the entire article without further discussion here and a consensus reached. There has been a lot of discussion here on the talk page for all the editors to arrive at the article's current format. I would suggest that the article is best served if the chronological structure is kept, rather than separating it into sections for 'Literary Fiction' and 'Art', since the existing material spans those categories already. Esmeme (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've tentatively inserted a condensed reference to Vittorini in the 'Cultural Acceptance' section, where this seems to fit with the other authors there expanding on the term. Still lacking secondary sources, so please add if they can be found. Esmeme (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the following sentence inserted by Pickwick2000 because it doesn't seem like coherent English, and I don't have access to the source, or a knowledge of Italian to attempt to reword it in clearer terms:

"the elaboration of the form is functional to the mimesis of a complex and entropic reality, which is less and less scriptable in coherent universes, unitary actions and autoconclusive plots, but rather interceptable, alludable, flowchartable in reticular, digressive, fractal narrative structures"

I've reread this several times, and I'm still not sure what it is trying to say, or to what exactly it is referring? Esmeme (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Metamodernism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information only supported by Medium pieces? Promotional tone?

I see several paragraphs that seem to have been added by people referencing their own Medium pieces.

One reference to an article by Greg Dember (who seems to have a now-closed account that was used only to edit this page) is on Medium. He is also co-credited with other references which seem suitable, but my impression is that Wikipedia frowns on open platforms like Medium?

Similarly, the entire paragraph about "Brent Cooper of The Abs-Tract Organization" (neither the person nor organization have any other reference within wikipedia). I think I have seen Cooper appearing on podcasts with others referenced on this page, so those could be suitable references. But supporting inclusion purely on Medium pieces seems a bit suspect, and the wording of this paragraph feels rather promotional to me.

To emphasize, I'm not questioning the relevance of either person, just whether the citations and tone are appropriate. If more appropriate citations are available I have no objection to their inclusion.

--Ixat totep (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General Organization

The sections of this page have gotten rather long and dense, and read like a fairly random list of things people have said or written. It's all relevant, but it's hard to get a sense of the major varieties and focuses of Metamodernism. Contrast with the clear organization of the post-postmodernism page. I do not mean to disparage anyone's work, pages grow organically, and this sort of thing is natural. But perhaps some cleanup is in order?

Clearly the opening part of the "History of the Term" section is fine, and some part of the "Vermeulen and van den Akker" and "The Metamodernist Manifesto" subsections are part of that story. But other parts of those subsections probably belong separate from the basic history.

Beyond that, would it be good to organize by schools of thought that are emerging as focus arease.g. Oscillatory Metamodernism (Vermeulen and van den Akker; Turner) vs Developmental Metamodernism (Hanzi Freinacht a.k.a. Görtz and Friis) vs whatever else?

Alternatively, a different and more fine-grained approach than just Academic vs Cultural? It's not clear to me why a substantial curated discussion (Wager), a fairly major branch of work (Freinacht, with two full books), and a network of podcasts all get mixed in under Cultural Acceptance with a country music album, a novel, a sentence about a film scholar, an art exhibit, and someone's Medium piece.

I'm happy to take a shot at reorganizing things but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Feel free to shoot down this trial balloon :-)

--Ixat totep (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week and no one has objected so here's what I am planning to do (probably a week or two from now, barring objections or someone else doing something similar or better):
  • History of the term
    • Keep the brief timeline of the existing section prior to the "Vermeulen and van den Akker" subsection.
    • Extend the brief timeline noting the publications of Notes on Metamodernism, The Metamodernist Manifesto, the American Book Review issue devoted to MM, The Listening Society, and Metamodernism: Historicity, Affect and Depth After Postmodernism (probably with less detail on the anthologies than currently present- listing topics should be fine, if people want a list of all contributors they can go look up the books)
    • Probably put the bit about "meta-" referencing Plato's metaxy here somewhere
  • Definitions of metamodernism
    • I'm calling this "definitions" and not "schools" because "schools" would require a verifiable secondary source identifying the schools, and the only things I can find that talk about schools of metamodernism are Medium pieces
    • Published definitions pretty clearly fall into those that talk prominently about oscillation and those that do not- this is self-evident from quoting the definitions and therefore won't need extensive support from secondary sources that claims that they form "schools" of Metamodernism would require
    • Organize subsections as follows (exact subheading names TBD, suggestions invited):
      • Oscilliatory
        • Cite "We will call this discourse, oscillating between a modern enthusiasm and a postmodern irony, metamodernism." definition from Notes on Metamodernism
        • Cite "We recognise oscillation to be the natural order of the world.", the first bullet point of The Metamodernist Manifesto
        • Move most of the "Vermeulen and van den Akker" subsection and the first paragraph of "The Metamodernist Manifesto" subsection here
      • Developmental / Cultural Phase / I'm not 100% sure what to call this
        • Cite all or part of Hanzi/Daniel Görtz's "1) a cultural phase; 2) developmental stage of society; 3) stage of personal development (with different complexly intertwined sub-categories thereof); 4) an abstracted meta-meme; 5) a philosophical paradigm, and 6) a sociopolitical movement." definition from Psychology Today
        • Move the Hanzi bit currently in "Cultural Acceptance" up here as it covers the developmental aspect
  • Relationship to Modernism, Postmodernism, and other Post-Postmodernisms (or some less clunky title)
    • Anything about the temporal and philosophical relationships that doesn't strictly fit in the above sections would go here
  • Academic Engagement
    • Streamline this, we don't need summaries of every individual person's arguments and theories, just notable people and their areas of work
    • Keep the symposium list as it is short and demonstrates a community of interest
  • Cultural Acceptance (or maybe Cultural Influence)
    • The bit about LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner from "The Metamodernist Manifesto" subsection goes here
    • Streamline this section as with "Academic Engagement": notable people and their ares of work/cultural impact, not descriptions of every person's project and lists of every contributor – reference citations should provide enough info for anyone who wants to find out those details to do so
    • Cut anything that is only supported by self-published sources that do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for acceptable use of self-published sources (e.g., writing a Medium article is not enough to earn a presence on this page, someone else needs to talk about you, or you need to have put work out through non-self-publishing channels or venues)
    • Note what podcasts and other forums tend to discuss Metamodernism, but again trim summaries of episodes as Wikipedia is not for promoting content
  • Criticism
    • If there is notable criticism of the movement (e.g. not people complaining about people who are involved, but critical attitudes towards the utility/clarity/etc. of the movement), make a section for it
--Ixat totep (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to do this but (obviously since it's been six months) have not had the time to focus on it. I encourage anyone to make use of any/all of the above ideas. I might get to it eventually. Ixat totep (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I do not know the conventions of collaborative editting on Wikipedia, but if you are still present I am interested in helping editing here. After learning and becoming interested in this Metamodernism I think this page could use more attention.
I support the idea of dividing the content into two main definitions, which is hinted at in the summary, but this hasn't yet been fully implemented. Here is my view of what it could be.
1. Cultural Sensability - predominately focused on post-irony and interpretting or recognizing metamodern qualities within subjects and mediums of art. This is how Vermeulen and van den Akker are using it.
2. Integral Epistemic - attemps to reconcile chiefly the Modern and Postmodern, but also any other epistemes of time and place by emphasizing the importance of integrating their seemingly opposing systems of knowledge into contemporary life. Metamodern philosophy starts here and is applied broadly to different subjects.
Let me know what you think. gibson (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Great idea. I have tried to implement some of the above suggestions. Further edits/improvements along these lines is welcome. Snuffleumpagus (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" section

Though I agree there should indeed be a criticism section, it is unclear why the opinion of "philosopher and founder of Parallax magazine Tom Amarque" who "criticized Metamodernism on a range of points" is relevant. Also, the citations to Amarque's website include one dead link and two podcast episodes (w/ no time stamps given). TopoiTroy (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this was my edit. acknowledged. i will revert now in light of your points.
i like that we are on the same page regarding the need for the criticism section - it would be great to see editors being proactive in finding scholarly sources on critiques of metamodernism. the page suffers without it Halfoftheotherteam (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that a lot of people in metamodernism as an art movement are concerned by its appropriation for new religious movements and forms of stage theory (that Bateson and others have criticised as eugenic - declaration of interest I think that as well) but I am not sure if that has been written up in a proper source yet. It is still fairly new so third party is hard to come by. -----Snowded TALK 14:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metamodernism&oldid=1221370685"