Özet:

Art had taken on functions that show variability in different periods as a superstructure since the time period that had existed. We know art works that were created for several reasons such as to provide information, to testify, to manage perception, expression, and certification. We have read how the sorcerers in the cave periods, clerics in the Middle Ages, bourgeois class in the Renaissance, aristocracy or artist himself as an individual were determiners of the production types in art. From the above mentioned period until the mid-20th century when the concept of postmodern was first discussed, basically two perceptions of reality were mentioned. The first of these is imitation, how well it reflects the life. Because source of the any information that obtained through the senses is God and they are the product of a scheme based on that. If God is real other things are just the imitation of him. How much similar, that much good. We remember the Zeuxis and Parrhasius instance. The latter is the reflection of the individual's own reality. With Renaissance by humanism, rationalism and after determinism transforming wisdom and science as the main structures in appreciating reality, God was replaced with person/individual. Hence the content of resulting work was in this direction too. Today the postmodernist situation is the case that neither God nor individual is centralized. Reality if exists, changes person to person, case to case or society to society. Thus reality is a case of relative phenomenon. A structure like this caused such a gigantic equivocal postmodern turbidity that was fed by concepts such as prosperity, perplexity, chaos, and simulation. In this process art was converted to a structure that all kinds of tools and materials and approaches could coexist and moreover could be performed by anyone. Nobody can say “this is art or not” to the products that revealed in this era, because definition and perception by definition methodology used by rationalism and determinism is not used by postmodernity. “Walter Benjamin has questioned what is being vanishing or has gradually vanished by unlimited mechanical reproduction. According to Benjamin that being vanished is exactly originality. Reproduction destroys “being here and now” which is actually the main component of art work’s originality. So it impossible to talk about originality as the art’s unique and compulsory criteria anymore” (Frenzel, 1990, 78). If we don’t discuss what is real or unreal or what is art or what isn’t, and if we don’t describe these phenomenon in context of their place in today’s life, then what can we talk about? What can stop the individual’s internal discomfort in the paradox of everything is real and nothing is real statement. Man/Person can get rid of the discomfort of obscurity by instinctual signification of what they perceived and forming a self-definition. As a matter of fact tries to define and clarify the structure that we call postmodernism in general. However postmodernism makes a definition by saying that it was outside the definitions or the grand narratives. But it drugs us to another paradox by saying “defining the limit is unlimitedness”. When we look at the works of art produced in the past 70 years no matter how avant-garde they are, we cannot see anything else but the repetition of the first vintage examples. Consequently as a subject an individual is supposed to find his/her vital balance. Although postmodernism seems to stand away from identification, this confusing structure will be resolved, significated and maybe classical with resulting in the individual’s instinctional signification, whatever it is named. Keywords: Postmodernism, signification, discomfort, modernism.

Anahtar Kelimeler: