"High art since 1914 is no longer bourgeois but produced by and for intellectual" (David Roberts qut in Frow 143)
The condition of modernity . . . is dominated by the idea that the history of thought is a progressive 'enlightenment' which develops toward an ever more complete appropriation and reappropriation of its own 'foundations.' Modernity, in this sense, is characterised by a consciousness of an 'overcoming' of past understandings and a striving toward future 'overcoming' in the name of a deeper recognition of that which is fundamentally legitimating and 'true,' whether this is within science, the arts, morality or any other realm of thought or practice. . . . In 'taking leave' of modernity, Vatiimo argues, postmodernity is marked by a departure from the very process of overcoming that the prefix 'post-' would seem to suggest. (Kaye 1-2)
"Postmodernism is undoubtedly a part of the modern.. . . A work can become modern only if it is first postmodern. Postmodernism thus understood is not modernism at its end but in the nascent state, and this state is constant. . . . Post modern would have to be understood according to the paradox of the future (post) anterior (modo)."
|Rose, Margaret A. The Post-Modern and the Post-Industrial. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991.|
a very useful guide. [e.g.
Views on architecture --Jameson, et al.
p. 76 In addition to describing the place taken by popular images in post-modernist architecture in a way which does not accurately describe either post-modern architecture, or theories of postmodern architecture such as Jencks's, Jameson's identification of John Portman's Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles as 'post-modernist' in his 1984 article . . . has also classified something as 'postmodern' which Jencks and other architectural historians have described as either modernist or late-modernist.
Jameson: an example of a 'decentering hyperspace'
Jencks: an example of 'late Modernism,' and he contrasted its exaggeration of the 'Modernist extension of space' with the more humanised space of that which is for him the typically post-modern building. pp. 76-78.
Habermas's 1980 and 1981 essays have described post-modernist architecture as being both anti-modernist and anti-modern. p. 87 [e.g. the cult of the vernacular and the admiration of the banal.]
|Connor, Steven. Postmodernist Culture: An Introduction to Theories of the Contemporary. 2nd Ed. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1997.|
(vii) Since the publication of the first edition of this book in 1989, the most noticeable change has been the steady overtaking of the first, shall we call it, genealogical kind of postmodernism by what may be termed the analogical postmodernism of the second kind. . . . Increasingly, disciplinary areas have sought to define their own postmodernist regimes in relation to those prevailing elsewhere, rather than by reference to their own histories. It would be possible to represent this generalization of 'pomo-envy' as one more symptom of the contemporary flattening of historical awareness were it not that looking over their . . . disciplinary shoulder at other kinds of postmodernism, seems to have driven many particular disciplines into a renewed investiagation of their own genealogies.
His view on the postmodern debate
p. 9 We need . . . to ask different questions of the postmodernism debate. Instead of wondering how accurately postmodern criticism reflects real conditions obtaining in the cultural and social sphere, we need to consider the ways in which the debate comes out of a redefined relationship between the critical and the social-cultural spheres. Instead of asking, what is postmodernism?, we should ask, where, how and why does the discourse of postmodernism flourish?, what is at stake in its debates?, who do they address and how? The series of questions shifts attention from the meaning or content of the debate to its form and function, so that, . . . we ask, not, what does postmodernism mean?, but what does it do?
and the Academy p. 14-15
as an example
p. 133 Postmodernist literature obediently falls into step with the motifs and preoccuppations of institutionalized post-structuralist theory . . . , resonating in sympathy with all its hermeneutic requirements. More importantly, the postmodernist literary text -- or prevailing critical conceptions of the postmodernist literary text -- serves to concentrate radical or skeptical theory into an institutionally usable form, allowing the business of the literary academy -- the interpretation of texts, the production of and accreditation of readings and methodologies -- to go on as usual.