The term ‘postmodernism’ was tossed around flippantly at art school, yet it is one of those words I think many of us would have struggled to define. It makes me think of the time beyond the formalist geometric abstractions of the 1950s and 60s to an era where anything goes – but where every element holds an awareness of history, a depth of significance. Postmodern art can be anything: a remix of something past, a collage of multiple ideas, a realistic oil painting form a time before, but embedded with layers of meaning that invoke irony, skepticism, absurdity, humor, or anything other than innocence. Art for art’s sake can’t be postmodern, or it can be, but only if intentionality has been applied, reflecting the artist’s distinct perspective. Though we barely understood its meaning, we said “postmodern” with an air of sarcasm. We were taught postmodernism was dead. I took a seminar on post-postmodernism.
The Tate includes postmodernism as one of its ‘Art Terms’:
Postmodernism was a reaction against modernism. Modernism was generally based on idealism and a utopian vision of human life and society and a belief in progress. It assumed that certain ultimate universal principles or truths such as those formulated by religion or science could be used to understand or explain reality. Modernist artists experimented with form, technique and processes rather than focusing on subjects, believing they could find a way of purely reflecting the modern world.
While modernism was based on idealism and reason, postmodernism was born of scepticism and a suspicion of reason. It challenged the notion that there are universal certainties or truths. Postmodern art drew on philosophy of the mid to late twentieth century, and advocated that individual experience and interpretation of our experience was more concrete than abstract principles. While the modernists championed clarity and simplicity; postmodernism embraced complex and often contradictory layers of meaning (Tate, n.d.).
In the 2007 article, Ramadan Is Almoast Here, Nakamura frequently refers to the internet as an environment of postmodernity, forcing me to reinterpret my prior knowledge. Of course, it makes sense: the internet is largely mediated by visual culture (p. 37), a term Nakamura refers to often, along with concepts of iconography (p. 42), Rolande Barthes’ semiotic analysis of visual media (p. 67) and Judith Butler’s notions of identity (p. 47) – all key components of a fine arts education. Considering the internet through a postmodern lens leads me to conjure infinite space packed with endless iconography, each existing as complex signifiers to be combined by users to form unlimited combinations of signified content in acts of identity creation and communication. (I idealize this as an image-heavy form of Wikigalaxy, but the current iteration of the internet fits this description too).
In Nakamura’s article, I can’t help but think that each reference to postmodernism holds a subtle tone of sardonicism, not unlike our use of the word as young art students yet imbued with an informed criticism. Nakamura writes, “The figure of the performative self is central to the scholarship on online discourse and has been part of the argument establishing the Internet as a postmodern communicative space: as Hall writes, “the endlessly performative self has been advanced in a celebratory variant of postmodernism.”14 (p. 47). Where is the author’s tone positioned? Is it that the users she writes about, “immigrants, girls, youths, and people of color” (p. 47) are seemingly naive participants in a postmodern space, unaware of the postmodern practices they engage with? Is it because the celebrated postmodernism (p. 47) isn’t worthy of celebration, but instead further confounds self-identification and self-reflection with concerns of the male gaze, objectification, and racism rather than challenging them through active discourse? Or is it both? Or is it my own perception (bias?) that has brought this tone through my reading of Nakamura’s words?
Reflecting on how the internet might exist in a post-postmodern era (which we are surely in, or have surpassed), I am hopeful that part of what defines it includes a move beyond the self-indulgent, performative ambivalence of postmodernism, toward an active engagement and collective interest in challenging notions that continue to disenfranchise and oppress marginalize communities.
How do you perceive post-postmodernity? What are your hopes for the future of visual media and social interaction on the internet?
References:
Nakamura, L. (2007). Chapter 1. “Ramadan Is almost here!” The visual culture of AIM buddies, race, gender, and nation on the Internet. In Digitizing race: Visual cultures of the Internet. (pp. 37-69).
Tate. (n.d.). Art Terms – Postmodernism. Tate. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/p/postmodernism