2 min read
Article at the Graun lamenting the lack of 'art punks', and of an identifiable British art movement with convenient label attached; I am clearly more plugged into the art world than I thought, because all the artists I know are subversive in ways that owe a lot to punk ideals, if not neccessarily its aesthetics, and none of them get a mention. (Yes, I'm lamenting the lack of coverage of my friends in art-scene-overview journalism; this is because my friends are all objectively brilliant geniuses, and everyone should acknowledge the fact.)
Mostly linking for the sake of this passage, though:
“Facebook has become this space where the most meaningful moments of one’s life are mixed with ‘corporate narrative’ adverts,” he says. “Personally, I don’t see the difference between them any more. They are all part of the same mush. I think it all has value. Today, with art and commerce constantly feeding off each other, it is a super exciting place to look for ideas.”
It's very hard for me to get a read on exactly how sincere and straight-faced a statement that is, given it's a snippet of an interview transcription... but even if being used as a careful artist's masque, it reveals the inescapable ubiquity of the postmodern condition, not as an abstract social-theoretical idea, but as a lived cultural experience. I don't think it is an ironic position, either, but that doesn't mean it can't still be critical; if there is such a thing as post-postmodernity or altermodernity, it is perhaps defined by its never having known that which preceded postmodernity, by its acknowledgement -- which is a different thing to acceptance -- that it's "turtles all the way down".
If postmodernity was the shattering of metanarratives, altermodernity is the making of mosaics from the broken pieces. Is it any wonder we're so cautious of being cut?