The Prologues to Postmodernism Prologurile postmodernismului

Bogdan Deznan-Antoniu E-mail : iocarioculian@yahoo.com Abstract Despite postmodernisms resistance to periodizations and historical reconstructions, in this study, we have explicitly and implicitly attempted to highlight such issues as the historical conditions for the turn to the postmodern paradigm and the liminal stage in its development. While hardly exhaustive, these observations will nevertheless hopefully prove useful as incentives for further research in this direction. Rezumat n pofida rezistenei postmodernismului la periodiz ri !i reconstituiri istorice, "n acest studiu am "ncercat "n mod explicit dar !i implicit s punem "n eviden chestiuni precum condiiile istorice pentru trecerea la paradigma postmodern , precum !i stadiul liminal din aceast evoluie. De!i nu sunt exhaustive, sper m totu!i c aceste observaii vor suscita viitoare cercet ri "n aceast direcie. Keywords: postmodernism, trauma, open wor#, absence, science Cu inte cheie: postmodernism, traum , opera deschis , absen , !tiin

!" De#ining Postmodernism In addressing the issue of a proper understanding of the term postmodernism one is immediately struck by the difficulty, and indeed seemingly futility of attempting a clarification of its meaning and basic coordinates. This is not only because of the inherent predicament of establishing a totali ing concept able to encompass an immensely di!erse body of cultural productions often found in stark opposition to one another in terms of style and content, but also because of the huge number of e"cellent scholars #ho each ha!e endea!oured to offer some conceptuali ation of postmodernism. Indeed, o!er the years postmodernism has been alternati!ely !ie#ed: as a ne# aesthetic formation $%assan, &'(), &'(*+, a condition $,yotard, &'(-. %ar!ey, &''/+, a culture $0onnor, &''*+, a cultural dominant $1ameson, &''&+, a set of artistic mo!ements employing a parodic mode of self-conscious representation $%utcheon, &'((, )//)+, an ethical or political imperati!e $2auman, &''3, &''4+, a period in #hich #e ha!e reached the 5end of history6 $2audrillard, &''-. 7ukuyama, &''). 8attimo, &'((+, a 5ne# hori on of our cultural, philosophical and political e"perience6 $,aclau, &'((+, an 5illusion6 $Eagleton, &''9+, a reactionary political formation $0allinicos, &'('+, or e!en :ust a rather unfortunate mistake $;orris, &''/, &''3+. <&= Each one of these definitions must be regarded as responding to inherent traits #ithin our current cultural and social configuration as #ell as reflecting their author6s o#n con!ictions and predispositions. To

&

illustrate e!en more accurately the efforts in!ested in delineating the postmodern as clearly as possible #e shall also mention the oppositional ta"onomies attempted by certain prominent scholars, establishing a set of specifically postmodern characteristics in opposition to traits belonging to modernism: Ihab %assan gi!es us se!en modernist rubrics $urbanism, technologism, dehumani ation, primiti!ism, eroticism, antinomianism, e"perimentalism+, indicating ho# postmodernist aesthetics modifies or e"tends each of them. >eter ?ollen, #riting of cinema, and #ithout actually using either of the terms modernist and postmodernist, proposes si" oppositions $narrati!e transiti!ity !s. intransiti!ity, identification !s. foregrounding, single !s. multiple diegesis, closure !s. aperture, pleasure !s. unpleasure, fiction !s. reality+ #hich capture the difference bet#een @odard6s counter-cinema $paradigmatically postmodernist, in my !ie#+ and the poetics of classic %olly#ood mo!ies. And Bou#e 7okkema outlines a number of compositional and semantic con!entions of the period code of postmodernism $such as inclusi!eness, deliberate indiscriminateness, nonselection or Cuasi-nonselection, logical impossibility+, contrasting these generally #ith the con!entions of the modernist code. <)= Degardless of the insight into the fundamentals of postmodernism this panoramic !ie# offers #e are still faced #ith the necessity of deciding on our o#n position from #hich to tackle this most illusi!e concept. This by no means implies #e might ha!e any illusions as to the pro!isional nature of such a stance, rather it merely seeks to ground a starting point from #hich to proceed #ith the analysis of this study, granting it coherence and legitimacy. In this respect, postmodernism should be percei!ed as a heuristic construct, conte"tuali ed and eCui!ocal. A conseCuence of foregoing any essentialist claims is its pro!isional status and the inference that the facts presented to support one !ie# rather than another are tailored, fabricated to fit our o#n beliefs and cultural as #ell as social backgrounds. <3= ?hat, then, guarantees the !alidity of an interpretation of postmodernism $or of any historical and cultural period+ are the principles of self consistency and internal coherence. <-= As Ihb %assan obser!es, any period is characteri ed by continuity and discontinuity #ith pre!ious historical de!elopments, thus by change and sameness, and e!en more importantly, by an internal dialectic bet#een basic traits and their opposites. <4= It is of essential importance to recogni e this principal aspect of any cultural paradigm and attempt not to diminish its intrinsic comple"ity. A periodising term should, thus, be best regarded as ha!ing an interrogati!e application, functioning both synchronically as #ell as diachronically, and taking notice of the !ariations both in structure as #ell as in content bet#een the cultural products in!estigated. <9= %a!ing specified our preference in regard to postmodernism as a construct $pro!isional, appro"imate, historically grounded+ rather than an essential category $permanent, uneCui!ocal, transhistorical+ it is no# necessary to address the issue of its specificity, of its general configuration. Ene possible approach in this respect #ould be to adopt, or establish a number of traits $or in!ariants+ by means of #hich to particulari e postmodernism and proceed from there on. Although tempting, #e share 2rian Fc%ale6s critiCue of the insufficiencies of categorial classifications mainly because of their inability to gi!e a con!incing and multifaceted account of the conditions of historical change <*=, and to illustrate the transformations #hich facilitate the predominance of certain traits instead of others. Fc%ale6s o#n solution in regards to this problem dra#s

hea!ily on 1akobson6s meditations on the e!olution of poetic form and on the notion of dominant as a conceptual tool able to e"plain this de!elopment. <(= Gince a genre is defined by the relationships bet#een its constituent elements, the difference bet#een genres is then characteri ed not by the abolition of one or some of these elements, but rather by the reconfiguration of the relationship bet#een them, #ith some becoming prominent in one genre, #hile others in a different one. Fc%ale e"tends this tool to the #hole of literature. %e regards epistemology as the dominant of modernism, #hile ontology represents the dominant and organi ing element in postmodernism. This transition from epistemology to ontology suggests both a continuity and a shift, at the same time indicating a reciprocal relationship: Intractable epistemological uncertainty becomes at a certain point ontological plurality or instability: push epistemological Cuestions far enough and they tip o!er into ontological Cuestions. 2y the same token, push ontological Cuestions far enough and they tip o!er into epistemological CuestionsH the seCuence is not linear and unidirectional, but bidirectional and re!ersible. <'= Although #e certainly agree #ith this emphasis on ontology as a dominant of postmodernism, the Cuestion that concerns us further is #hat basic presupposition underlies this shift, this ontological primacy. The epistemological pluralism of modernism #as grounded on the notion that underneath all the myriad manifestations of e"istence there lies a fundamental and stable reality. Degardless ho# appro"imate or imperfect our attempts to comprehend and delineate this essentiality #ere, it ne!ertheless e"isted as an originary moment, as a grounding potency. 7or postmodern thought ho#e!er, it is the absence of any such essentialist claims that seem to be of paramount importance. Deality, in its essentialist, autonomous sense is abolished or in any e!ent made unattainable. ?e are thus left #ith an ontological thri!e to#ards the proliferation of #orlds, realities, meanings, grounded on nothing, legitimi ed by nothing, eCually rele!ant, eCually !alid. The shift to ontology can only be understood by accepting the more basic de!elopment from presence $regardless ho# ambiguous and inaccessible+ to absence $as the dissipation of the possibility for grounding+ #ith all of its implications for ho# #e percei!e oursel!es and the #orld. Ackno#ledging this simple fact reCuires us to de!elop these considerations much further by in!estigating the historical conditions of this change $as incomplete as these may be+ as #ell as the contemporary conditions sustaining and proliferating the dominant position of absence. $" Trauma and Radicalism The term postmodernism #as first coined by 7ederico de Enis in the &'3/6s using it to describe a conser!ati!e tendency #ithin modernism. It surfaced again in &'4- in !olume ( of Arnold Toynbee6s A Gtudy of %istory, designating the collapse of the predominant bourgeoisie and the onset of a ne# historical period. According to the 2ritish historian, it #as the 7ranco->russian #ar that marked the shift from modernism to postmodernism. <&/= In the IGA the 2lack Fountain poet 0harles Elson first used the term in his correspondence #ith Dobert 0reeley in &'4&. <&&= Ether notable mentions #ith some pertinent insight in regards to postmodernism #ere Ir!ing %o#e, a leftist critic #ho sa# postmodernism in literature as reflecting the e!aporation of distinctions bet#een social classes, and %arry ,e!ine, #ho in &'9/ used it to highlight a certain literature #hich

signaled a compromise bet#een culture and commercialism, as #ell as a complicity bet#een the artist and the bourgeoisie. <&)= The year &'*) sa# the editing of the 1ournal of >ostmodern ,iterature and 0ulture <&3= concurrently #ith the publication of ,earning from ,os Angeles, a book on architectural theory, #ith its authors6 impetus to build for people and not for Fan. 0harles 1encks in fact considers the year &'*) as marking the shift to a postmodern architecture. <&-= ?e can see that by the &'*/6s postmodernism #as becoming a familiar and popular term, used to indicate a break #ith, or a reaction against, modernism, thus a reconfiguration #ithin ?estern culture. As postmodernism took center stage, attempts to pinpoint the historical moment or moments #hich marked its emergence intensified. Among the pi!otal historical e!ents credited #ith its parentage are: the assassination of 1ohn 7. Jennedy on )) ;o!ember &'93. the demolition of the modernist >ruitt-Igoe housing scheme in Gt ,ouis at 3.3) pm on &4 1uly &'*). the global economic and political turmoil of &'*)K&'*3. the final e!acuation of IG forces from Gaigon on )' April &'*4. and the collapse of the ?orld Trade 0entre in ;e# Lork on && Geptember )//&. <&4= There is ho#e!er an earlier period designated by some historians as the birth moment of postmodernism, primarily because of its #orld#ide traumatic impact, as #ell as the repudiation of modernist basic assumptions in regards to progress and emancipation it precipitated. This specific moment is situated either at the end of ?orld ?ar II, or in some cases, bet#een &'3' and &'-4. In this sense Gte!en 2est and Bouglas Jellner consider Maugust &'-4 as the beginning of the postmodern ad!enture since it marked the end of European fascism, the ad!ent of the Atomic Age, and the acceleration of an arms race that intensified the co-construction of science, technology, and capitalism. <&9= ?alter A. Ba!is and Andre# 1. FcJenna adopt a similar chronology and !ie# <&*=, #hile Fark 0. Taylor links the horrors of Ausch#it and the unprecedented destruction displayed at %iroshima #ith its emergence out of the ashes of all the hopes and e"pectations of modernism: A century that began #ith utopian e"pectations e!ery bit as grand as those of nineteenth-century romantics and idealists is e!entually forced to confront the flames of %iroshima and the ashes of Ausch#it . In the dark light of those flames and the arid dust of those ashes, modernism ends and something other begins. <&(= Although hesitant to ad!ocate any fi"ed chronological determinants, Ihb %assan ne!ertheless situates postmodernism6s inception in or about Geptember &'3' <&'= and ,yotard concludes that the year &'-3 could be regarded as inaugural gi!en the de!elopments in #ar technology and the industriali ation of mass killings. <)/= Thus, #e can obser!e that a significant number of scholars of postmodernism tend to regard the Gecond ?orld ?ar as the pi!otal moment for an emergent crisis of pre!iously !alid claims about ?estern culture, a crisis bound to the specificity and horrific nature of the #ar as #ell as its aftermath. %ighlighting the traumatic legacy of ??II presents a double ad!antage: on the one hand it pro!es a useful starting point for understanding the possible origins of the e!aporation of meaning and the dominance of absence inscribed in the model of traumatic temporality this facilitates, on the other, considering this temporal model, it also !alidates the multifaceted and ine!itably pro!isional attempts to reconstruct the history of postmodernism. ;e!ertheless, if the postmodern condition is our response to,

or our defense against, the representational crisis brought about by this cataclysmic e!ent, then it is only natural to assume that any historical inCuiry into the premises of this condition must gi!e considerable attention to ??II. The postmodern understanding of temporality, marked by trauma, rests upon the recuperation of the 7reudian concept of $achtr%glich#eit #hich can best be appro"imated by the English deferred action, retroaction or afterwardsness. <)&= ?hat is meant by this term then is a delayed response to an e!ent of traumatic proportions and e"ceptional intensity: the traumatic e!ent is that #hich is e"perienced 5too soon6, 5too Cuickly6, or too fast. <))= Thus, speed and intensity but also the mandatory temporal distance bet#een the original moment and its subseCuent assimilation through appro"imation #ithout the possibility ore hope of e!er attaining an understanding of it in its pure and primary state. >eter ;icholls gi!es an account of $achtr%glich#eit #hich bares semblance to the anti-foundationalist stance specific to postmodern discourse: its retroacti!e logic refuses to accord ontological primacy to any originary moment. Gince the shock of the first scene is not felt directly by the sub:ect but only through its later representation in memory #e are dealing #ith, in Berrida6s #ords, 5a past that has ne!er been present6. 2elatedness, in this sense, creates a comple" temporality #hich inhibits any nostalgia for origin and continuity K the 5origin6 is no# secondary, a construction al#ays contained in its o#n repetition. <)3= The representational crisis this implies is clear, as is the basic anti-referential aspect implicit in $achtr%glich#eit. It is suggested that this deferred action is the key to a number of scholars such as ,yotard, 2lanchot, and Berrida #ho seek to come to some understanding of the %olocaust, #ithout diminishing the incomprehensibility of the li!ed e"periences it occasioned. Gince any hopes of systematic comprehension are abandoned, #hat is then issued, parado"ically, is the need for repeated e"pression of this e!ent. <)-= There is also a strong con!iction among %olocaust sur!i!ors themsel!es that con!entional language is simply ill eCuipped to grasp this phenomenon, or to offer any satisfactory rendition of #hat that e"perience meant. 2oth Elie ?iesel and >rimo ,e!i for instance, denounce the insufficiencies of con!entional :argon to make sense of the shared e"periences of sur!i!ors. This again points to a break bet#een language and reference. <)4= 0onseCuently, the only thing left to do, and one #hich must be done, is to tell this story o!er and o!er again. Farianne %irsch e!en coins the term postmemory to designate a particular form of memory #hich is further remo!ed from the past than con!entional one, and #hich reCuires imaginati!e in!estment and creati!ity in order to connect #ith its source. <)9= 0learly, the horrors of ??II preclude any possibility of con!entional representation, and in keeping #ith trauma theory, they intensify a recuperati!e urge of the originary moment #hich ine!itably leads to myriad renditions that are :ust as many appro"imations. Gince most of these attempts are made in te"tual form, and since the limitations of language to con!ey the e"perience of the %olocaust are e!ident, the connection bet#een language and its referent becomes threatened. A further step is taken #ithin postmodern deconstructi!ism #hich claims that language does not correspond to reality in any #ay and that reality is in effect constructed through language. The famous phrase there is nothing outside the te"t accurately suggests an important stream in postmodern thought, one #hich forgoes ideas of language as in some #ay connected to the fundamental structures of reality.

%a!ing arri!ed at these conclusions, one Cuestion arises: 0an postmodernism be essentially understood as a domestication of the trauma of ??II, an obsessi!e attempt to come to terms #ith this singular e!ent by assimilating it #hich is reflected in the de!elopments in culture and thoughtN If by trauma #e understand the crisis brought to a pree"isting symbolic order #hich conseCuently attempts to neutrali e this destabili ation by normali ing its effects and implicitly producing a range of reconfigurations #ithin the symbolic structure itself, then a positi!e reply seems feasible. Gince e!ery dislocatory e!ent leads to the <M= articulation of different discourses that attempt to symboli e its traumatic nature, to suture the lack it creates <)*= then a discussion of postmodernism must necessarily regard ??II as a dislocatory e!ent #hich determined a reconfiguration #ithin ?estern culture, e!entually leading to the emergence of #hat #e no# con!entionally designate as postmodernism. The uniCue importance of this e!ent then lies in the crises it brought about and the realignment of dominants it occasioned as a conseCuence of this crisis. %o#e!er, the turn to postmodernism reCuired an additional transitory period in #hich modernist strains coe"isted alongside emerging postmodern patterns, gi!ing rise to hybrid forms of cultural artifacts. In her book on the radical groups of the si"ties, 1ulie Gtephens aims to demonstrate that it #as during this troubled period that the first signs of an emerging postmodern paradigm #ere first articulated in the aesthetically-political manifestations of anti-establishment groups. Gettling for pastiche, representation, and the amalgamation of high and lo# culture as fundamental features of postmodernism, she contends that the collapse of distinctions bet#een elitist and popular culture, the transition from parody to pastiche and the gradual dominance of representation o!er mimesis are identifiable in si"ties radicalism.<)(= Debellious groups like the Biggers and the ?eather Inderground for e"ample, resorted hea!ily to themes taken from popular culture in their protests. <)'= These and other rebellious groups found an ine"haustible source of inspiration in cartoons, #esterns, the tele!ision productions of the late fifties as #ell as mo!ies from the si"ties. Abie %offman, one of the founders of the Lippies e!en describes Easy Dider as a perfect propaganda film, and his #ritings on re!olution are filled #ith numerous references to 2illy the Jid, The ?ild Ene, the Far" 2rothers, ,enny 2ruce, Alfred %itchcock and also 2onnie and 0lyde. <3/= E!en the 2lack >anthers dre# inspiration from popular culture, tailoring their distincti!e uniforms to resemble the uniforms from a tele!ision mo!ie about the 7rench resistance. <3&= The incorporation of such elements #ithin the political discourse of radical groups #as determined by t#o central causes. En the one hand, there #as the impetuous need to re:ect the conser!ati!e approach fa!ored by the traditional ,eft in regards to anti-establishment politics, to sub!ert it and by this appropriation also to appeal to a #ider audience. En the other, it is symptomatic of a broader cultural change deeply connected to the de!elopment in communications technology #hich began to erase the distinctions bet#een high and lo# culture. <3)= >rotests #ere no longer accompanied and intensified by ?e Ghall E!ercome but rather by popular hits such as the 2eatles6 Lello# Gubmarine, as #as the case during a campus strike in 2erkley in &'99. <33= Biscussing this e!ent, the author aptly concludes: This makes it possible eCually to !ie# the singing of OLello# GubmarineO $the song itself being a fairly impenetrable collage+ as a rudimentary postmodern moment, signaling the demise of a certain kind of political memory #here, to use 1ameson6s #ords: Othe past as PreferentP finds itself gradually bracketed, and then effaced altogether M .<3-=

It must be emphasi ed ho#e!er, that the use of popular clichQs as arsenal against institutional control also entails an implicit critiCue against the dehumani ing tendencies of the mass culture industry. <34= Through their often e"aggerated use of such cultural forms, groups like the Lippies aimed to denounce the destructi!e side of this culture #hile at the same time e"ploit them for their o#n political aims. The problem #as that this immersion in tri!ial cultural forms e!entually led to a self referntiality that gradually nullified critical distancing and #ould e!entually e"tended in postmodernism in the form of anti-foundatialist claims as #ell as an inability for social and political action: In this respect Cuotations from the popular #ere increasingly emptied of criticality. they #ere mere aesthetic embellishments in a politics #hich had turned in on itself, so that parody and play became ends in themsel!es rather than indications of alternati!es <M=.<39= Gelf-referentiality then takes us a#ay from parody, essentially a modern de!ice, and to#ards pastiche, #hich is described by 1ameson as a blank parody, a statue #ith blind eyeballs. <3*= Again this transition is identifiable in the political and cultural practices of the si"ties, suggested for e"ample by the outfits #orn by %offman and Dubin #hile appearing before the %ouse of In-American Acti!ities 0ommittee trails in Ectober &'9(. The eclectic mi" of popular culture elements and clichQs incorporated in these costumes both asserts a message of defiance and at the same time undermines such meaning because of its apparent absurdity. Gtephens suggests that: M each outfit represents and satiri es different and significant OothersO of the dominant order of the day: Dubin as soldier turned urban terrorist and %offman as the indigenous American, #arrior-like and threatening. 2oth also summon up cartoon and tele!ision images #hich turn this threat into mockery. The combination of this playful Cuotation from clichQd popular culture images of American history and something as blatantly absurd and OmeaninglessO $gi!en the conte"t+ as an electric yo-yo together transform this parody into something else, reminiscent of Bada and surrealism but also pointing to a ne# and impenetrable form of pastiche referring, abo!e all, to itself.<3(= The spectacular side of these acts of defiance gradually takes center stage, lea!ing behind the referents that grant their message strength and the urge to action. The difference then bet#een the si"ties sensibilities, and the culture and politics of postmodernism, resides in the fact that despite the ob!ious leanings to#ards re:ection of certainties and grounding, and the embrace of media culture, as e!inced by the Lippies<3'=, the liminal position of this period enabled political action and social commitment, regardless of these relati!i ing positions. De!olutionary fer!or coe"isted alongside skepticism about ontological certainties and deeply rooted truths. In postmodernism the radicali ation of skepticism has led to a crisis of legitimi ation, therefore neutrali ing any impetus for political action. If all political discourses $or any manner of social causes for that matter+ are eCually !alid, hence eCually pro!isional, then #hat #ould be the point of commitment to a causeN %" &penness and Postmodernity In &'9) Imberto Eco utili ed the term opera aperta or open #ork to indicate the de!elopments in aesthetic sensibilities he noticed taking place at that time. The open #ork encapsulates certain tendencies manifest in the literary, artistic, and musical productions at the beginning of the si"ties, gra!itating around the pi!otal assumption of the openness of an artistic #ork. Achie!ements in these fields of aesthetic creations

should no longer e"press an uneCui!ocal message making the author6s !ision transparent. rather, they should offer a broad field of interpretati!e possibilities demanding a creati!e in!estment from the consumer, #ho in effect becomes in!ol!ed as co-author in the finali ation of the respecti!e #ork. Eb!iously, the manifold interpretations of the peculiarities this enables are eCually !alid, #ith no particular rendition taking precedence o!er another. Any a"iological pretensions are re:ected and #hat is instead embraced is a broad interpretati!e pluralism #hich eCuates #ith so many creati!e attainments. Bra#ing on the #ritings of the 2elgian composer %enri >ousseur, Eco concludes that the poetics $as the implicit and e"plicit le!els of an aesthetic program <-/= K A;+ of the PopenP #ork tends to encourage Pacts of conscious freedomP on the part of the performer and place him at the focal point of a net#ork of limitless interrelations, among #hich he chooses to set up his o#n form #ithout being influenced by an e"ternal necessity #hich definiti!ely prescribes the organi ation of the #ork in hand. At this point one could ob:ect $#ith reference to the #ider meaning of PopennessP already introduced in this essay+ that any #ork of art, e!en if it is not passed on to the addressee in an unfinished state, demands a free, in!enti!e response, if only because it cannot really be appreciated unless the performer someho# rein!ents it in psychological collaboration #ith the author himself. Let this remark represents the theoretical perception of contemporary aesthetics, achie!ed only after painstaking consideration of the function of artistic performance. certainly an artist of a fe# centuries ago #as far from being a#are of these issues. Instead no#adays it is primarily the artist #ho is a#are of its implications. In fact, rather than submit to the PopennessP as an inescapable element of artistic interpretation, he subsumes it into a positi!e aspect of his production, recasting the #ork so as to e"pose it to the ma"imum possible Popening.P<-&= Epenness then, not merely as present in any production regardless of stile or period, but as a conscious choice, and a systematic proliferation of stiles and artistic attitudes #hich actuate participation from the performer in the making of the #ork. 2earing these abo!e delineations of the open #ork in mind, its status as a paradigmatic concept for the o!erall discussion of the emergence of postmodernism becomes clear. Implicit in this concept are a number of presuppositions #hich #ill later pro!e to be of capital importance for postmodern thought. 7irstly, the open #ork seems to undermine the fi"ed distinctions bet#een author and consumer since the !ery conditions of its reali ation presuppose an imaginati!e in!estment on the part of the performer and an acti!e in!ol!ement in the creation process. Gecondly and conseCuently, it is in the !ery means and de!ices of artistic representation specific to openness in art that this attitude is both demanded and made possible. Technological ad!ancements in the postmodern age permit a radicali ation of this openness in artistic practice to a degree of participation ne!er before made possible. ,astly, the eCual !alidity of the multitude of artistic configurations parado"ically facilitated #ithin a single #ork seems to indicate an emerging anti-foundantionalist !ie#, one #hich re:ects a"iological claims, or more subtly, the autonomous statute of art itself. The blurring of the artist-consumer distinction fits neatly into this broader conte"t of the collapse of hierarchical certainties. In reflecting on the contemporary conditions of aesthetic processes almost thirty years after Eco #rote his book on the open #ork, 7rancois ,yotard, one of postmodernism6s most prominent ad!ocates, indirectly confirms the Italian scholar6s anticipatory intuitions: The aim no#adays is not that sentimentality you still find in the slightest sketch by a 0e anne or a

Begas, it is rather that the one #ho recei!es should not recei!e, it is that sRhe does not let himRherself be put out, it is hisRher self-constitution as acti!e sub:ect in relation to #hat is addressed to himRher: let himRher reconstitute himself immediately and identify himself or herself as someone #ho inter!enes. ?hat #e li!e by and :udge by is e"actly this #ill to action. <-)= A refle" of the re:ection of any essentialist discourses by post-structuralism thinkers such as 7oucault, Berrida, and ,yotard #as the collapse of the transcendental sub:ect. The death of man is !ie#ed as the great command of the age and due attention is gi!en to this task. As 1ameson aptly remarked <-3=, #hat this marks is a progression from the alienated man of the modern period to the fragmented sub:ect of postmodernity. Fan as a rational being, confident in his po#ers of inCuiry and creati!e faculties is s#ept aside being replaced #ith a decentered sub:ect, de!oid of a fundamental essence and instead !ie#ed as the artificial product of conflicting social and ideological forces. The self is no longer essentially an in!iolable gi!en, but a construct, a contingent presence: The sub:ect is replaced by a system of structures, oppositions and differences #hich, to be intelligible, need not be !ie#ed as products of a li!ing sub:ecti!ity at all. Lou and I are the mere 5sites6 of such conflicting languages of po#er, and 5the self6 is merely another position in language.<--= A positi!e conseCuence of this schi ophrenic sub:ect is the fact that, gi!en his non-essential nature, he is free to recreate himself perpetually, free to e"plore a range of no!el and e"treme possibilities for indi!iduation #hich offer a peculiar and nihilistic feeling of emancipation from the constraints of education, social determinations, se", tradition and so forth. If #e are to gi!e credence to the claim of deconstructi!e thinkers that at the core of all truths is a fiction then it follo#s that the postmodern self is also a fictitious construct, opened to numerous rein!entions and reconfigurations trapped in a perpetual process of becoming. Desonating #ith the notion of the fractured indi!idual Doland 2arthes illustrates this condition in literary form in t#o of his no!els. A lo!er6s Biscourse maintains the se"ual orientation of the main character uncertain #hile in Doland 2arthes by Doland 2arthes #e encounter t#o narrati!e !oices, one belonging to 2arthes as author the other to 2arthes as fictious character. To take this fragmentation e!en further, as #ell as to destabili e accepted delimitations, he also acted as critic to his o#n book by re!ie#ing it using another persona. <-4= In !isual arts 0indy Gherman e"hibits a similar tendency to the one found in 2arthesO literature. %er Intitled 7ilm Gtills from &'**-(/ make the same case in fa!or of the fragmentation of the postmodern sub:ect. <-9= These photographs present a #oman #earing different disguises that make her resemble %olly#ood actresses. Although the allusions are ob!ious, reference to any particular mo!ie is a!oided in fa!or of a detached mimesis, #hich both asserts its dependency on an original, but #hich in this case is also an image, a product of the film industry, thus an image mimicking an image, and at the same time !indicates its autonomy from any reference. Images reflect other images, #ith no hope of e!er discerning the original behind these renditions. The self is further made problematic #hen #e disco!er that the #oman in disguise posing before the camera is the author herself. Inter-sub:ecti!ely this affects the manner in #hich #e relate to one another. Traditional hierarchies, like#ise professional delimitations become threatened. 7or some decades no#here #as this more ob!ious than in literature and the !isual arts. Desponding to the notion that te"t is basically a free play of signs #ithin language, and that

'

underlying all reality is self-referential language, the author is conseCuently stripped of his attributes as su!ren and conscious creator of meaning and thus of interpretati!e restraints #ithin the #ork he creates. It follo#s that the product of creati!e endea!or becomes open to the interpretati!e actions of the consumer. %a!ing been freed of the restricti!e notion of an implied meaning the readerRlistenerRspectator is reCuired to manifest himself freely in finishing the #ork. Doland 2arthes named this shift of focus from author to acti!e consumer the death of the author, and referring to literature he notes that: ?e kno# no# that a te"t is not a line of #ords releasing a single 5theological6 meaning $the 5message of the Author-@od6+ but a multidimensional space in #hich a !ariety of #ritings, none of them original, blend and clash . . . ,iterature . . . by refusing to assign a 5secret6, an ultimate meaning, to the te"t, $and to the #orld as te"t+ liberates #hat may be called an anti-theological acti!ity, an acti!ity that is truly re!olutionary since to refuse to fi" meaning is in the end to refuse @od and his hypostasis K reason, science, la#. <-*= The implicit critiCue against the artist as a promethean figure, a creati!e force, embraced by modernism is ob!ious, as is the collapse of traditional hierarchies: creator-god becomes impotent demiurge, obser!er becomes creator, passi!e becomes acti!e and con!ersely. Let #hen it comes to the te"tuality of reality, both internal as #ell of e"ternal, it is irrele!ant #ho occupies #hat position in this process, for both the author as #ell as the spectator are fictions, shaped by language, perpetually in construction, perpetually contradictory, perpetually open to change. <-(= The crisis of sub:ecti!ity is bound to the abolition of the referent, of the original and the o!erall collapse of certainties. As indicated, this erosion ser!ed as an incenti!e for the transformations in ?estern sensibilities #hich Eco so aptly and prematurely diagnosed. In so doing he also made apparent the necessary relationship bet#een the #ork of art, !ie#ed as epistemological metaphor, and ad!ancements in the realm of science. 0onsistent #ith this outlook then, are the assumptions that stylistic approaches in art and literature are an imaginary reaction to, and assimilation of, contemporary scientific paradigms, such as Cuantum physics, the included third, the indeterminacy principle <-'=, and for later de!elopments #e might also add fractal geometry and chaos theory. Gtile, understood as a specific structural configuration of elements in a literary or artistic #ork, becomes the real content of that #ork.<4/= Desonating #ith the broader &eitgeist, the formal configurations in art and literature reflect the o!erall perception of reality and the #orld officially imposed and !alidated by science, and facilitate its assimilation by the broader masses. Eco, ho#e!er, is cautious not to imply that science or art present any true insights into the real nature of the uni!erse. ?hat science does is built a methodology by means of #hich to make sense of the #orld #hile art resonates stylistically #ith this methodology enabling an implicit and e"plicit poetics. <4&= The distinctions dra#n by Eco bet#een science and art, as #ell as the specific interactions these entail seem dated if !ie#ed in the light of the techno-scientific inno!ations of the last t#enty years. The prioriti ation of the performati!e side of scientific research, more specifically its technological applications, has led to a problematisation of distinctions bet#een postmodernism understood as the sphere of stylistic inno!ations and artistic representation, and postmodernity as the broader social, cultural and technological conte"t. The unprecedented a!ailability of technology coupled #ith its interacti!e and simulational Cualities has gradually liCuefied clear cut distinctions bet#een art, culture, politics, economy, society, science. >redilect themes of postmodern

&/

reflection such as the descentered or schi ophrenic sub:ect, or the prioriti ation of simulation o!er reality, are no longer abstract issues restricted to academic and artistic circles. they are e"perienced directly and on a regular basis by e!en the most mundane of persons through the technology of mass communication. Art, life, and techno-science become connected and intermingled in comple" and subtle #ays conditioning one another and e"panding one another. The pri!ileged realm of cyberspace emerges as the site of infinite possibilities and perpetual hybridi ation, representing the ontological condition for this rhi omatic e"pansion. It is also a space of general participation and immersion, as the constraints of paper and can!as on the imagination ha!e been o!ercome. Epenness in the )&st century becomes synonymous #ith the realms of !irtual reality in #hich the sub:ect is reconfigured and literally $re-+ constructed, #here his contribution and in!ol!ement are ontological acts, and #here art is e"perienced as $!irtual+ life. Re#erences &. Falpas, Gimon, 'he postmodern, Doutledge, ;e# Lork, )//4, p. 9 ). Fc%ale, 2rian, (ostmodernist )iction, Doutledge, ;e# Lork, )//-, p. * 3. 0Slinescu, Fatei, *inci fee ale modernit ii, >olirom, IaTi, )//4, p. 3&3, 3)4. Fc%ale, 2rian, (ostmodernist )iction, Doutledge, ;e# Lork, )//-, p. -. Fc%ale, 2rian, (ostmodernist )iction, Doutledge, ;e# Lork, )//-, p. 4. %assan, Ihb, 'he Dismemberment of +rpheus, The Ini!ersity of ?isconsin >ress, ,ondon, &'(), p. )94 9. 0Slinescu, Fatei, *inci fee ale modernit ii, >olirom, IaTi, )//4, p. 3&4 *. Fc%ale, 2rian, (ostmodernist )iction, Doutledge, ;e# Lork, )//-, p. * (. Ibid., p. *-( '. Ibid., p. && &/. Anderson, >erry, 'he +rigins of (ostmodernity, 8erso, &''(, p. --4 &&. Ibid., p. * &). Ibid., p. &)-&3 &3. Ibid., p. &4 &-. %ar!ey, Ba!id, 'he *ondition of (ostmodernity, 2lack#ell >ublishers, &''/, p. 3'--/ &4. 0rosth#aite, >aul, 'rauma, (ostmodernism and the ,ftermath of World War --, >algra!e Facmillan, )//', p. ' &9. Ibid. &*. Ibid., p. '-&/ &(. Ibid., p. &/ &'. %assan, Ihb, 'he Dismemberment of +rpheus, The Ini!ersity of ?isconsin >ress, ,ondon, &'(), p. )9)/. 0rosth#aite, >aul, 'rauma, (ostmodernism and the ,ftermath of World War --, >algra!e Facmillan, )//', p. && )&. Ibid., p. &* )). Ibid., p. 34 )3. Ibid., p. &* )-. Ibid., p. &(

&&

)4. Eaglestone, Dobert, 'he .olocaust and the (ostmodern, E"ford Ini!ersity >ress, )//-, p. &* )9. Ibid., p. (/ )*. 0rosth#aite, >aul, 'rauma, (ostmodernism and the ,ftermath of World War --, >algra!e Facmillan, )//', p. )9 )(. Gtephens, 1ulie, ,nti/Disciplinary (rotest, 0ambridge Ini!ersity >ress, &''(, p. '' )'. Ibid., p. &/) 3/. Ibid., p. &/( 3&. Ibid. 3). Ibid., p. &/3 33. Ibid. 3-. Ibid., p. &/34. Ibid., p. &/9 39. Ibid., p. &/* 3*. Ibid., p. &/( 3(. Ibid., p. &&& 3'. Ibid., p. &&' -/. Eco, Imberto, +pera deschis , >aralela -4, )//9, p. 3) -&. Eco, Imberto, 'he +pen Wor#, %ar!ard Ini!ersity >ress, &'(', p. --4 -). ,yotard, 1ean-7rancois, 'he -nhuman, >olity >ress, &''&, p. &&* -3. %ar!ey, Ba!id, 'he *ondition of (ostmodernity, 2lack#ell >ublishers, &''/, p. 4--. 2utler, 0hristopher, (ost/0odernism , very 1hort -ntroduction, E"ford Ini!ersity >ress, )//), p. 4& -4. Ibid., p. 44 -9. Ibid., p. 43 -*. Ibid., p. )3-)-(. Ibid., p. 43 -'. Eco, Imberto, +pera deschis , >aralela -4, )//9, p. &93 4/. Ibid., p. )4' 4&. Ibid., p. 94

&)