CAPITULO 3. RESULTADOS Y DISCUCIÓN
3.5 Conclusiones del capítulo
the death of the author with the rise of a postmodern aesthetic. For Jameson, there are two key interrelated elements of postmodernism that signal the impossibility of authorship: the ‘death of the subject’2 and the replacement of parody with pastiche.3
Jameson observes a consensus across disciplines acknowledging the death of the ‘individualist subject’.4 Jameson identifies two theoretical positions regarding the death of the
subject; an orthodox position that treats the death of the subject as the loss of a once viable category, and a more ‘radical’ post-structuralist position that asserts the subject never existed in
1In distinguishing between affirmative and nihilistic strands of postmodern theory, I follow Catherine Constable’s
use of these terms inPostmodernism and Film: Rethinking Hollywood’s Aesthetics (New York: Wallflower Press,
2015)
2Jameson, ‘Postmodernism and Consumer Society’, inPostmodern Culture,ed. by Foster, pp. 111 – 125, p. 114
3Ibid, p. 113 4
the first place.5 For Jameson, the relative merits of each position are less important than the
‘aesthetic dilemma’ posed by the death of the subject.6 This ‘dilemma’ is the challenge posed
by the death of the subject to modernist theories of art.
According to Jameson, the death of the subject means the loss of the ‘ideology of the unique self’ that informed the ‘stylistic practice of classical modernism’.7 For Jameson, the
modernist aesthetic is ‘organically linked’ to notions of a unique self and unique personality, which generates a ‘unique vision of the world’ and forges its own ‘unique, unmistakeable style.’8 Following the death of the subject, it is no longer possible to produce art according to
the modernist model ‘since nobody has that kind of unique, private world and style to express’.9
This is the root of Jameson’s aesthetic dilemma: if the expression of a unique personality is no longer possible, ‘then it is no longer clear what the artists and writers of the present period are supposed to be doing.’10
Jameson’s sketch of modernist aesthetics clearly partakes of a definition of art as self- expression. Jameson’s valorisation of unique personality is more in keeping with Romantic models of authorship than the more circumspect treatment of self-expression in Eliot and
Collingwood’s modernist definitions. However, there are echoes of Eliot’s suggestion that ‘only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things’ in Jameson’s claim that the traditional modernist experiences ofanomieand anxiety are only possible with ‘a self present to do the feeling.’11 Jameson asserts that these experiences are
impossible under postmodernism, as the loss of the subject is also the loss of feeling.12
Jameson makes this observation after considering ‘the problem of expression’, which depends upon notions of the subject as container ‘within which things felt are then expressed by
5Ibid, p. 114 6 Ibid, p. 115 7Ibid, p. 115 8Ibid, p. 114 9 Ibid, p. 115 10Ibid, p. 115
11Eliot,The Sacred Wood, p. 58; Jameson,Postmodernism, p. 15
12Jameson describes this characteristic aspect of postmodernism as ‘the waning of affect’ Jameson,Postmodernism,
projection outward.’13 Jameson associates the opposition of inside/outside with the (Romantic)
hermeneutics of depth, and suggests the post-structuralist critique of depth models is a ‘very significant symptom’ of postmodernism.14 According to Jameson, Postmodernism is
characterised by the abandonment of depth (models) in favour of multiple surfaces.15 If all is
surface, then distinctions between inside/outside and surface/depth are no longer valid. As such, the tension between the inner and outer required for artistic expression is impossible.16
Jameson illustrates the aesthetic repercussions of the postmodern abandonment of depth
through comparison of Van Gogh’sA Pair of Bootsand Warhol’sDiamond Dust Shoes. For
Jameson, reception ofA Pair of Bootsrequires a ‘two-stage or double-level’ process.17 Van
Gogh’s painting operates according to a depth model of hermeneutics whereby the (surface) appearance of the painting is merely a ‘clue’ to or ‘symptom’ of the work’s true meaning.18
Jameson’s suggestion that the deeper meaning of the work ‘replaces’ the painting ‘as its ultimate truth’ implies that the visual experience of the art work is of secondary value, with the true worth of the piece residing in the apprehension of the hidden meaning.19 The Warhol piece, on
the other hand, is characteristic of the ‘flatness or depthlessness’ that is for Jameson ‘the supreme formal feature’ of all postmodernisms.20 As such,Diamond Dust Shoesresists the
double-level process of reading. According to Jameson, Warhol’s piece does not point to anything beyond itself and so the ‘hermeneutic gesture’ is doomed to remain incomplete, stuck at the surface level.21
The vocabulary used by Jameson in his analysis ofDiamond Dust Shoessuggests that he is performing the sort of hermeneutic reading rendered impossible by postmodernism with
13Jameson,Postmodernism, p. 15
14Ibid, p. 11 15Ibid, p. 12
16In addition to the loss of the inside/outside opposition, Jameson catalogues four other depth models repudiated by
contemporary theory: the dialectical model of essence/appearance, the Freudian model of latent/manifest, the existential model of authentic/inauthentic along with the linked opposition alienated/disalienated, and the semiotic opposition of signifier/signified; Jameson,Postmodernism, p. 12
17 Jameson,Postmodernism, p. 6 18Ibid, p. 8 19Ibid, p. 8 20Ibid, p. 9 21 Ibid, p. 8
Jameson claiming the piece takes the already ‘debased and contaminated’ advertising images and strips away the coloured surface ‘to reveal the deathly black-and-white substratum of the photographic negative which subtends them’.22 Thus, rather than reveal some concealed
meaning, the gesture of ‘stripping away’ inDiamond Dust Shoesmerely points to the processes of its own creation, the negative of the photograph. Jameson therefore appeals to a depth model in this instance to demonstrate that postmodern textslackdepth, and to emphasise how truly
debased postmodern art is. Jameson comparesDiamond Dust Shoesunfavourably toA Pair of
Boots, in which Van Gogh transforms ‘a drab peasant object world into the most glorious materialization of pure colour’.23 Jameson describes this transformation as a ‘Utopian gesture’
that ‘opens a new Utopian realm of the senses’ outside of capitalism, or which at least constructs a ‘semiautonomous’ visual space by utilising the fragmentation enforced by capitalisms division of labour.24 Diamond Dust Shoeson the other hand, inverts the utopian gesture ofA Pair of
Boots.25 This suggests that the problem with postmodern works is not that they resist
hermeneutic analysisper sebut that such a reading reveals the absence of a (modernist) utopian dimension in postmodern art. Furthermore, whilst Warhol’s piece may offer ‘decorative
exhilaration’ it lacks the seriousness Jameson associates with modernist art, amounting to no more than ‘gratuitous frivolity’.26
Although not stated explicitly by Jameson, the loss of the utopian dimension in art is a direct consequence of the death of the subject. The utopian gesture ofA Pair of Bootsis the product of Van Gogh’s transformative use of colour; in other words his unique and
unmistakeable style. Following Jameson, the death of the subject renders such unique style impossible. Without the transformative power associated with the unique style and will of the artist, the utopian gesture of art is no longer possible.
22 Ibid, p. 9 23Ibid, p. 7 24Ibid, p. 7 25Ibid, p. 9 26 Ibid, p. 10
In addition to the loss of the utopian aspect of art, the shift to postmodernism prompted by the death of the subject and loss of unique style also contributes to the replacement of parody with pastiche.27 Like parody, pastiche involves the imitation or ‘mimicry’ of other styles,
particularly their ‘mannerisms and stylistic twitches’.28 Two preconditions are required to
sustain Jameson’s definition of parody: firstly, it must be possible to cultivate a unique and individual style; secondly, there must be a linguistic norm from which these styles deviate.29
Parody mocks the original by seizing on the particular ‘idiosyncrasies and eccentricities’ of a unique style in order to reveal ‘their excessiveness and eccentricity’ compared to the linguistic norm.30 Pastiche emerges with the loss of the linguistic norm, which in turn makes the practice
of parody impossible.31
Ironically, the loss of the linguistic norm is the result of the increased fragmentation of style associated with the modernist compulsion to create a unique and personal style.32 In the
postmodern world, each group speaks a private language and every profession has its own jargon to the extent that there is no longer a linguistic norm against which ‘private languages and idiosyncratic styles’ could be ridiculed.33 For this reason, pastiche lacks the ‘satirical
impulse’ of parody, as there is no longer the ‘latent feeling’ that there is something ‘normal’ compared to which the imitated style is comic or excessive.34 This leads Jameson to describe
pastiche as ‘blank parody’.35 While both parody and pastiche are imitative, Jameson defines
pastiche as the ‘neutral’ practice of such mimicry.36 Parody and Pastiche can therefore be
27Ibid, p. 16
28Jameson, ‘Postmodernism and Consumer Society’, inPostmodern Culture,ed. by Foster, pp. 111 – 125, p. 113
29The opposition between unique style and linguistic norm sustains a number of other oppositions; such as those
between realism/modernism, poetry/prose, and literature/discourse. Jameson, ‘Postmodernism and Consumer Society’, inPostmodern Culture,ed. by Foster, pp. 111 – 125, p. 113
30Jameson, ‘Postmodernism and Consumer Society’, inPostmodern Culture,ed. by Foster, pp. 111 – 125, p. 113
31Ibid, p. 114 32 Ibid, p. 114 33Ibid, p. 114 34Ibid, p. 114 35Ibid, p. 114 36 Ibid, p. 114
distinguished in terms of purpose. Where parody mimics a style in order to ridicule its deviations from the norm, pastiche merely uncritically copies that style.37
Jameson’s distinction between critical parody and uncritical pastiche echoes a similar distinction he makes between modernist and postmodern practices of quotation. Modernist works remain distinct from the commercial forms and mass cultural texts from which they quote. In postmodern works, these mass cultural texts are incorporated in the work in a way that blurs the distinctions between high art and mass culture.38 Furthermore, in utilising the themes
and techniques of advertising, postmodern texts become advertisements themselves; lacking any critical distance from the capitalist system, they simply become expressions of it.39
It is this lack of distinction and of critical distance that most disturbs Jameson ‘from an academic standpoint’, as the blurring of boundaries between high- and low-culture goes against the traditional academic interest ‘in preserving a realm of high or elite culture against the surrounding environment of philistinism’.40 In this, Jameson manifests a particularly modernist
preference for clear distinctions between opposing fields such as art/commerce, elite/popular, and modernism/postmodernism. Jameson further distinguishes postmodernism from modernism in his association of postmodernism with the ‘failure of the new’.41 Jameson argues that artists
of the present day cannot ‘invent new styles and worlds’ because ‘the most unique ones have been thought of already’.42 Even if the death of the subject had not already rendered the creation
of a unique style impossible for postmodern artists, they would find the last of the unique styles already accounted for by the modernist aesthetic tradition.43 Herein lays the answer to
Jameson’s question regarding what the artist does if self-expression is no longer possible. Unable to express themselves through a unique style, unable to create transformative and
37An additional, unmentioned, function of parody is that it proclaims its status as copy and therefore reinforces the
status of the unique style it mimics as original.
38Jameson, ‘Postmodernism and Consumer Society’, inPostmodern Culture,ed. by Foster, pp. 111 – 125, p. 112
39Catherine Constable, ‘Postmodern Cinema’, inThe Routledge Encyclopaedia of Film Theory, ed. by Edward
Branigan and Warren Buckland (Abingdon: Routledge, 2014), pp. 376 – 382, p. 379
40Jameson, ‘Postmodernism and Consumer Society’, inPostmodern Culture,ed. by Foster, pp. 111 – 125, p. 112
41Ibid, p. 116 42Ibid, p. 115 43
utopian art, unable to create a new style, unable even to properly critique or parody an existing style; postmodern artists can only practice pastiche. As Jameson puts it, when ‘stylistic
innovation is no longer possible, all that is left is to imitate dead styles’.44
From the perspective of Film Studies, Jameson’s most influential example of the workings of pastiche is his definition of the ‘nostalgia film’.45 A nostalgia film may either
replicate a particular generational moment from the past, such asAmerican Graffiti(George Lucas, 1973), or reinvent ‘the characteristic art objects of an older period’ in the manner ofStar Wars(Lucas, 1977).46 Jameson also citesRaiders of the Lost Ark(Steven Spielberg, 1981) as an
example that does both.47 Jameson also notes that the style of the nostalgia film has begun
‘colonizing’ films with contemporary settings, givingBody Heat(Lawrence Kasdan, 1981) as an example.48 Jameson observes that although the film is ostensibly set in the Eighties, elements
such as the small-town setting and art deco title sequence ‘make it possible to receive this too as a nostalgia work – as a narrative set in some indefinable nostalgic past, an eternal ‘30s, say, beyond history.’49
The nostalgia film also demonstrates another of the key losses or deaths Jameson associates with postmodernism, the death of history; at least in its ‘strong modern post-
eighteenth-century sense’.50 Jameson describes the postmodern sense of history as an inversion
of Plato’s fable of the cave.51 Rather than ‘looking directly out of its eyes at the real world for
the referent’, cultural production has retreated back within the mind and ‘trace[s] its mental images of the world in its confining walls.’52 For Jameson, this retreat back into images renders
44Ibid, p. 115 45 Ibid, p. 116 46Ibid, p. 116 47Ibid, p. 117 48 Ibid, p. 118 49Ibid, p. 118 50Ibid, p. 284
51Ibid; see also Plato,The Republic,514a – 521b, but especially 514a – 515d 52
true history unobtainable: ‘we seem condemned to seek the historical past through our own pop images and stereotypes about that past, which itself remains forever out of reach.’53
Jameson ends his early foray into the postmodern by speculating on whether postmodernism retains any of modernism’s subversive and oppositional characteristics, or whether it merely reproduces and reinforces ‘the logic of consumer capitalism’.54 Later,
Jameson hesitantly proposes a category of postnostalgia film, films that process the past in a ‘properly allegorical’ way.55 This allegorical processing of the past distinguishes the
postnostalgia film from the nostalgia film. Nevertheless, Jameson claims that it is only due to the ‘training’ provided by the ‘formal apparatus’ of nostalgia films that the ‘more complex postnostalgia statements’ become possible.56 Jameson’s invention of the category of
postnostalgia film does not; however, suggest that postmodern works are capable of making the kind of critical statements Jameson classes as the sole preserve of modernist art. Rather, the postnostalgia film represents Jameson’s desire to locate something meaningful beyond or after postmodernism. It is telling that Jameson must create a new category of postnostalgia film, rather than allowing that the allegorical processing of history may be a feature of nostalgia films. To do so would contradict Jameson’s definition of postmodernism as meaningless, purposeless, and complicit. This is evidence of the same broadly Marxist logic that informs Jameson’s definition of postmodernism. For Jameson, while change may emerge from within the system, its purpose is to create a new space outside of the confines of that system.57 This is clear in
Jameson’s description of the utopian dimension ofA Pair of Boots, which utilises the fragmentation resulting from capitalism’s division of labour to create a utopian space of the
53 Ibid, p. 118 54Ibid, p. 125 55Jameson,Postmodernism, p. 287 56 Ibid, p. 287
57See for example the claim in The Communist Manifesto that the proletariat ‘cannot become masters of the
productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every
other previous mode of appropriation’ Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, ‘The Communist Manifesto’ inKarl Marx:
senses.58 The postnostalgia film utilises the formal features of the nostalgia film, but is able to
create a new space outside of postmodernism where the properly allegorical processing of history is once again possible.
As noted earlier, Jameson’s writing on postmodernism is characterised by a desire to maintain discreet boundaries and oppositions. For Jameson, postmodernism is troubling because it represents the breaking down of all the boundaries Jameson values. In opposition to
postmodernism, Jameson establishes a Marxist-modernism where boundaries may be contested but nevertheless retain their integrity. This can be seen in Jameson’s figuring of the modernist subject as the last bastion against the complete fragmentation of postmodernism rather than the more usual understanding of modernism as the source of this increased fragmentation. In many ways, Jameson’s characterisation of postmodernism as marking the end of critique and as incapable of subversion serves to reinforce Jameson’s definition of Marxist and modernist art as meaningful and oppositional. In this way, Jameson’s definition of postmodernism rehearses the oppositions of art/not-art seen in the previous chapter, with postmodernism unequivocally occupying the position of not-art.
By opposing modernism and postmodernism in this way, Jameson depicts a narrative of decline whereby meaningful modernism is eclipsed by meaningless postmodernism. Jameson is not alone in characterising postmodernism as a downward trajectory centred on loss.59 Jean
Baudrillard, for example, repeatedly evokes the image of a downward spiral or vortex in his depiction of postmodernism, which is centrally organised around the loss of reality and its
58Jameson,Postmodernism,p. 7; Compare with the claim by Marx and Engels inThe Communist Manifestothat
modern industry ‘cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers’, Marx and Engels, ‘The
Communist Manifesto’ inKarl Marx: Selected Writingsed. by McLellan, p. 231
59
A recent exhibition at the Vitoria and Albert museum presents a similar narrative, charting the decline from a utopian and rebellious high-art postmodernism to a complicit and empty pop-cultural postmodernism exemplified by post-punk and New Wave music and fashion. The exhibition suggests that postmodernism loses its relevance as it becomes absorbed into the capitalist system of production in the nineties. The exhibition ends with an indictment of money grubbing pop-postmodernism. In what could be interpreted as a stunningly ironic postmodern move; the exhibition opens directly into a gift shop where patrons can buy reproductions of the postmodern artworks
displayed in exhibition (many of which are not in fact the original artworks but are themselves replicas)