1972: The demolition of the Pruitt Igoe housing scheme
The modern world died at 3.32pm in
St Louis, Missouri, on 15 July 1972. The dynamiting of the notorious
Pruitt Igoe housing scheme was a noise that resonated around the
world, at least according to architecture critic Charles
Jencks in his 1977 book The Language of Post-Modern Architecture.
You probably didn't hear it expire because you were crazed on cola-flavoured
moon-dust sweets listening to Bowie's new Ziggy Stardust LP. Or weren't
actually born.
After Pruitt Igoe fell, a new architecture
arose. What was it like? Think of James Stirling's
pink-and-yellow striped limestone building No 1 Poultry in the City of London. Completed
in 1997, it is arguably Britain's leading po-mo edifice. Its colour scheme has
been described as "acidulous", as if that were a good thing. Inside,
it has a ramped floor conveying an ancient Egyptian aura, while its main
staircase quotes the Vatican's Renaissance Scala Regia.
Outside, it has a clock that quotes the Ffascist-era main post office in Naples and is
surmounted by a turret that looks like a submarine conning tower. And yet it
was a rebuke to all those funless corporate modernist buildings teeming with
identical Le Corbusier chairs and sharp-suited drones. Even so, it was
voted London's fifth-worst building.
And that was just architecture. After 1972, the
rest of the hitherto modern world went nuts too. Out went social
stratification, funless functionalism and, ultimately, male commitment
to wearing neckties on formal occasions. In came an ironic mashup
of stylistic quotations, artists dabbling in a playful cross-fertilisation
from different eras, a pluralist cultural ethos, and, incredibly, non-ironic
flip-flops as legitimate men's officewear.
1973: The birth of late capitalism
The world plunged into recession from 1973 to
1974, thanks to oil prices quadrupling in the aftermath of the Arab-Israeli
war. Europe and the US's putative postwar golden age was over. I say
"putative" because I was brought up in the Black Country. In the 60s.
We were entering dire straits. Consider British car design. Yes, the Mini had
been the jaunty expression of the reportedly swinging 60s ethos, but its 70s
successor the Maxi was a tomb on wheels. And British
Leyland's later cars, the Allegro and Marina,
could only be understood as sick jokes perpetrated on patriotic British
motorists by social deviants whose corpses would be bulldozed into the
foundations of Spaghetti Junction in any rational polity.
This recession and the 1979-83 one led to the
collapse of the previous Fordist model of integrated industrial production
(think: a million Charlie Chaplins tightening a million wheel nuts on a million
identical cars in a factory the size of Kansas for ever). Instead, short-term
contracts proliferated, work was outsourced from Walsall to Warsaw and still
further east. The information age supplanted the manufacturing age, capital
flowed more freely across the world, companies expanded globally and, as a
result, you work in a call centre for a loan consolidation abomination whereas
your parents made worthwhile things for a living using now-obsolete
skills.
Welcome to post-Fordism or, if you prefer,
the era of late capitalism. These terms are, like deconstructionism and
post-structuralism, if not synonymous with postmodernism, then synchronous with
it. God, I love this stuff: it would have got me tenure at some poly in the
late 70s.
But, as musician David Byrne argues in the V&A's
catalogue to Post-Modernism: Style and Subversion
1970-1990, it's unfair to define post-modernism negatively. He
writes: "[L]ike many others I felt [modernism] had both strayed from its
idealistic origins and become codified, strict, puritanical and dogmatic …
Besides, as lovely as it is, postmodern furniture is cruelly uncomfortable. If
postmodernism meant anything is allowed, then I was all for it. Finally! The
buildings often didn't get much more beautiful or the furniture more
comfortable, but at least we weren't handed a rulebook."
1979: The Postmodern Condition is published
Meanwhile in Paris, a French penseur
called Jean-François Lyotard stopped rummaging in his lover's black turtleneck
to light his 37th Gitane of the afternoon. He inhaled deeply, breathed out,
narrowed his eyes and said: "Bah, ouais," and started
writing there and then his ground-breaking book The Postmodern Condition.
Probably none of this happened, but who can resist sending up a man who has
girls' dancewear for a surname?
Lyotard argued that the intellectual foundations
of western thought as built by Kant, Hegel, Marx, though probably not De
Botton, were teetering. Western societies since the Enlightenment had, he
argued, been informed by "grand narratives" that were no longer
convincing stories of human progress. He, like lots of other soixante-huitards,
was disappointed by the failure of one of those grand narratives, Marxism, to
deliver paradise. He glanced narrowly too across the Channel and, seeing
Thatcher's policies (soon to be echoed by Reagan) of economic deregulation,
selfish enterprise culture and the denial of society, thought that political
progress – as he and like-minded beret-wearers had comprehended it since 1789 –
might well be over.
Henceforth, he and the likes of Foucault
thought, localised political interventions – feminism, environmentalism,
identity politics – would replace mass progressive movements. And then, bored
by his thoughts, Lyotard put his hands back up his girlfriend's jumper, like
the French stereotype we've imagined him to be.
1984: Art is colonised by commerce
In 1984, literary theorist Fredric Jameson wrote
his essay Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, arguing that
art had been colonised by commerce. This was before adman Charles Saatchi
started buying up YBAs and decades before Damien Hirst claimed to have sold a
diamond-encrusted skull for £50m. Modernist art (think: Van Gogh transforming
personal misery into beauty) sought to redeem the world, he suggested.
Postmodern art (think: Jenny Holzer putting an electronic
billboard over New York's Times Square reading, "Protect me from what I
want" in 1985) was made by artists stuck in a world they could
scarcely change.
1989: Jeff Koons gets jaded
Jameson also wrote about "the waning of
affect" that he claimed characterised postmodern subjectivity. Artists
don't cut off their ears these days, more's the pity. As if to prove Jameson's
point, in 1989, Jeff Koons put up a poster to advertise his exhibition at New
York's Whitney Museum. The billboard image bore the headline Made in Heaven and depicted him having sex
with his porn star wife, La Cicciolina. But Koons was hardly in the throes of
passion: his affect seemed to have waned to nothing as his blank gaze met ours.
Koons's properly ironic po-mo statement about the work was that it would
initiate spectators into the "realm of the Sacred Heart of Jesus".
Koons had created a Baudrillardian system of simulacra of sexual passion,
religious ecstasy, semiotic overload and voguish kitsch, while suggesting that
to the blank-eyed stiff who has it all, nothing, not even Viagra, will get him
going any more. Such is the postmodern male condition. Boo hoo, am I right?
1992: The End of History
Francis Fukuyama published The End of History,
writing: "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the cold war,
or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of
history as such … That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and
the universalisation of western liberal democracy as the final form of human
government." He argued that there could be no large-scale wars over
fundamental values since "all prior contradictions are resolved and all
human needs satisfied". He was, you may have noticed, wrong in all leading
particulars, but no matter: his thinking fitted into the prevailing postmodern
mood. If the west had won, if nothing was worth fighting for, if all
values were relative and eternal, then what remained was merely humans choosing
fatuously between consumer goods that contributed negligibly to our
flourishing until our species did the decent thing and
did itself in.
2001: Apple launches the iPod
The iPod was born and digital culture – which is
neither synchronous nor synonymous with postmodern culture but kind of related
– had its ur-fetish object. Digital technology accelerated and enabled
individuals to manipulate every aspect of the media environment. In the digital
world, you the consumer could do what cultural producers had hitherto done: you
could be your own DJ, photographer, film-maker. Better, you could do what the
Man said you shouldn't: sample, pastiche, cut and paste others' work, riff on
the results and pass it off as your own.
2002: Dr Evil embraces hip-hop
Dr Evil's intervention here typified postmodern
culture: ironic, knowing, quoting from a source that was already quoting from
another source and – perhaps this the main point – thereby cannily making a
packet for a film franchise that, if one can be serious for a second, really
didn't warrant a third outing. Such "bricolage", as Lyotard
would put it (ie assembling artefacts from bits and pieces of other things from
unexpected eras and sources), was key to the hip-hop culture Myers pastiched.
And hip-hop culture, which is postmodernism's ironically adopted child, is
everywhere – clothes, graffiti, poetry, dance, your iPod, my iPod, everybody's
iPod. Everywhere apart from on Classic FM, because Classic FM doesn't roll that
way.
Then things got ugly. Postmodern ugly. Producers
fired off angry texts to consumers asserting their intellectual capital rights.
Consumers jokily texted back a link to an online version of Roland Barthes's seminal essay The Death of the Author.
Producers then put down their BlackBerrys and reached for their lawyers. For
instance, last year EMI issued a copyright claim
insisting that YouTube take down the video of Newport State of Mind, the marvellous pastiche
of Jay-Z and Alicia Keys's insufferably bombastic expression of civic
pride, New York State of Mind. Late capitalism didn't really like the way
postmodernism was heading, and postmodernism stopped sending late capitalism
Christmas cards.
2011: Pop-up culture goes mainstream
Last week in Covent Garden, I saw a sign in a
shop window. "Coming soon, a pop-up store." Goody, I thought with
affectless postmodern irony, more pop-up stuff. But hold on. Wasn't the whole
point of pop-up things (theatres, shops and, in olden times, books) that you
didn't have to wait for them to pop up? They popped up sharpish then
pushed off? Was this sign postmodern irony? Or, what usually happens, publicity
for a dismal late capitalist enterprise appropriating a funky-sounding idea a
year after it was fashionable and annulling its raison d'etre in the glum way
so common in recent postmodernism culture? It must have been the latter.
The future
What next? David Byrne argues in the V&A
catalogue that in postmodernism's heyday "anything could be mixed and
matched – or mashed up, as is said today – and anything was fair game for
inspiration. That, to me, seemed as it should be. A taste of freedom. At least
that's the way I took it, though one could see another rulebook being written
even as we tried to say: 'No more damned rulebooks!' Before long, there
was, according to some, a postmodern rule book. Time to
move on." No doubt. But what could post-postmodernism mean?
(imagem retirada do blog de Paulo Paniago:desaforismos)