Notes

[i] ‘Modernism’ was the movement in the visual arts, literature, music and drama thatemerged at the turn of the twentieth century and which challenged broadly Victorian ideas about the production and meaning of art. ‘Modernity’ is often equated with ‘capitalism’. It can also be understood as the accumulation of capitalism’s social, cultural and technological forms. Alan Hudson suggests that ‘modernity is merely the phenomenal form of capitalist social relations embodying all the contradictions of that society.’ A. Hudson, ‘Introduction’, in F. Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, (London, Junius, 1995), p. xxxiii. For James Heartfield, meanwhile, ‘the idea of ‘modernity’… is hopelessly imprecise’:After all, which modernity are you talking about? The one with the bakelite fixtures and the telegraph wires, or the one with the formica and the mainframe? Modernity was always a useless category because it fixed not on social determinants, like the free market, but on technical features, like ‘heavy industry’. Being itself an imprecise category, qualifications like postmodernity are even less satisfactory, since we do not necessarily agree on what modernity is, let alone what comes after.J. Heartfield, ‘The Risk Zone’, Living Marxism, No. 80 (June 1995), p. 48. Broadly speaking, postmodernists use the terms ‘modern’, ‘modernism’ and ‘modernity’ interchangeably as the embodiment of the Rationalist and Enlightenment ideas of the 17th and 18th centuries, and their implementation throughout the 19th and 20th.[ii] See C. Jencks, What is Postmodernism?, (London, Academy Edition, 1986); E. Lucie-Smith, Movements in Art Since 1945, (London, Thames and Hudson, 1992)[iii] See H. Foster, Postmodern Culture, (London, Pluto, 1985); S. Connor, PostmodernistCulture: An Introduction to Theories of the Contemporary, (Oxford, Blackwell, 1989); D. Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, (Oxford, Blackwell, 1989); F. Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, (London, Verso, 1991); M. Morris, The Pirate’s Fiancée: Feminism, Reading, Postmodernism, (London, Verso, 1988); R. Young (ed.), Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader, (London, Routledge, 1981); S. Sim (ed.), The Icon Critical Dictionary of Postmodern Thought, (Cambridge, Icon Books, 1998), especially S. Sim, ‘Postmodernism and Philosophy’, pp. 3-14; A. Easthope, ‘Postmodernism and Critical and Cultural Theory’, pp. 15-27; I. H. Grant, ‘Postmodernism and Politics’, pp. 28-40; D. Morgan, ‘Postmodernism and Architecture’, pp. 78-88; C. Trodd, ‘Postmodernism and Art’, pp. 89-100; M. O’Day, ‘Postmodernism and Television’, pp. 112-120; B. Lewis, ‘Postmodernism and Literature (or: Word Salad Days, 1960-90)’, pp. 121-133, D. Scott, ‘Postmodernism and Music’, pp. 134-146; L. Spencer, ‘Postmodernism, Modernity and the Tradition of Dissent’, pp. 158-169[iv] See J.-F. Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, (Manchester,Manchester University Press, 1984); P. Dews, Logics of Disintegration: Post-Structuralist Thought and the Claims of Critical Theory, (London, Verso, 1987); M. Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, ed. C. Gordon, (Brighton, Harvester Press, 1980); J. Derrida, Between the Blinds: A Derrida Reader, ed. P. Kamuf, (London, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991)[v] J.-F. Lyotard, ibid., p. xxiv[vi] Ibid., p. xxiii[vii] Ibid., p. 81[viii] Ibid., p. xxiii[ix] M. Featherstone, ‘In Pursuit of the Postmodern: An Introduction’, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 5, No. 2/3 (June 1998), p. 198[x] R. Usher and R. Edwards, Postmodernism and Education, (London, Routledge, 1994),p. 2[xi] S. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1996), p. 12[xii] J.-F Lyotard, op. cit., p. 79[xiii] Ibid., p. 79.[xiv] A. Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique, (Cambridge, Polity, 1989), p.18[xv] I say ‘ostensibly’ because it would be wrong to take modernism’s radical credentials forgranted. In 1992, the conservative critic, John Carey, upset the received wisdom of the liberal intelligentsia when, after exposing the explicitly anti-democratic credentials of many of modernism’s leading figures, he cast doubt on the presumed connection between modernism and progressive thought. J. Carey, The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice Among the Literary Intelligentsia, 1880-1939, (London, Faber & Faber, 1992)[xvi] M. Berman, All that is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity, (London, Verso, 1983), p. 345[xvii] Ibid., p. 346[xviii] M. Sarup, An Introductory Guide to Poststructuralism and Postmodernism, (London, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993), p. 133[xix] See D. Bell, The Coming of Postindustrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting,(New York, Basic Books, 1973); V. Mosco and J. Wasko (eds.), The Political Economy of Information, (The University of Wisconsin Press, 1988); A. Callinicos, op. cit., pp. 121-127[xx] A. Callinicos, ibid., p. 170