Scribd
Upload
277 views7 pages

Kramer, H. (1982) Postmodern Art & Culture in The 1980s

Kramer, H. (1982) Postmodern Art & Culture

Uploaded by

Diana Moncada
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
277 views7 pages

Kramer, H. (1982) Postmodern Art & Culture in The 1980s

Kramer, H. (1982) Postmodern Art & Culture

Uploaded by

Diana Moncada
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7
Postmodern: art and culture in the 1980s by Hilton Kramer Hilton Kramer, "Postmodem: Art and Culture inthe 1980s." ‘New Criterion '1.1 (September, 1982) 36-42. 36 We lve now amid te rane of «clzaion, (bus mat ofthe rains are non nds Toh Laks, The Pasig of he Maen Ae We de nt nowadays fie or prodecrr, e platy id thom go George Santayana, Chance and Opin in te ‘Une Sa ‘Noting has been more remartable inthe ular life ofthe pastecade than the speed Svith which the imperatives of the modern ‘movementhave ben strippedof their author: ity. Twenty years ago i as rank heresy sgeest that modernism might already have ‘entered uponitsdecline Theassumpeion was that he modems spint was not t0 be ‘construed asa period phenomenon, but as2 permanent and irreversible condition fea furl life Ten years ago was sll conrover. Sal hough no longer unthinkable claim that 3 devsve break had already occurred Defections from modernist orthodoxy were 00 widespread to be discounted, ye there ‘vasa dine reluctance roexplre —oreven, Indeed, wo acknowledge — cel impications “Today, however, its suddenly ch to speak ‘of "possmodemnist™ art, and scandal no longer ataches tothe iea that modernism hhasrunits coun Even the stoutest defend ets ofthe old absolutes concede that sme thing bas happened. The New Cieon Stoner 1982 02 Iewasto beexpected, ofcourse, that mod nism would be significantly modified once enetscame to dominate the culture ithad longsoughtto topple and displace. Modern ism was born, afterall ina spint of etcsm and revolt twas predicated onthe existence ‘of an oficial culure—at once bourgeois in its origin, unenlightened in ies inellecual ‘outlook, and philstine in its raste—that ‘would remain adamant in its resistance to Fundamental change (Never mind that this view of bourgeois culture was something ofa Seton, omitting sit id all eference tothe complenity and dynamism of its achive: iments Itwas tion that served to rength fn the conviction of the avantgarde that bourgeois culure had forfeited its right co cist) Wht in fact happened, however, id ‘not conform ro the myth of bourgeois ress tance to change, In due course, Bourges. culareadroty accommodate islf 0 vir tually every aesthetic challenge mounted by its avanegarde adversaries. What wat con