No, not "Postpostmodernism"

A review has appeared in the the latest issue of New Left Review of Nicolas Bourriaud's book The Radicant, where the Frenchman argues that art has shifted towards the new paradigm of the "altermodern". The review's not freely available, but here it is in brief:

http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2808

I so dislike the word (widespread on the Internet and even consecrated by its own Wikipedia page) which the reviewer uses, with a question mark, as his title: "postpostmodernism". Very obviously, it's ugly as sin. Worse, it's highly misleading, since it implicitly defines what comes after postmodernism in terms determined by postmodernism, i.e. it reinforces the authority of that which it is supposedly tracing the overthrow. "Postmodernism" sees itself in linear terms as that which comes after modernism, a contention which it assumes and never demonstrates, although various objections could be levelled at this piece of intellectual and cultural historiography, e.g. that something distinctive and important happened between high modernism (c. 1920) and high postmodernism (early 1970s on), or that philosophically postmodernism positions itself more as a form of counter-modernism, as a naysayer, than as its successor.

"Postpostmodernism" perpetuates this error by implying that we are due to have more of pretty much the same thing. As coincidence would have it, this unimaginativeness reflects the shortcomings of Bourriaud's theory, which simply prunes back and reissues postmodernism for the 21st century (though admittedly he is using some rather uninteresting work as the jumping-off point for his thoughts about contemporary art). "PoMo" insists by definition on coming-after, on its posteriority, its successor state; "PoPoMo" supposes that something will come after "PoMo" which insists on its doubly coming-after, its reiterated posteriority, its successor state to a successor state.

This is neither true nor plausible. Whatever the merits of the theory of digimodernism, the cultural dominant which succeeds postmodernism will stand by itself; it will be marked by a level of conceptual autonomy. Its definition will not be created, either directly or indirectly, under the aegis of the definition of postmodernism. Postmodernism, then, will really be over; it will be over when we no longer need its limits and tendencies to define what comes after it.

Developments, developments

Wow! Great excitement (for me anyway). It isn't just that Digimodernism is now available to pre-order on Amazon at a very reasonable price (but I would say that). If you've published twenty books you're going to have to bear with me - this is my first, and there's nothing so sweet, they say, as your first time.

Also my website, www.alanfkirby.com is nearly up and running (give it a go). My ace IT specialist nephew Mark is the genius behind this.

And also my editor David Barker declares himself "very happy" with the manuscript and has ruled out any major rewrites (phew!). It's going to go now to the various copy-editors etc who guide things through from here.

And the Tate Britain wants to reprint my original article "The Death of Postmodernism and Beyond" in a book it's bringing out to coincide with an exhibition they're running from 3rd February called Altermodern. The curator Nicolas Bourriaud feels, like me, that postmodernism has had its day, and is exploring what lies beyond it. I really want to go and see the exhibition when it opens. There's a symposium in March on related issues. See http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/tatetriennial/default.shtm