postpostmodernism - post-postmodernism - pre post postmodernism

So post-postmodernism? postpostmodernism? pre post postmodernism?

Allow me to weave some paragraphs to give you a sense of how I see our world with postpostmodernism, which may not exist, but will be apparent everwhere soon enough.
Go look at the trend towards something beyond postmodernism, or towards postpostmodernism, whatever; postpostmodernism is a trans-cognitive-decontsruction (read bullshit word) for more ways to sell art, to do business and politics, and includes the poetry of those in the humanities department at your local university.

Take into account that postpostmodernism is taken with the widest possible meaning of the word, postpostmodernism. (If I say this enough I gain on google search, so I am told.) Look at how the words business politics and art compact into that term, yes, postpostmoderism.

First, the territorial grounds of definition, those outlining the true meaning of art that will give us a sense of postpostmodernism. Some rare wolves mark their definition onto the instalments of public urinals in a painting gallery, while others piss profain poetry all over the paintings in the Louvre. Have your choice.

The definition of art, and that of postpostmoderism, is a game some play; a definition that wants to be writen like a game wants to be played. But what for and who is against who and what cannot be and what cannot not be and are the artists all twice negating the definition that cannot exist and yet must they exist so as to keep the war going for links like theses.

Well, within this battle, see instead the competitive spirit as that recognised in business so that artistry is a postpostmodern production company, or the grand not-for-profit organization charitable to the moral selfishness of being a "true" artist in the truest sense of that of which is a "who" for the sake of being him or her, and he or she just a simple postpostmodern artist.

Except where companies dispute claims to the quality of their product or service while recognising their competitors within a marketplace, artists seek absolute definition – or non-definition – that stands fundamentally in line to detonate the dynamite strapped to their chest. The tyranny of the artist is to demand a monopoly on art’s experiences, even if that monopoly gives admission to all experiences.

Now you keeping following this thread to your moral relatives and feel absolutly apolitical sympathies for the thinkism crew that are matched by the objectivist realm. Don't forget the Straussian myth making artists.

How about this contemporary concept of business? Capitalism thrives on a type of democratic partnership between companies. The game is to act competitively to expose the weaknesses of the other’s product or services as a form of strategy that benefits “the people” in much the same way democracies benefit the people. I.e. The benefit is situated so that the company defines “the people” who then must benefit, as capital is the name of the game baby. You are not alone, says the glaring face on tv.

However, business leaders and politicians use language to show that each strives for, the good, both in terms of justified selfish and unselfish pursuits. But essentially the utility produced by any organization reduces to an exclusive political definition of the good. Capital can be the political good of an organization which benefits "the people.” And don't forget your religious dogma too!

The inescapable role of an artist in contemporary society exists between the aesthetic terrorist who produces spectacles of violence and the aesthetic capitalist who produces products that manage the stability of a consumer society; the moderates having now been silenced through sheer terror and cluster-bomb advertising will no doubt be cast to the vast underground of rational talks heard here.

The extreme aesthetic experience of living in society today destroys our focus on the philosophical debates which exist within society. There can be no more true empathy from the artist within his or her work; only their tyranny exists.

“What Stalin accomplished through terror, Hitler achieved through seduction. Using a new style of politics, meditated through symbols, myths, rites, spectacles and personal dramatics, he reached the masses as did no other leader of the time. Though he took away democratic government, he gave Germans what they clearly found a more meaningful sense of political participation....”

But let us be more reasonable about some of the contemporary artists; let us be more grateful, especially to democratic individuals who vaule scepticism and debate. It is foolish and a fox screaming, or exstream of waste to show contemporary artists as artist-tyrants in the sense of Hitler and Nazism.

However, most contemporary artists contain spiritualistic or humanistic or rationalistic principals of some sort that are meant to bring about the structuring and ordering of the world so as to achieve self actualization on the grand steps of politics and philosophy. The individual cannot be said to be completely wrong for this structuring and ordering of the world so as to gain that selfish reward which produces benefits for society. But, if you can accept self actualization as the motivation of all art, then the work of art itself can never satisfy a democratic principal, but only construct a onesided political or philosophical view; and then what becomes of, the good.

So now questions: how do we understand the psychological phenomenon that motivates artists to attain the actualization of their self within their representations, artefacts, products; their art for art’s sake? How do we move past the tyranny of the self in art? Is it possible to have an art movement, a postpostmodernism which disconnects the creation of something from a reference to something else?

The thoughts I would like to give to artists in these ever increasing artistic movements is this: include within the artistic process the practices of ancient scepticism; reflect on an epoche and what consequences have evolved in society from following traditions or the noble lies; unmask the tyranny in other contemporary artists whose goal it is to persuade us towards their politics or their philosophy; look at how the extreme aesthetics of mass culture eschew the moderate sentiments of complexity and debate, instead relying on structure and order to satisfy the mass desire for meaning that comes about in liberal society; and at the very least, attempt to achieve equipollence in your work.

For those who purport faith as the main principal for postpostmodernism, I hope you will show why that faith fails as much as it succeeds. But most of all, I hope you who desire to advance, to become the front guard, come to understand that all artistry is based on political and philosophical principals of which your artistic desire is ultimately to instil in others what you believe. You must understand your politics and philosophy before you become a soldier in the culture wars.

Postmodernism is now business and politics, and, just as surrealism failed, postmodernism will soon fail. But only because it cannot satisfy our desire for community, for being interwoven.

Postpostmoderism will be both the Sisyphean pursuit back down the hill of philosophy as well as an incorporation of business, politics and art which will never attain the real. Postpostmodernism will give us this: romanticism's intuition, leading towards illusion and ignorance which can satisfy our human need for structure and order.

But I could be wrong? ....Yes I am wrong, I know what it means now! Here!

Think about it, and don't get stuck. Or you will become...another Dali.