In our discussions of Foreman, Wilson and The Wooster Group we have sought to define postmodern performance. After reading articles by Hassan, Jameson, Baudrillard and Huyssen it was proposed that a platonic definition of postmodernism was bound to remain elusive while an indirect definition in the form of a collection of categories might be satisfactory. As Wittengenstein put it, whereas definitions may fail, characterizations may suffice; when prototypes cannot provide a Platonic Form, family resemblances may be enough.
With this response paper, I am contributing to our search by nominating the metaphor of a constellation structure within which we can organize this collection of categories. Among other advantages, the constellation metaphor points to the relational nature of categories. It provides a nice analogy for the mapping of similarities and differences shared by its component parts. As of a dynamic orientation of parts, a constellation metaphor provides structural consistency while resisting static definition.
It is not the individual stars but the relationship between them that makes an image in the night sky. In Toward a Concept of Postmodernism, Hassan offers definition by compiling lists of names, works and nouns that, for him, describe some components of postmodernism. Of one list, he writes, "These names are far too heterogeneous to form a movement, paradigm, or school. Still, they may evoke a number or related cultural tendencies, a constellation of values, a repertoire of procedure and attitudes. These we call postmodernism."(85) In Postmodernism and Consumer Society, Jameson defines some characteristics of postmodernism: patiche as imitation without parody, schizophrenia as loss of temporal perspective and the glorification of a material now. And, like Hassan, Jameson avoids a definition of postmodernism itself. It follows that postmodern performance is best characterized by the relationship between a variety of attitudes, tenancies, values, cultural figures and their works. Our search for a definition would be served by the adoption of this technique and the constellation metaphor. An clear image of postmodernism might arise from its many components.
Within a constellation, movement is kaleidoscopic. In the formation of an image, component parts
alternately eclipse and combine with each other. During class discussions, we have compared
and contrasted the aesthetic
characteristics of postmodern theatre and in this quagmire of
contradiction and similarity, we seek a definition.
Here again, the constellation metaphor is
a useful devise. There are points of intersection in the works of Foreman, The
Wooster Group and Wilson. The use of pastiche, the absence of realism and the use of film
on stage are three examples. Some similarities must be drawn using broader
categories. For example, Foreman, The Wooster Group and Wilson diverge significantly in
their use of text. Foreman uses text that seems to
have been torn from his diary. The Wooster Group quotes
canonical texts.
Through time, the shape and the orientation of a constellation changes. Despite this activity, we are able to define the image. Here the metaphor shows us that if postmodernism can be defined, the definition can also (must also) be dynamic. In After the Great Divide, Huyssen traces history in search of a transition between modernism and postmodernism. Postmodernism, according to Huyssen, began where prejudiced notions of history falsely defined modernism as an adversary.(188) He writes, "The ire of the postmodernists was directed not so much against modernism as such, but rather against a certain austere image of ‘high modernism’"(189) Here we see that the very foundation of postmodernism was built on an ephemeral notion of history. About the literary pastiche of E.L. Doctorow, Jameson writes, "his narratives do not represent our historical past so much as they represent our ideas or cultural stereotypes about the past."(115) Postmodern artists created a mythic history that they then retaliated against. Through the 1960’s, ‘70’s and ‘80’s, postmodernism was constantly being altered to accommodate newly emerging mythic history. If we are stargazing today, we must also consider contemporary myths of history and use those as a telescope through which to approach our task of defining postmodernism.
Over the past two weeks we have come to know the work of three postmodern performance artists/groups through video archives and documentaries. We have read criticism, amorous commentary and, most recently, essays by cultural theorists. A platonic definition of postmodern performance remains elusive. The constellation metaphor reminds us, instead, to seek a relationship between characteristics of postmodernism. It allows us to visualize common themes of postmodern performance and to embrace contradictions. It lets us find context for postmodern performance through the lens of revised history and admits that this perspective is dynamic.
Waters, Allison