In The Ancients and the Postmoderns: On the Historicity of Forms,
Fredric Jameson embarks on an ambitious exploration of cultural and aesthetic
transformations across different historical periods, specifically focusing on
the relationship between modernity, postmodernity, and the classical or
"ancient" forms of cultural production. Central to the book is
Jameson’s ongoing project of mapping historical shifts in art, literature, and
culture within the framework of Marxist theory, with particular attention to
how forms themselves evolve as expressions of changing material conditions.
Jameson begins by framing the book around the relationship between what he
terms the “Ancients” and the “Postmoderns.” The “Ancients” are understood as
embodying classical and pre-modern forms, which, in many ways, set the
foundation for the emergence of modernity. The “Postmoderns,” on the other
hand, represent the contemporary cultural milieu that has moved beyond the
conventions and certainties of both the ancient and the modern. Jameson’s
intellectual method is grounded in historicism, meaning that these
forms—whether in visual art, music, or literature—are deeply connected to the
social, political, and economic structures that surround them.
A central argument in the book is that cultural forms do not exist in
isolation; rather, they are produced within specific historical moments, and
these moments leave their mark on the kinds of art, literature, and philosophy
that are possible at that time. For Jameson, then, form is never a neutral
aesthetic container. It is always a historical artifact, shaped by the
contradictions and crises of its era.
The book is divided into several chapters, each of which tackles a different
moment of cultural production and its relationship to the broader history of
forms. Jameson weaves a complex narrative that links early modernist forms with
later postmodern innovations, while also looking back to classical and ancient
sources. In this sense, the book is not just about postmodernity, but also
about how postmodernity relates to a longer history of form. For example,
Jameson examines the work of modernist figures like Picasso and Stravinsky,
demonstrating how their art challenges traditional forms, yet also responds to
the conditions of their time, such as the rise of industrial capitalism and
mass culture. In contrast, the postmodern artists, he argues, are engaged in a
different kind of project—one that is often marked by a sense of fragmentation,
irony, and a refusal of narrative closure, which he links to the changes in
global capitalism and late modernity.
One of the book’s key contributions is its rethinking of the relationship
between aesthetics and politics. For Jameson, aesthetics is not merely a matter
of personal taste or stylistic innovation but is deeply embedded in the
political and social fabric. This argument is most visible in his discussion of
modernism and its aftermath. He shows how modernist forms—whether in painting,
music, or literature—often reflect a utopian longing for an alternative to the
alienation and fragmentation of capitalist society. Postmodern forms, in
contrast, often mirror the fragmentation and multiplicity of the postmodern
condition itself, offering no such utopian vision but rather an ironic or
playful acknowledgment of the impossibility of such totality in a world of late
capitalism.
Another significant theme in The Ancients and the Postmoderns is
the idea of nostalgia. Jameson traces how postmodern art often engages in a
kind of nostalgic recycling of past forms—what he calls “pastiche”—but does so
in a way that is emptied of the political charge that characterized earlier
aesthetic revolutions. In postmodern culture, past styles and forms are
appropriated and recontextualized, but they are often stripped of their
original meaning or political context. This is evident, for instance, in the
postmodern fascination with classical forms like the neoclassical architecture
of certain skyscrapers or the revival of baroque musical styles in popular
media.
Jameson’s approach to postmodernism is also critical of what he sees as the
depoliticization of contemporary culture. While modernism sought to challenge
and disrupt bourgeois norms, postmodernism, in Jameson’s view, often serves to
reinforce the status quo. This is partly due to what he describes as the
commodification of culture in the postmodern era, where even radical forms of
art or music are quickly absorbed into the circuits of the global capitalist
market. The result, he argues, is a kind of cultural exhaustion, where the
avant-garde has been co-opted, and the possibility of genuine aesthetic or
political innovation seems increasingly remote.
At the same time, Jameson does not entirely dismiss the potential of
postmodern forms. He is deeply interested in how they reflect the realities of
late capitalism and how they offer new ways of thinking about temporality,
history, and the experience of the present. For example, he discusses the ways
in which postmodern literature often plays with time, creating non-linear
narratives that reflect the disjointed and fragmented nature of contemporary
life. Similarly, postmodern architecture, with its mixing of styles and forms,
can be seen as a reflection of the complexity and diversity of the globalized
world.
Throughout the book, Jameson remains committed to the idea that history is
not something that happens outside of culture but is embedded in it. Whether he
is discussing the relationship between high art and mass culture or the ways in
which contemporary forms of representation engage with the past, Jameson’s work
emphasizes the historical specificity of all forms of cultural production. He
argues that if we want to understand the present—and the possibilities for the
future—we must pay close attention to the ways in which forms change over time
and what those changes reveal about the broader social and economic
transformations taking place.
No comments:
Post a Comment