1. We recognize oscillation to be the natural order of the world.
2. We must liberate ourselves from the inertia resulting from a century of modernist ideological naivety and the cynical insincerity of its antonymous bastard child.
3. Movement shall henceforth be enabled by way of an oscillation between positions, with diametrically opposed ideas operating like the pulsating polarities of a colossal electric machine, propelling the world into action.
4. We acknowledge the limitations inherent to all movement and experience, and the futility of any attempt to transcend the boundaries set forth therein. The essential incompleteness of a system should necessitate an adherence, not in order to achieve a given end or be slaves to its course, but rather perchance to glimpse by proxy some hidden exteriority. Existence is enriched if we set about our task as if those limits might be exceeded, for such action unfolds the world.
5. All things are caught up within the irrevocable slide towards a state of maximum entropic dissemblance. Artistic creation is contingent upon the origination or revelation of difference therein. Affect at its zenith is the unmediated experience of difference in itself. It must be art’s role to explore the promise of its own paradoxical ambition by coaxing excess towards presence.
6. The present is a symptom of the twin birth of immediacy and obsolescence. The new technology enables the simultaneous experience and enactment of events from a multiplicity of positions. Far from signaling its demise, these emergent networks facilitate the democratization of history, illuminating the forking paths along which its grand narratives may navigate the here and now.
7. Just as science strives for poetic elegance, artists might assume a quest for truth. All information is grounds for knowledge, whether empirical or aphoristic, no matter its truth-value. We should embrace the scientific-poetic synthesis and informed naivety of a magical realism. Error breeds sense.
8. We propose a pragmatic romanticism unhindered by ideological anchorage. Thus, metamodernism shall be defined as the mercurial condition that lies between, beyond and in pursuit of plurality of disparate and elusive horizons. We must go forth and oscillate!

2 thoughts on “

  1. A Caring Friend

    That is awful. Did it come from the same place as the (original) “About?”

    BTW, even through the tortured language, most of which was too painful to read, it is clear that the idea expressed is the dialectic. So, whatever silly app (or blowhard idiot, God help us) wrote it is Platonist; I suppose that is something to smile about.

    1. williamcullum Post author

      Haha… Unlike the artist statement, which is a parody, this is completely sincere. I haven’t researched it but I suspect it was colaborately written. I found it at http://www.metamodernism.org but the ideas have been floating around for a while. The question is what comes after postmodernism. The answer is an unironic postmodernism. Metamodernism seems more elegant than post-postmodernism. David Foster Wallace might be a good example. His tone; not content or style. Thanks for caring!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s