Art is something out of the ordinary commenting on the ordinary.

– Camille Paglia

It often seems to be the case that modern media and entertainment leaves a lot to be desired. Whether its films from Hollywood, Disney, or elsewhere, much of Western art productions have been pretty lackluster for the past seventy years. It is hard to tell where modernism ends and where postmodernism begins. As the tragedy that was the Second World War came to an end in 1945, modernism was really in its stride. In the current year, 2024, we are in the midst of postmodernism, if not a step further. There is a good case to be made that we have entered the era of metamodernism, but we can speculate about that some other time.

Postmodernism has a lot of fancy definitions that go into painfully irrelevant detail. As postmodernism is an unusual concept, it is hard to define. Regardless, to truly capture this concept as clearly as possible, I would define it as the following: The rejection of modernism and the embrace of irony, complexity, self-consciousness, and parody for randomness sake. You may or may not agree with me, but this is how I make sense of an idea that is almost begging to not be defined in any meaningful way. For context, modernism can be defined as being the pursuit of the abstract, subversive, and subjective. Postmodernism is not necessarily against these concepts, it just goes further. Whereas the modernist might create something that broke traditional conventions or did the opposite of what was in vogue, the postmodernist throws out the entire rulebook and does not bother with conventions at all.

Given how long this whole prelude has been trying to explain a single concept, it may be clear that the author is not necessarily a fan. However, this is only generally true. Postmodern art, like its father modern art, is woefully ugly and does not deserve an ounce of attention. Postmodern architecture, fashion, and music are just incomprehensible. With hindsight we can see that while modernism often embolden ugliness, it was because it knew the ideal. The modern artist knew that beauty was, and decided to do the opposite. The postmodern artist just throws random artifacts at the wall and then charges millions of dollars for the privilege. Ugliness has progressed to randomness.

Believe it or not, there is a small part of my heart that has a soft spot for a certain type of postmodern art. It is my view that frankly the only instance in which postmodernism is acceptable, is in regard to film and literature. To try and make my case, let me take the reader through a little history of literature archetypes.

Act I: The Rise

Once upon a time, a story would have a hero and a villain. You would know who to root for and who to be against. In theory, it was simple. In practice, some of the most incredible stories in human history follow this basic narrative structure. For example: Beowulf, the Odyssey, Dracula, and the Lord of the Rings. Just because these stories have ‘basic’ character archetypes does not mean that they are not steeped in depth and complexity. These stories are iconic and truly timeless. The only critique one might have is that their structure is simple. There may still be some twists and turns, but the general archetype is familiar.

Act II: The Fall

A little later on, modernists decided to flip the script, literally. Now they knew the traditional convention and decided that enough was enough. In the modern age, one should make the hero the villain and the villain the hero. The hero was replaced by the protagonist and the villain by the antagonist. There may be a character that the audience is supposed to sympathize with and root for, but they are by no means the ‘good guy’. By the end of these stories, the audience may feel unease with how they related to the protagonist, who turned out to be a true villain. Some examples of modernist stories would be Ulysses, the Great Gastby, and Citizen Kane, and the Catcher in the Rye. The name of the game is understanding the existing convention/tradition, and deciding to do the exact opposite. The critique here would be that modernism is entirely defined as being the opposite of antiquity. Subverting tropes and going in uneasy directions was the way modern stories were written.

Act III: The Weird

Now we finally arrive at the modern day. Rather than a satisfying shift back to the antiquated, we find that art has gone in a very unique direction. Instead of subverting old conventions and ideas, we have just thrown the whole thing out. Now linear storyline progression is irrelevant. There are not even protagonists and antagonists anymore, but characters on a screen/page. No right and wrong, no good or bad. Just a whole sea of gray. This new art scene is beyond black, white, or gray. It is the rejection of color all together! Some examples of the postmodern would be Catch-22, Pulp Fiction, the Matrix, and Inception. All boundaries and rules have been broken. Endings can be inconclusive. Characters can be entirely unsympathetic even. I personally find that while the author may intend to portrait their art as being capable of being endlessly interpreted, I have found that it actually ends up just being random. No discernible pattern, but lazy and uninspiring randomness.

You might imagine that all postmodern stories are boring and so random that they are impossible to follow along. To be honest, this is often the case. However, when the planets align just right, when God gives His blessing, and when a writer gets lucky, postmodern stories can actually be incredibly endearing. It can often be the source of a wonderful conversation when groups of friends come together to discuss the true meaning of a film’s ambiguous ending. Literature too is enriched by millions of different people being able to find their own meaning from a text.

It should be obvious that as far as establishing a solid worldview or moral code is concerned, postmodernism is entirely useless in this category. Not only because Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, but also because everyone coming up with their own truth and moral foundation is incredibly arrogant, incoherent, and dangerous. Why personal constructions of truths and morals are dangerous is worth its own discussion in the future.

If the stakes are brought down a lot lower, and the only thing on the line is one’s social standing in front of friends, then postmodern stories are a lot more stomachable. I have been ruminating on my enjoyment of postmodern literature for a while. What recently sparked this current look was because of a book I started reading. I have read a book called Homo faber by Max Frisch. Its basic premise is about a Swiss engineer who works for UNESCO. It would be most prudent of me to not share any more, because there are a surprising number of twists and turns that are best left to be discovered by the reader. If you are not as bookish as Garrett or myself, I can wholeheartedly recommend the 1991 film Voyager by Volker Schlöndorff. This movie is the film adaptation of the same book. Unlike many film adaptations, this one is incredibly faithful and actually does one thing significantly better. There is a huge piece of information that is shared in the rising action and climax of the film that adds immeasurably to its story. Whereas the book unfortunately just haphazardly gives you this crucial tidbit during an innocuous chapter fairly early on.

All this to say that I am absolutely in love with the book. For being postmodern, it still has its modernist holdovers. Regardless, I find that the ability to get to think deeply about right and wrong and form one’s own perspective on it within the confines of a story can be rewarding.

Quentein Tarantino and Christopher Nolan are quite different directors, but I would feel at ease putting them both into the category of postmodern. You may judge me for it, but I am on the bandwagon that supports Tarantino. Some of his films are too much to handle, but when they are done right, they are solidly thought provoking and complex without doing anything particularly insane. Tarantino likes a non linear story, which to antiquated ears may sound like nonsense, but in execution it allows for a completely novel perspective. Almost nothing in literature or film is nonlinear, so to get to think of a story in a way that breaks your brain, it’s a real treat.

Nolan is not as set on being nonlinear, but he is also willing to blur the lines and throw out conventions. Many of his films include inconclusive endings. I can understand that to the average person this may be infuriating, but if you let your defenses come down and if you can accept that it is ok that a film does not end in a satisfying way, then you will find that you will be chewing on a film’s story for days if not weeks. The traditional hero archetype is great, and there is nothing wrong with it. For this reason, not every story should be postmodern. However, as a mental exercise, and as a break from the mundane and the normal, it is good that some of the content that we consume is able to be told without regard to our traditional conventions. It is a treat to be able to experience something that shakes up the mind a little. It is not good to be totally upended, but a little storm can help your roots to dig deeper and firm up.

I am entirely sympathetic to the person who can not stand postmodernism. Other than film and literature I am totally on board. Postmodern architecture in particular is truly horrid and offensive to both God and man. However, it can be freeing to experience storytelling in a new lens. There are still incredible postmodern stories being told, and instead of judging them, I would like to be a little more open, and try to experience them as the author intended. Which is to say, in any way I would like.

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. – Romans 15:4 (KJV)