@The Pentacle Queen,
I know terms are only 'termed' after the events occur, but I wondered if anyone had any ideas about what might happen now?
I can't see it.
As I understand it post-moderism consists of calling into question the power of institutions such as colleges, museums and galleries to bestow value, both monetary and of social cachet, on objects by simply separating them, framing them by the institutions, outside of profane objects. Rendering them sacred so to speak.
These art institutions attribute such things as rarity, authenticity, originality and uniqueness to their chosen objects simply by the act of them having been chosen by their hierarchies, the priesthoods, and thus mystifying them in contrast to ordinary objects which are deemed common. A pile of bricks, say, takes on a numinous tone, which bricks on a building site don't possess, merely by placing them within the gallery's frame. A more or less hidden arrangement of networks, possibly based upon sexual favours, exists to promote the credibility of the mystification.
Such an idea asserts that art is an autonomous system within but separated from the wider culture and, as the galleries and colleges and suchlike are ex-construction sites and connected to utility services deriving from such things as oil wells and coal mines, agriculture and political patronage, dependent on that wider culture for their very existence.
Post-modernism questions this elitism and seeks to devalue the "frame". It says, or ought to, that everything is art or nothing is. It asks how can a self-selecting hierarchy of mystifiers, and their lickspittals and lackeys, have the legitimate power to bestow sanctity and value upon objects it has itself chosen. The cancellation of the Haacke showing in 1971 by the Guggenheim Museum for political reasons and the same artist's Manet: Projekt'74 being refused by the Wallraf-Richartz Museum in Cologne brings these matters into high relief.
One might go so far as to say that art colleges, galleries and all the rest is a sort of religion providing a tautological system of human social relations, likely of a sexual nature at bottom, designed to bestow honour and repute on people who feel that it is beneath their dignity to engage in economic activity proper. It is, of course, something of a fiendish complexity wherein money, status and sex are the prominent considerations and antithetical to art which is, essentially a manifestation of the creative energy of any individual and not just that of those who have been awarded diplomas.
What will happen now is unpredictable. As Andy Warhol said that money rules art now, is art now, we had better watch the stock markets to hazard a guess at future manipulations.
The irony Queenie mentions is probably a forced one and nothing but a pose mounted by bourgeois twits as a style choice and nothing to do with the sort of irony to be found in comics such as those Checkov cut his teeth on where everything is a laughing matter resulting from an advanced corrosive cynicism. Our very own VIZ is a case in point although it has been toned down recently.