I agree with Hutcheon's depiction of postmodern parody as "value-problematizing" rather than "value-free". She states, "Postmodern parody is a king of contesting revision or rereading of the past that both confirms and subverts the power of the representations of history." (94) Indeed, stripping the meaning from past styles/conventions while maintaining some semblance of their structure will inevitably make some statement about our current relation to that past. She continues, "The continuity between the postmodernist and the modernist use of parody as a strategy of appropriating the past is to be found on the level of their shared (compromised) challenges to the conventions of representation...It is not that modernism was serious and significant and postmodernism is ironic and parodic, as some have claimed; it is more that postmodernism's irony is one that rejects the resolving urge of modernism" (95).
However, is Hutcheon creating a strawman in her simplistic representation of others' pastiche . When Jameson speaks of pastiche as "blank irony", does he really mean that it cannot make any type of statement. Jameson says, "The omnipresence of pastiche is not incompatible with a certain humor, however, nor is it innocent of all passion: it is at least compatible with addiction - with a whole historically original consumers' appetite for a world transformed into sheer images of itself and for pseudoevents". I see these 'compatibilities' as criticisms of or at least meaningful statements about the postmodern condition/culture. Can this utilization/exploitation of our nostalgia and memory really be considered innocent?