I really enjoyed the Burgin quote Hutcheon brings into her essay when talking about parody and representation . . . “We can no longer unproblematically assume that ‘Art’ is somehow outside of the complex of other representational practices and institutions with which it is contemporary – particularly today, those which constitute what we so problematically call the 'mass-media.’” (p. 95-6)

I saw strongs ties to the Warhol discussion of last week, which prompts me to bring up this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7022598.stm

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.

Although I agree with Hutcheon that postmodern parody is useful in contesting representations in history and the history of authorization, it seems to be a device that can easily slip into the (scaaaary) category of Jameson’s pastiche. It’s not just that it legitimizes that which is parodied while subverting it—I actually think that such double-codedness, that is must work within such contradictions and problematic relationships, makes it an especially complex and interesting form of art & representation.