Reading "The Beaubourg Effect: Implosion and Deterrence," I couldn't help but feel like Baudrillard needs to chill out a little. His hysterical writing gets a bit out of hand! But he makes some interesting observations about the Beaubourg, in relation to architecture, its role, and mass culture. Additionally, he hints at the whole art debate we talked about earlier with Derrida, Lyotard, etc.
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.
Very quick post: I found Anderson's discussions on art to be one of the more worthwhile sections of _Origins_, outlining the after effects of Jameson's "capture" of postmodernity on the art world (or just approaches to art in the seventies and on)--new topics to our class/me. I found his description of the citra vs. ultra approaches after the crisis of postmodernity particularly interesting and I keep refering back to it, trying to place certain artists (especially contemporary ones and the ones A. offers) within this dichotomy with varying success...
In the beginning of Origins, Lyotard is quoted as saying that "What alone could destroy capitalism was the world-wide 'drift of desire' among the young, away from libidinal investment in the system, to libidinal power," which he views as being enacted by works of art (27). But, by the end of the book, I'm seeing very little possibility for such revolutionary works of art.
I've been thinking about our second concern according to our syllabus, the status of the subject within the postmodern. In our readings last week, the individual's role cropped up in authors' considerations of art in the modern (or the straining-against-the-modern) era. For example, I've been thinking about how we define art and how this includes or precludes the individual. According to Benjamin, "one of the foremost tasks of art has always been the creation of a demand which could be fully satisfied only later"--that is, the creation of new art forms. (p. 237).