Page 199 - Cultural Theory and Popular Culture an Introduction
P. 199

CULT_C09.qxd  10/24/08  17:25  Page 183







                                                                         Postmodernism in the 1960s  183

                      Jameson (1988) argues that postmodernism was born out of

                          the shift from an oppositional to a hegemonic position of the classics of mod-
                          ernism, the latter’s conquest of the university, the museum, the art gallery network
                          and the foundations, the assimilation . . . of the various high modernisms, into the
                          ‘canon’ and the subsequent attenuation of everything in them felt by our grand-
                          parents to be shocking, scandalous, ugly, dissonant, immoral and antisocial (299).

                        For the student of popular culture perhaps the most important consequence of the
                      new  sensibility,  with  its  abandonment  of  ‘the  Matthew  Arnold  notion  of  culture,
                      finding it historically and humanly obsolescent’ (Sontag, 1966: 299), is its claim that
                      ‘the distinction between “high” and “low” culture seems less and less meaningful’ (302).
                      In this sense, it is a sensibility in revolt against what is seen as the cultural elitism of
                      modernism. Modernism, in spite of the fact that it often quoted from popular culture,
                      is marked by a deep suspicion of all things popular. Its entry into the museum and the
                      academy was undoubtedly made easier (regardless of its declared antagonism to ‘bour-
                      geois philistinism’) by its appeal to, and homologous relationship with, the elitism of
                      class society. The postmodernism of the late 1950s and 1960s was therefore in part a
                      populist attack on the elitism of modernism. It signalled a refusal of what Andreas
                      Huyssen (1986) calls ‘the great divide . . . [a] discourse which insists on the categorical
                      distinction between high art and mass culture’ (viii). Moreover, according to Huyssen,
                      ‘To  a  large  extent,  it  is  by  the  distance  we  have  travelled  from  this  “great  divide”
                      between  mass  culture  and  modernism  that  we  can  measure  our  own  cultural  post-
                      modernity’ (57).
                        The American and British pop art of the 1950s and 1960s presented a clear rejection
                      of the ‘great divide’. It rejected Arnold’s definition of culture as ‘the best that has been
                      thought and said’ (see Chapter 2), preferring instead Williams’s social definition of
                      culture as ‘a whole way of life’ (see Chapter 3). British pop art dreamed of America
                      (seen as the home of popular culture) from the grey deprivation of 1950s Britain. As
                      Lawrence Alloway, the movement’s first theorist, explains,


                          The area of contact was mass produced urban culture: movies, advertising, science
                          fiction,  pop  music.  We  felt  none  of  the  dislike  of  commercial  culture  standard
                          among most intellectuals, but accepted it as a fact, discussed it in detail, and con-
                          sumed it enthusiastically. One result of our discussions was to take Pop culture out
                          of the realm of ‘escapism’, ‘sheer entertainment’, ‘relaxation’, and to treat it with
                          the seriousness of art (quoted in Frith and Horne, 1987: 104).

                        Andy Warhol was also a key figure in the theorizing of pop art. Like Alloway, he
                      refuses to take seriously the distinction between commercial and non-commercial art.
                      He sees ‘commercial art as real art and real art as commercial art’ (109). He claims that
                      ‘“real” art is defined simply by the taste (and wealth) of the ruling class of the period.
                      This implies not only that commercial art is just as good as “real” art – its value simply
                      being defined by other social groups, other patterns of expenditure’ (ibid.). We can
   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204