Cultural (il)Logic

Jameson introduces postmodernism as being wrongly lumped by "periodizing hypotheses," his scornful contempt of such attempts being his motivation for highlighting the differences between modernism and its predecessor. The author is aware that with increasing capacity to differentiate between the two movements, there is a decreasing in logical placement of a piece in these two categories; yet, he attempts to reinstate his own method for categorizing the two post-haste. Perhaps by lessening his very argument with this paradox, he hopes for his piece to keep itself from becoming the "terrifying machine" of a total system of logic, thus using the winner-loses complex to win by losing... but I digress.

Postmodernism could followingly be described as such: it is a movement without movement, in the sense that it poses to natural disruption with the culture of its time. Though postmodernism my as well be a regurgitation of modernism (quite possibly analagous to how a machine regurgitates an image). The artform is no longer opposed as modernism was, and is instead accepted or even encouraged (An aside - Berkeleyans are known for their active protesting, but by protesting they are technically abiding by their own customs and thus not protesting the now-old novelty of protest...). Aluding to the previous reading of TJ Clark, industrialism was quite opposed because of its offensiveness to the eyes and so forth, but it has progressed into cultrual acceptance as we are further disposed to furthering ourselves in technology and efficiency (or perhaps reproduction and quantity as Jameson might have us belive).

Possibly erroneous contempt aside, Jameson has covered many views and (latent appeal to Jameson admirers goes here =).

Question One: Jameson says that Van Gogh's painting of the peasant shoes serves no meaning when taken out of context with the historical moment from which "the finished work emerges." So then why is it that such modern art is appreciated today if we do not live in such a historical context as would serve best for the understanding of such a piece? Is it as simple as saying possibly that living in that historical moment would have blinded us because of the cultural views of the time? In that case, how then did Van Gogh think to honor such a thing at such a time himself?

Question Two: What is the diffence between the artist Munch's model of "inside and outside," and between the Freudian model of "latent and manifest"?