ABSTRACT
In the same way scholars now avoid triumphal accounts of modernity, it is probably best they do the same for postmodernism. Studying modernity invariably results in the realization that all epistemic and stylistic ‘moves’ associated with postmodernism can be found in modernity. Perhaps the only useful move(ment) in modernity is toward immanence; the infinite potential(s) of our collective powers here and now. Modernisms however are also responsible for controlling forces such as private property, (neo)colonial categorization and racialized hierarchies, which interfere with realizing immanence (Hardt & Negri, 2001). In the twentieth century, postmodernisms helped disrupt a modern teleology in Art and Aesthetic experience that needlessly, and to the detriment of the political possibility of Art, categorized it into particular historical ‘boxes’ there by blurring the edges of Art and Life (Rancière, 2013). However, this does not necessarily mean that postmodernist Art itself returned politico-esthetic potential to Art, rather it called into question whether Art and Aesthetic experience have the potential to ‘free themselves’ from a priori forms.
