It's a bit of a rough statement, and really feeds into the grand narrative type of thinking, but it is quite possible that the "post" used to try to differentiate the parent (Modernism) from it's child (postModernism) was doomed from the start.
The problem lies in the reality that postModernism actually replaced Modernism as a grand narrative. The added moniker of "post" just was a random verbal appendage that was catchy enough to have fashionable appeal to both the marketing needs of the gallery system and PHD candidates. Besides, it's always fun to protest the old ways. (too bad the rebellious youth discovers (s)he is the embodiment of the teaching of the previous generation no matter how much rebellion exists)
I don't want to replace postModernism with some other kind of (named/un-named, organized/chaotic) grand narrative. But, I do want to bring attention to the dogmatic nature of ANY movement once it gains momentum. While, initially, someone is only asking questions. Historically, that is what happens. (Hegel would be proudly predicting the next step) But, as soon as an idea is formed, the antithesis arrives.
My thoughts were better in the car. But, upon further reflection, any conclusion is against the point. Words are constricting and oppressive and I don't want to be defined by that against which I rebel (like so many other art movements, including post modernism).
Random thoughts are encouraged....
down the rabbit hole