Modernism is defined by market hostility while postmodernism affirms the market

Evidence

Perry Anderson reminds me, however, that in this respect the deepest and most fundamental feature shared by all the modernisms is not so much their hostility to a technology some (like the Futurists) actually celebrated, but rather their hostility to the market itself. The centrality of this feature is then confirmed by its inversion in the various Postmodernisms, which, even more wildly different from each other than the various modernisms, all at least share a resonant affirmation, when not an outright celebration, of the market as such. — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 665

Categorization

• XREF: This inversion of the defining relation to the market is a clean, testable axis for the reader’s falsifiability push — and connects to the shift in capitalism itself (monopoly to late/postindustrial) that Jameson elsewhere ties to the waning of affect. — connects to: Postmodern architecture rejected utopian planning in favor of market-driven spontaneity — Perry Anderson, The Origins of Postmodernity, 59; Postmodernism theory was born in the euphoria of the Reagan bull market — Perry Anderson, The Origins of Postmodernity, 237
• SHARE: Perfect counterpoint for anyone discussing whether market affirmation is the signature of contemporary cultural production — the critic who named this inversion.
• SEED: Angle: tracing the market affirmation across current cultural objects — tech-startup aesthetics, gig-economy self-branding — as proof that we still inhabit a postmodern dominant several decades on.