Postmodern collaboration abandons the manifesto-driven vanguard project entirely

Evidence

But at this point a second historical specification intervenes: for whatever this collaboration may be, it is surely also no longer the vanguard project of the older modernist avant-gardes, whose disappearance or impossibility has, of course, often been taken as the constitutive feature of all the Postmodernisms. … This installation does not, in other words, project either a stylistic politics of a more generalizable type nor any particular cultural one, as surrealism, or any of the architectural avantgardes, once preeminently did — either propagating the protopolitical virus through the power of some new period style or invoking a universal program for radical culture-political change by way of this or that individual work or text, building, or painting. … Here also, then, as in the other Postmodernisms, we are beyond the avant-gardes; yet with this difference that collective work is here still affirmed as something other than mere period likeness or the anecdotal meeting of the minds between individual painters or architects. — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 390

Categorization

• DEFINE: Precisely characterizes what distinguishes postmodern collective work from both the modernist avant-garde and mere period style — key for the parody/pastiche distinction the reader needs.
• XREF: connects to: The postmodern aesthetic of hybridity rendered the manifesto obsolete — Perry Anderson, The Origins of Postmodernity, 239; Postmodern subjectivity replaced the heroic vanguard self with shifting affinity coalitions — Marianne DeKoven, Utopia Limited: The Sixties and the…, 648