Postmodernism abolishes the inside-outside distinction that modernism still presupposed

Evidence

Postmodernism, I think, went on to abolish something even more fundamental, namely, the distinction between the inside and the outside (all the modernists ever said about that was that the one ought to express the other, which suggests that no one had yet begun to doubt whether you needed to have either of them at all in the first place). The former streets then become so many aisles in a department store, which, if you think about it in Japanese fashion, becomes the model and the emblem, the secret inner structure and the concept, of the postmodern “city,” already, appropriately enough, realized in certain sections of Tokyo. — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 259

Categorization

• DEFINE: Key definitional move in the parody-vs-pastiche framing: modernism vs postmodernism tracked by depth model (inside/outside) vs its abolition.
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s attempt to periodize style: here the architectural surface-as-department-store concretizes the aesthetic-form-is-economy claim. — connects to: Defining Postmodernism as internal to Modernism abandons its periodizing claim; Postmodern culture is tactile and operative, not visual and representational — Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, 237; Accelerated turnover transforms modernist aesthetics into postmodernist flux — David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An…, 940 (+11 more)