Метамодернизам: прилог Вермеленовом и Ван Дер Акеровом тумачењу појма
Metamodernism: A Contribution to Vermeulen and Van Den Akker’s Theoretical Conceptualisation

Summary/Abstract: Proclaiming boldly that “The postmodern years of plenty, pastiche, and parataxis are over” (Vermeulen and van den Akker 2010: 1), Vermeulen and van den Akker introduced their theory of metamodernism in 2010. The term metamodernism, inherited from the literary theory, where it was used to signify various transgressions of modern literary postulates (Zavarzadeh 1975: 75), was now meant to spread across art and culture and mark tendencies that surpass the postmodern principles of creative and cultural endeavour. Vermeulen and van den Akker conceived their theory as pertaining to a broad array of “tendencies [that] can no longer be explained in terms of the postmodern” sentiment of hopelessness or aesthetic principles of deconstruction and parataxis, but now give way to the feeling of hope and aesthetic “notions of reconstruction, myth and metaxis“ (Vermeulen and van den Akker 2010: 1–2). Several years after the theory of metamodernism was introduced, in their book about metamodernism (edited by Vermeulen, van den Akker and Alison Gibbons, 2017) the authors toned down the denunciation of postmodernism significantly. Rather than its strong opposition, postmodernism is here understood as an integrative element of metamodernism, which is specifically underlined by the explanation of the very term “metamodernism” by the means of the polysemic Greek prefix “meta” (beyond, with, above). The authors, now as editors, reconsider some earlier standpoints and, together with other colleagues, develop, apply and test the concept of metamodernism in different disciplines, predominantly from popular culture (film, sitcoms, contemporary crafts, literature, etc). Therefore, the main aim of this study was to inspect and deepen the meanings and major traits of metamodernism as the dominant cultural paradigm of the 21st century. The study turned to the decisions and inconsistencies in etymology and terminology, then the definition of metamodernism as a structure of feeling within a particular time, and finally, metamodernism as Neo-Romanticism. Metamodernism is, above all, understood as a sentiment and sensibility characteristic of our contemporaneity, rather than a creative/artistic manifesto or programme. The variations in terminology are thoroughly examined and some inconsistencies are carefully clarified. Even though the conceptual elaboration of metamodernism from 2017 was more explicitly shown as reflecting in the artistic and popular media texts, its elusive nature was still referred to consistently and described by Vermeulen and van den Akker as the cultural/historical imagination and general sensibility, the sentiment of the era, or, borrowed from Raymond Williams, a structure of feeling (van den Akker and Vermeulen 2017: Ch.1). The structure of feeling was discussed in relation with some other similar (yet still different) concepts. In particular, the study aimed to underline the metamodernist roots and Neo-Romantic traits in music. In conclusion, the study points to the ambivalent nature of theory of metamodernism, embracing, on the one hand, the principles of historicism and periodisation in art and culture, and, on the other, the meta-historical approach with metamodernism being an integrative, ever-oscillating amalgam of postmodern deconstruction, parataxis and pastiche, as well as modern reconstruction, myth and metaxis. Finally, the analytical writing style, despite all efforts to make the content more linear and even more structured, perfectly and inevitably reflects the nature of the phenomenon analysed. Thus, the subject remains rhizomatic and open for further reflections and implications.

• Details
• Contents