Parody and Pastiche

Jameson claims that modernist styles become post-modernist codes. The postmodern parody is a blank parody, without bite or ulterior motives, just a result of cherry-picking the components. On the other hand, Hutcheon defends the parody as a self-reflexive practice and goes deeper with a diferentiation between parody and pastiche.

Jameson points out that the post-modern architecture lacks of principles and chases an over stimulation. For example, the retro style is a glossy hyperstylised way to enhance qualities and fashion attributes. All of this is a desperate attempt to make sense of an age that doesn't (Jameson, 1984: 16). There is no grand narrative, it is just a superficial recylcing of dead cultures (Jameson, 1984: 17) as a resignation, resulting in a depthless technologic reproduction weakening of historicity.

Hutcheon makes a difference between pastiche and parody pointing out first that all post-modern works are critical or ironic-reading parodies 'as a new model for mapping the relationship between art and the world' and as 'a dialog with the past' (Hutcheon, 1989: 180). The paradox of modernist parody is that despite of partially lacking of depth and meaningfulness, it actually has a vision of interconnectedness, and its ironic historical references are not nostalgia or 'cannibalisation' (Hutcheon, 1989: 182). Besides, this parody is not trying to escape from the historical, social and ideological contexts. In fact, the intention is to foreground them (Hutcheon, 1989: 183).

Jameson explains the parody of post-modernism in a way that despises the reasons behind this artistic movement following social and political interests, whereas Hutcheon points out this not only contradicting his arguments, but pointing out that it is an opinion coming from an anglo-white male from the western who rejects pluralism behaving like a snob.