Reflections on Jameson, Warhol and postmodernism

There is so very much to say about Jameson's article -- amazing there are words left in the universe after he finished gobbling them up. Perhaps he didn't intend everyone to feel completely stupid as he laced his nearly impenetrable writing with references to German sociologists and foreign phrases. Anyway, on my second pass, and with the help of the Internet, I struggled through and mostly understood his points, though I could be way off base. I'm sure I will find out. I will focus briefly on Warhol here as I do not have time to construct a plethora of 128-word sentences with 20 commas at the moment.

 Apparently, to my reading, Jameson is not a big fan of what he calls postmodern work. For example, he calls it "empirical, chaotic and heterogeneous" and, in the case of artist (I suspect Jameson would put that word in quotes or pop in an alleged in front) Andy Warhol's "Diamond Dust Shoes," Jameson thinks it's "a new kind of superficiality." He doesn't seem to care for photography in general and specifically dislikes the appearance of the photographic negative in art, which he says confers a "deathly quality." Add that to the "glitter of gold dust" and the "spangling of gilt sand" and he nearly passes out from all this "gratuitous frivolity," as if he personally had to squeeze his Marxist feet into those capitalist, pointy shoes. Jameson is offended that he sees nothing in Warhol's art warning the bourgeoisie to step outside the door of their capitalist coffee houses and smell the Marxist coffee.

I do agree that Warhol's art lacks the sheer effort and social commentary of Van Gogh's boots; the Dutch master's work is superior in aesthetics and in meaning. So, this all begs the question: what is art supposed to do? Can at least some of it be pleasing to the eye and still be of value? Just as religious art reflected the cultural values of the period, art based on commodification may in fact reflect on our period, or at least a segment of it. Has our commercial, capitalist society penetrated our lives to the degree that even art is expressionless and merely serves as one more advertisement for products? What is the danger of this or is it just dumb? Is it a slippery slope and should we wrest control from the capitalists before they completely capture us? Are the machines taking over in this proto-industrial world? Is the commodification of art just another indication that the money-grubbing corporations are inculcating us with their view of money as supreme? Is art controlled by space as opposed to time, as Jameson postulates?