Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Andrew Wells

After reading this article I understand that Fredric Jameson is critiquing postmodernism form a Marxist perspective. He lays out the differences in culture between the modern and the postmodern times. Hes worried with the cultural expression and aesthetics linked with the differnt systems of production. He draw on the area of architecture, and art to show his arguments.

Postmodernism is presented in this article as a means of making a radical break from high modernism.
"The case for its existence depends on the hypothesis of some radical break or coupure, generaly traced back to the end of the 1950's or the early 1960's" (F, 482)
It's considered a culture dominant, but not a style.
James also adds on the breaking of the bounderies between high art and popular culture in a critical way; aesthetic populism (F, 483)

Jameson does a comparison of Van Gogh and Andy Warhol to explain one of the keys in distinguishing features of postmodernism, the fetish. In Van Goh's painting, being represented as high modernist, is put next with Any Warhol's "Diamond Dust Shoes," representing postmodern art. Jameson argues that Ein Paar Barnshuhe contains the whole object world of agriculture a misery and the fore is not considered a fetish since it does not hide the poor conditions it represents.

The best example found in the article was when Jameson refers to an architectural example of a postmodern building symbolic of the multinational world space in which we function in daily. We as the people who occupy this new space do not posses the perceptual equipment to match this new hyperspace.
"... the Bonaventura aspires to bring a total space, a complete world, a kind of miniature city..."(F, 509)
The point that Jameson is trying to make is that with this latest mutation in space, Postmodern Hyperspace, has succeeded in lowering the capacities of the person to locate itself to organize its current position from an external world.