What Comes After Post-Modernism? The World May Never Know

Fredric Jameson's writing on post-modernism attempts to explain the differences of modernism and post-modernism as the end of the end of the artist as the creator of the new. I believe that Jameson is in favor of modernism, far more than he is with post-modernism for this reason. It's true, in post-modernism the artist is not always at the point of creation so much as they are at the point of presentation. Jameson does not seem to give this fact much credit. For me at least, art is something that provides a record of social or intellectual commentary on our existence, giving people a sense of what it means to exist. Even within post-modernism this commentary is evident, regardless if an image is being re-used because it forms new meaning as it is presented in a different way by the artist. Does this remove the artist from the traditional creative process? Sure, Marcel Duchamp didn't hand make his urinal, and Andy Warhol didn't originally design the Campbell's soup can, but they presented them in a new way as means to convey a larger message, and provide a liberating commentary not only on art, but the world. I only find myself agreeing with Jameson when I begin to think what is next. We have not made much progress artistically in the past forty years, and I believe that this is the rut that Jameson believes is created with post-modernism. As such we are so conditioned to think "What is next? What comes after?" Maybe the beauty of post-modernism is that we no longer have to think about what is next because we don't need to improve upon artistic method, so much as our means of communication in art.