Are we agreeing that postmodernism is a thing that's been foisted on society by various artists and thinkers then and not simply a condition they're responding to? Seems as though that's up for debate.
Arguably there are artists of varying directions of intensity, some of whom ended up better aligning with the eventual collective trajectory, which doesn't necessarily mean that their intensity
caused that similar collective outcome.
Of the set of artists whose intensities ended up heralding the development of the collective, some were more marketable than others, no?
So I think the development of any such meta-narrative into postmodernism is a sort of gradient with critical points, no? A vast incorporeal transformation, or rather a continuum of such transformation, out of which we can ascertain certain critical points, but that doesn;t necessarily mean those points were instantiated in such-and-such moments.
But I generally think that the drawing of a map impacts the extension of that map, and that the map isn't solely determined by the territory as it passes through our senses.
That was a speed post, probably incoherent.