Introduction

In his book, The Condition of Postmodernity, David Harvey identified the loss of meta or grand narratives as one of the key differences between the modern and postmodern periods. Harvey explained that the artists of the modern age still viewed their role as interpreters of the metanarratives or universalisms found in everyday life, in the hope that these would ground us as individuals in a larger vision of what it means to be part of a collective society.

The postmodern age that followed forced us to question the power structures that determine which narratives are valid and which are not. It also created a society highly focused on the individual. Sceptical of sincerity. What this reproduced culturally was transactional. Cold. Literary theorist Fredric Jameson argued that the postmodern turn was itself the cultural logic of late capitalism. That the fragmentation and retreat into the self were not a free choice but a symptom of what this economic order produces when it dissolves the collective.

In his work, The Political Unconscious, Jameson insisted on a different path. Instead of abandoning grand narratives altogether, he argued that art and narrative cannot exist outside the material and ideological conditions under which they are made. For Jameson, the ultimate horizon of interpretation is the metanarrative of class struggle— not one narrative among many, but the condition that produced them. To strip art of this political consciousness is to rob it of exactly what makes it so powerful. So, of course, the insistence on separating art from politics is itself a political act that serves power.

We see this magazine as a place where such ideas can be formed and debated. A space to explore how we, as artists, can imagine beyond what is. Not to provide an escape, but to confront what is now and what might be possible. In the first edition of Metanarratives, we ask: What is the role of art and politics in the age of postcapitalism?  

—Danielle Maisano