Oh yeah, I totally get that...

Are we in on the joke, or part of the process? Personally, I believe both. In post-modernism, there exists a multiple of receptions. Some could say that the receiver's reaction is based on knowledge of the work or artist, sense of humor, and even intelligence level. Herein lies the pretense behind post-modern followers. To understand the "irony" or whatever you want to label it as behind postmodern art, one has to first be out of the loop. In being out of the loop, we see a piece of post-modern work and don't "get it". Then later after studying the piece or the artist, or after reading about the intention behind the work (or by having one of your art institute friends whisper in your ear at a gallery opening), you're in the club. With this definition, one could tag post-modernism as progressive as opposed to the posed reactionary. The process of understanding post-modernism is one that imposes a certain amount of thought processes and critical thinking-which I believe is a very good thing. In my opinion, most art imposes said process-but for the sake of staying on topic, post-modern art requires of us a little hard work in understanding something that is almost always gratifying in it's comprehension. This is a positive thing when we stop to take a look at all of the pop-art and pop-culture that is an intentionally blatant attempt to force a concept or idea down our throats before we get the chance to even have an opinion on it. Post-modern art allows us to think critically about what we see instead of just telling us what to think or how to feel. The negative aspect of being "in the club" is probably the cynicism that comes with it. A productive and healthy person who understands (or at least think they do) a piece of work, should be apt to enjoying it and thereafter perpetuate the understanding to those less versed. However, this unfortunately is rarely the case. Anyone who hangs around a bunch of art students can tell you that without instant comprehension or enjoyment of the subtext in a piece of art, a subtle alienation hangs in the air. A judgment is passed, and you have not met the savvyness quota. This is only a problem to those not in the club-but in alienating those less able to quickly grasp whatever joke or idea that the artist is attempting to convey, members of the club are not only discouraging non members from this critical thinking that is oh-so-beneficial to developing the artistic thought process, but also widening the gap between cultures. By making the understanding of such art less accessible to the public, they are only perpetuating the ignorance that they will often openly mock with those who do "get it". This kind of ignorance is hardly ever self-induced, and as a responsible member of any intellectually based "club", one should devote at least a little time to expanding the level of appreciation for the art upon which they've built their own little pedestal.

The Van Gogh painting can be thought of as modern because of it's deliberateness and self-descriptiveness. These are shoes, peasant's shoes, you can tell that they're peasant shoes because they are worn and common looking, and because of the name of the painting. The context is provided, the subtext is relatively easier to grasp. The Warhol painting is less concise, Diamond Dust Shoes does not mean anything to us without further knowledge of Warhol and his works. Who's shoes are these? What are they worn for? Why is this perspective taken? This painting takes on an air of irony, as the image is clear and deliberate-looking, yet agreeably unclear in meaning and therefore a piece that requires work and knowledge to understand.