"The basic premise behind postmodern art is that all forms of novelty and rebellion have already been explored, and that even if that weren't true the particular emphasis on rejection of that which is old or already done is only handicapping to an artists self-expression."

So what I get from that is either everything art-wise has already been done (so why bother) or even if that isn't true, the simple fact that it might be true inhibits an artist from creating art.

Really what I like to create would be considered Impressionism. But as we all know, Impressionism ended about a hundred and twenty years ago.

Then I thought about the line above and decided maybe I am letting my self-expression be handicapped by the very belief in postmodernism.

Here's another thought. Art "isms", like we had in the twentieth century are equivalent to the MTV generation's view of television. Everything must be new, must be now, must be wow. Don't bore me with something already done because something new is only a mouse click away.

The Renaissance was an art movement that lasted one hundred years yet Fauvism lasted only four. Egyptian art remained virtually unchanged for 3,000 years yet pop art came and went before I had a chance to pick up my paint brush.

Perhaps modern art movements can last more than a week. Has everything thing that was impressionism been done? Did Monet really cover it all? Or could the movement continue on? Live side by side with other movements. Advance.