I was going to do an analytical take-down of Alan Kirby’s pseudo-modernism but I realised it wasnt worth my time. Such a vile elitist, judgemental, negative, reactionary concept deserves nothing except derision.
The originators and proponents of it deserve nothing except our pity for their meaningless misguided lives and analysis and unasked for, unwarranted and totally undeserved comments and theories on ours.
See also: Digimodernism
Confusionism 
Such a vile elitist, judgemental, negative, reactionary concept deserves nothing except derision.
——————–
It would do, if it was the way you describe it. But it isn’t. His book Digimodernism may make it clearer why this concept isn’t how you describe it, if you’re interested (you’re probably not).
Thank you for your response.
Digimodernism or pseudo-modernism or whatever the current label is remains descriptively analytical with little to no guide or prediction from my reading of it. Even a quick look at the piece linked to: narrowed intellectualism, conformist, before being a golden age of intelligence etc, exposes just a few negative and judgemental opinions. I can only hope that digimodernism will be dynamic and evolutionary so as to develop into something more encouraging than just negative desciptivity.
As a philosophical comment on what current (western) society/culture is like it may stand a test. I will leave that to others to judge. However, that is seperate from being a replacement art movement and guiding philosophy to post-modernism
Peace.
Hello confusionism,
A little late to the party myself…
In brief, I disagree with Kirby and his rhetoric of pseudo-modernism, because it is basically postmodernism with lipstick.
Kirby is too reactionary rather than descriptive in what replaces post-modernism. That is no surprise as one feature of the post post-modern period is that it is led by those younger and hence less infected with the post-modern period. It will in all likelihood be this coming generation that eventually describe it. I say eventually as the perverted institutions of academia and art are infested with and overvalue those of age and those who have been mostly through the academic or educational propaganda industries and who hence defend them. Those more able to see and more able to describe (and I would not include us at Confusionism in this) sit outside these halls of control and hence go largely unnoticed.
The other question is, when this coming generation eventually do reach positions where they can describe post post-modernism, will it be anything other than a brief historical footnote as it is likely that there will then be a post post post-modern period. The other consideration is will the coming generation describe it as it really was/is or will they have been propagandized by the institutions of control in reaching positions where they can describe it. These are the questions, I believe and as with most Confusionist notions there does not have to be an answer as the consideration of the question without desire or need for answer remains paramount.
I appreciate you sharing this article.Thanks Again. Really Cool.