Postmodernism doesn't exist.

The only Ghost Movement of the 20th century.

Postmodernism could be called a product of/reaction to modernism. It is the rebel child that focuses on the task of underlining its parents' empty promises. Unlike most of the children, this specific one never grows to a stage in which to shape its own personality. A stage in which to identify itself as a new, independent individual, rather than someone whose personality is only related to the parents. 

What happens with this need to break with the arrogance of Modernism? Nothing. It dissolves in the years giving birth (and space) to an incredible number of different avant-guard movements.

If we ask  Jean Francois Lyotard what Post-modernism is he replies: "A work can become modern only if it is first postmodern. Post-modernism thus understood is not modernism at its end but in the nascent state, and this state is constant." (The post Modern Condition 1984, Manchester University Press) The philosopher gave this description in 1979, even though the book was only published five years later. If we consider that the word Post-modern was first used in the late 30s, well, how come the movement's manifesto was only published forty years later? I mean, in this perspective Lyotard's work looks more like an epitaph than a manifesto. Nevertheless, this book is what everyone refers to when writing about Postmodern art. Now, I don't mean to be arrogant nor cynical in any way, but this book is NOT a manifesto. Usually in a manifesto, a bunch of crazy artists come together and produce a document in which they make clear what they are doing and why they are doing it. Sometimes they make a bigger effort and write a document where they explain the rules of their style. The post modern condition, as its subtitle suggests, is "A report on knowledge". 
It is an interesting philosophical dissertation on the effects of modern (contemporary) life on men and society in all its expressions, including art.

Usually artistic movements are well represented by the work of their main protagonists. So I suggest we leave the official theory of Postmodernism and try to figure out what it is by listing some famous postmodern artists.

Surprise! According to Google, there is no such a thing as postmodern artists. They are mentioned everywhere and related to everything but no one makes a single name. So, everybody is sure they exist even though no one has ever seen them. From this I one could take there are either no postmodern artists or they are God(s).
Gombrich, in one of the latest editions of his "The Story Of Art" (1989, Phaidon),mentions two architects as purveyors of the movemen: Johnson and Stirling. "A world History of Art" (7th edition, 2009) was also of little help in identifying fundamental artists: talking about different aspects of the movement but only mentioning names of Architects who are part of more specific groups such as The Brutalists. Oh, I forgot, no mention of Johnson and Stirling here.

My conclusion and a proposal (and I stop here only because I keep writing too much):

There is no such a thing as Post-Modernism in Art, so let's stop using the word every time we talk about the trans-avant-guard movements. It is the use of the prefix, 'post' that fuels my debate. Couldn't Postmodernist architecture that reacts to the austerity of modernism by creating skyscrapers that look like a Leon Battista Alberti's bad dream, for example, in fact be described as neo-neo-classicism?


References

Google search (just to make a point)
http://www.postmoderno.it/
Wikipedia (for a general idea)


E.H. Gombrich, The Story Of Art, 1989, Phaidon
H.Honour&J.Fleming, A World History of Art, 2009, Laurence King
J.F. Lyotard,  The post Modern Condition 1984, Manchester University Press


Image http://it.123rf.com/photo_9208085_immagine-vuota-con-telaio-d-oro-in-una-galleria-3d-rendering-di-immagini.html