FROM QUOTATION, THROUGH COLLAGE, TO PARODY: POSTMODERNISM’S RELATIONSHIP WITH ITS PAST SAM L. RICHARDS INTRODUCTION: ON QUOTATION Tout texte se construit comme mosaïque de citations, tout texte est absorption et transformation d’un autre texte. (Every text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations, every text is an absorption and a transformation of another text.)1 —Julia Kristeva UOTATION MARKS, ABOVE ALL, INDICATE that the “author” consciously disowns their contents. They direct the “reader” to send approbation to whom it is due, and deflect disagreement towards an alternate and more distant Other. Quotation facilitates an abdication of authorial responsibility by temporarily transferring the energies of the interpreter to another source. Quotation is not the author’s own. This act of disownership can potentially be imbued with an attitude of Q “ 78 Perspectives of New Music suspicion or deference, skepticism or agreement, reservation or endorsement. It is the dichotomous nature of these concomitant pairs of uniquely opposing authorial positions—each conveyed via identical punctuation—that makes them capable of generating a double-coded discourse. Scare quotes are a visually identical incarnation of their authoritative counterpart, the citation, and although it is tempting to conceptually bifurcate the two—like a punctuational homonym, whose meaning is entirely different yet whose appearance is the same—such division is counterproductive if the exact relationship between them is not carefully articulated. Disownership is the similarity between scare quotes and the citation, and authorial tone is the difference. Usually. Quotation marks implicitly flag their contents as having an origin. Concepts that lack historicity imply a false sense of objectivity, and if an idea ostensibly always has been, there is a seductive and all-toohuman temptation to make the logically fallacious leap to the conclusion that the idea always will be. What has an origin is also often a construction, and, as such, it is therefore susceptible to deconstruction. Explicitly framing an idea as a quotation, therefore, historicizes and highlights the borders of a perhaps previously inscrutable object. It transforms ballooned and once seemingly objective observations into subjective perspectives; in an almost astonishing transmutation, ideas “captured,” unveiled, and exhibited within inverted commas have their discursive shield of impenetrable iconicity removed. Quotation marks denude their objects. And yet, while an idea contained within quotation marks can be made suspect, it can also be tenaciously authoritative. Quotation can be used to reinforce, reify, support, concretize, justify, bolster, or strengthen existing positions. It can exert its force like a campaign, sweeping away dissent, anomaly, noise, and aberration with an effective , yet, at times, sinister elegance. Scholasticism’s foundational modus operandi relies on the dogmatic decrees of “authorship.” Analogous to law, precedent of quotation reigns supreme, exerting an enormous paradigmatic inward pressure to conform and work within established conceptual bounds.2 From this vantage, quotation is the formalized propagation of deference. It is the ritual enactment of ideological servitude. It is a conceptual surrender made public, a concession by the author that another has, at another time, in another place, composed something that the author considers to be superior to their own. One quotes when “original” ideas have become exhausted, and when one senses a scarcity of aesthetic options.3 By quoting another, the authors themselves undergo a momentous sea change of function, not only ceding auctorial vision to another party, but also assuming the new From Quotation, Through Collage, To Parody 79 mantle of reproducer, redistributor, and redisseminator, resulting in a kind of “death” of authorship.4 In a conspicuous, yet profound, manner, quotation weaves the historical into the now. It is quintessentially an expression of what has come before: what has been written, what has been said, what has been articulated, what has been claimed, what has been argued, what has been implied, and what has been alluded to. There is no future within those framing marks, only past, yet by reinstating what has been into what is, the author reenacts, reapplies, reperforms, and repurposes the old, exacting a more pervasive chronological and discursive influence from the “text” than what could be wrought from within the quotation ’s original “context.” Indeed, at the very least, quotation marks indicate a contextual change.5 From multiple contexts multiple meanings ensue...
Read full abstract