There is a reciprocal polemic in art history based on the opposing truths of aesthetic symbolism and mathematical idealism. Art history follows a pendular path between the two. Formalism is based on the former. Structuralism is based on the latter. But Structuralism is not the much anticipated paradigmatic shift that marks a new direction in art. Rather, it represents the apogee of Modernism, and the conclusion of a continuous tradition.

When Modernism ends is decided according to the definition of Modern. If defined as the aesthetics of significant form that nearly choked itself to death with Color Field, then art has certainly passed beyond the tenets of Modernism. On the other hand, if Modernism is decided to include the manneristic and methodological investigations of Manet, Duchamp, Dada, Cubism, Surrealism, Action painting, the anxious object and the photo montage, then the precedent is well established for including Structuralism in the context of Modernism. Modernism has a wider base than can be explained with the aesthetics of significant form.

For all its distinctive attributes, Structuralism is only as postmodern as the Dada impulse that emerged with Post-Impressionism. Structuralism is rooted in Duchampian irony and developed on foundations laid by synthetic Cubism and Dada (the daddy-Buddha of postmodern). As a young artist, Duchamp worked through Post-Impressionist styles based on the Formalist aesthetic. He reject them as 'retinal' and turned to an alternative view of art -- one based on pun and indexed process rather than paint and metaphoric symbol. Duchamp recognized the avant-garde as its own direction distinct from the stylistic progression of Formalism. His work differed from his contemporaries in its relationship to previous art. The change was from stylistic progression to novel idea. In his brilliance, Duchamp successfully carried two distinct aesthetic perspectives in his work. His art inspired the perceptual response, at that time attributable to significant form, as he led the way in exploring the semiotic nature of art.

Despite the conceptual nature of postmodern Structuralism, the underlying preoccupations with gestalt recognition, self-discovery and historical context persevere. And there is still the traditional exhibitionism and narcissism of the art activity. The painter is no less the picador in the postmodern arena. The postmodern painting, as with the paintings of Modernism, challenges its own existence as art. Both push the envelope or they are of little value. In a tradition that started with the Impressionists, postmodernism continues to isolate self-analytic signifiers to reflect on the nature of art. Modern and postmodern are both art about art. High Modern and postmodern are as similar as two peas from Pollock's pod. It was only after structural linguistics provided a new theoretical framework for speaking about art that deconstructive strategies took on the look of a new direction.

The art establishment assimilated the radical implications of postmodernism without breaking stride. Postmodern artists still support the established hierarchy of universities, galleries, critics and art publications with measured innovations aimed at insuring recognition, obtaining tenure and gaining monetary reward.