“Neo”, beyond short hand utility of demarking that time has come between, imparts oppositional value judgments:
- It can be pejorative, suggesting that the rediscovery pales in comparison to that which is being rediscovered (mannerism).
- It can be abusive suggesting a connection that does not really exist.
- It can be neutral, simply demarking that some kernel of what is being offered up rests on something that came before it.
- Or it can be affirmative, suggesting a “new” and presumably interesting take on ideas that came before while skipping over a presumptively unsatisfying in-between period a practitioner/critic doesn’t want to be associated with or connected to.
Minding the apparent gap(s) -- most things being dismissed still operate outside the spotlight -- what is “neo” is still a continuation – even if it drives the rediscovered idea/approach either to absurdity or to banality. For those content to accept the absurdity and banality and leave it at that, the vacuum is filled by arbitrariness for which the authority of power offers the only validation presumptively available. For those who don’t accept the absurdity and banality, it would seem the attack shouldn’t be against a term. Rather, the attack should consider what underlying misperceptions/misconceptions might have led to the absurdity or banality, which requires looking at the apparent continuum and its premises.
The ontological continues to be worth taking on rather than illustrated.