The question of whether any Maltese work of art or cultural object may be classified as postmodernist according to the accepted framework of scholarly definition is problematic and wholly intriguing. Postmodernism needs to be thought out conceptually; chronological and stylistic groupings impose limitations on studying the actual experience of this cultural phenomenon. It would be a mistake to discuss postmodernism as a historical period. Describing it as a part within a sequence of events would lead us to forget that this condition is very much alive today. But how exactly does Maltese culture manifest postmodern ideas and aesthetics?

Luke Azzopardi, a master's student in the Department of History of Art, is researching Malta's postmodern identity in relation to fashion, architecture and pop culture under the tutelage of Dr. Giuseppe Schembri Bonaci. His inquiry into the image of beauty as circulated in Maltese fashion, TV, celebrations, and particular venues is developing a language with which to talk about aspects of contemporary culture. Many of his case studies are often, and quite deservedly so, objects of public ridicule. These include theatre and TV costumes, some late 90s/early 2000s examples of fashion photography, the copying and juxtaposition of architectural styles, and certain festive paraphernalia.

Luke's project is a much-needed attempt to establish a mode of academic discourse to address that which is immediately dismissed as kitsch or trash. His premise is a straightforward one; if these cultural objects exist, then we must understand why they do and also why they continue to be produced. The concepts of Jean Baudrillard, Frederic Jameson, Susan Sontag and several other seminal authors have seeped into his work, enriching discourse on a significant part of Maltese contemporary visual culture. I believe his research approach to be a refreshing addendum to current art historical scholarship because it centres on objects and events that fall within the bracket of low art, today more suitably referred to as pop culture.

This research develops upon an erudite essay by Dr. Schembri Bonaci called 'The Live Tradition of Maltese Baroque: Cosmopolitanism and Insularity in the Twentieth Century'. It was presented as a paper at the Warburg Institute in London in 2014 at a conference on Malta and the Baroque convened by Schembri Bonaci and Prof. Peter Mack. Recently, the essay was published in a festschrift in honour of Prof. Mario Buhagiar.

The fact that elements of Baroque culture persist in twenty-first-century Malta is explicit. As argued in the essay, there is a distinction between that which may be classified as living Baroque and that which is imitative of the Baroque. The former is the result of continued cultural practices, such as the village festa. The latter has nostalgic undertones and is deliberately produced to recreate the style of a past era. Montekristo Estate is a fascinating example of this desire to reproduce the beauty of an image which is now dead. The crucial question is whether this practice of resuscitating old styles can possess true beauty. The response to this is unequivocally negative. Treating beauty superficially results in styles with no meaning. Postmodernism negates cultural authenticity and alienates styles and practices from their place of origin. Thus, anything may be found anywhere and juxtaposed with everything.

For his research, Luke has devised a hierarchy of categories with which to frame the diverse manifestations of postmodernism in Maltese culture. These are defined by particular sentiments or values implicit within the production of objects. This methodology is significant because it considers the intention behind the production and popular dissemination of collective artefacts and forms of behaviour.

 A problem that Luke has encountered in his attempts to establish a postmodern historical narrative is that of comparing the chronological development of postmodernism in Malta with that discussed in postmodern theory. As noted in the introduction to this article, it would be incorrect to impose a fixed or restricting timeline onto the Maltese situation. However, the difficult temporal contrast that emerges from studying local postmodernism does underline interesting points of inquiry on the unfolding of history outside of its canonical discourse. I am also dealing with the problems implicit in the logic of linear historical frameworks in my research on modernism in Malta. Both Luke and myself are troubled by this question and are dealing with the notions of anachronism, backwardness, and lateness.

Luke's work is an incisive critical inquiry into an area of research that has hardly been unpacked by local scholarship. He is not simply analysing objects formally but digging deeper to extract a tentative definition of Maltese identity as conveyed by popular imagery in the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries. This approach stems from a preoccupation with essential ideas on beauty, meaning, and the relationship between consumerism and morality.