I suppose my critique of postmodernism is on a theoretical level. The fundamental idea behind postmodernism is that "there is no there." The notion here is that judgments and assessments are difficult because of the decenterered and fragmented reality in which we inhabit. For example, language is sought to be overcome and centered judgments are averted. Yet, in making these claims, a specific claim is made. For instance, if language is sought to be overcome the only way this can be articulated is through language. If judgments are to be averted, this itself becomes a judgment. In each setting, something that is sought to be deconstructed is actually reconstructed. In a sense, postmodern philosophy and the way of thought within it seeks to resurrect the dead in order to kill it again. The central design of the philosophy is to define itself so strongly against an established order or set of ideas that it does a good job in actually raising these notions in its desire to overcome them. This becomes one of the fundamental critiques of postmodernism in that it almost has a parasitical relationship with methodologies of thought that preceded it in that it is unable to fully overcome or appropriate these schools of thought.
I couldn't disagree more. Post-modernism moves past the limitations of realism, seeking to utter the ineffable, to express those elements of human existence beyond measurability, beyond the obvious. It is a noble endeavor to reach beyond realism, to welcome into one's art the transcendal.