Postmodernism's dilemma not addressed

Just read Prof. M. Shanks's post about an item of installation art called "Die Familie Schneider"; here is his conclusion:

The archaeological sensibility says that we only ever have fragments to work upon, that every locale is a potential scene of crime where anything could be relevant, that there remains to much to be discovered beneath the surface of things, and much that we will not like, because the stories we have been told are meant to console and quieten us …

Well, there is a fundamental problem with this approach -- the very essential dilemma of postmodernism -- namely that if one experiences any places with a specifically archaeological sensibility, one is implicitly consoling and quietening oneself with that very consciousness. If you attend an art exhibit, you are ipso facto viewing art, however realistic (like Die Familie Schneider), and the awareness of that never slips your mind. If you are constantly chanting the idea that "much is to be discovered beneath the surface of things" you remain on the surface forever.

Any attempt at articulation is a separation from experience, a wrenching out of context. Period. Full stop. Yet the conclusion that M. Shanks wants to draw from that hard fact is that if one just wrenches delicately, cautiously, patiently enough . . . maybe the contextual damage will not be that great. But, sadly, you can't escape the wolves of logic by running on tiptoe. It would be better to turn and whack them with a big stick, and go down fighting.