I'm suspicious that we've even begun to go beyond modernism--labels like "metamodernism" function as brands that let us know that the poetry is both 'new' and 'sincere' and devoid of irony, a kind of "romantic pragmatism" (whatever that means). They propose a movement "unhindered by ideological anchorage," but the proposal already functions as ideological anchorage itself--otherwise, why have a manifesto at all?
David Foster Wallace was wrong: irony is not simply a postmodern posture but rather an intrinsic part of the way in which we read every text. Modernism was not simply a movement that occurred (and which we now need to get over), but is a part of the way in which normal people function in everyday life: we go to the grocery store, we drive cars, we go back and sleep in our homes, etc.
While things like the radio, television, internet, cheaper travel, cheaper homes, "democracy," certainly make this more complicated, enough so that we might feel the need to use the word "postmodern" to describe some of these particular cultural problems or problems within modernism, I think it's a mistake to just describe it as a linear succession of movements--in a way that just falls back into the modernist agenda with its assumptions about the "progression" of art and culture. I guess don't really have any strong feelings for or against the poetry but I find myself suspicious and confused about the label.