Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 22:54:54 -0700 From: reijo-AT-ix.netcom.com (reijo koski) Subject: Re: Simon Ford's article You wrote: > This simply assumes the vocabulary of "sides", of "winning positions", >of "end games", etc. Does this vocabulary make sense? And does the >concept of the avant-garde make sense without it? _Is_ there a >concept of the avant-garde pertinent to our contemporary situation? > >We sort of started to discuss this before, but wound up somewhere else >-- perhaps all for the better. > > >- malgosia > >It seems that the Simon Ford article should, in some form, be made available to this list, or else, the discussion is going to be private. I would like to comment on the excerpt in Malgosian’s post, regarding the concept of the public component of the idea of the avant-garde. It seems to me that to understand the significance of the concept of the a-g, one has to internalize the essence of the actual effect avant-garde practice has had on the artists themselves. The mere pop appeal of the term is insignificant. Paul Goodman said somewhere that “silence, exile, and cunning” are essential to the constitution of the artist with an avant-garde attitude. In the present environment of the commodification of everything, silence is hardly “heard” of. (Not having read the Simon Ford article, my com ments may be utterly absurd). Are we discussing here the underlying activity of the avant-garde artist or are we discussing the effect of the term “avant-garde” on the critical discourse in the “art world”? The avant-gard e phenomenon is hardly new; why is the concept passé? Is it because the dominant culture is overwhelmed by modernity/post-modernity now, all of a sudden, and none of our historical terms apply? If “serious” art is a “religious” experience (in absence of God), an activity to replace the traditional religious practice for obtaining a subjective vision of the nature of reality, then the avant-garde artist is a mys tic in a true sense of the word and, by extension, an essential part of the total practice of art. The concept of the avant-garde in context of our post-modern situation is valid, of course. What would replace the term? Some hermetic metaterm? Is there a better term in our present context? Or is Simon Ford suggesting t hat the “concept” of the avant-garde should self-destruct? When Simon Ford mentions the “institution “of the avant-garde, what exactly is he talking about? The possibly over-used word itself or the essence of the concept in its practical meaning? Aren’t the enemies of the “institution” of the avant-garde its greatest supporters, keepers of the myth? Sorry about my rambling. I wish I would have had the opportunity to read the article. Some body, set me straight. > -- ÐÏࡱ --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005