Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 00:01:11 -0400
From: whitfb-AT-amanda.dorsai.org (Whit Blauvelt)
Subject: Re: Simon Ford's article


Reijo,

Thanks for the clarification, and the introduction. I've been lurking here
in recent months - used to join in more. Today I got the urge. My own
perspective may not belong to any of the camps here. I guess I'm with you in
valuing the individual more than the collective in this respect - or at
least I don't respect any collective which produces an ismatic voice in
which the individual cannot be recognized. 

I do realize that there are deep historical problems involving the
idealization of the avant guarde, and these problems drive much of the
critique here. My personal taste conforms to Sturgeon's Law (90% of
everything is crap); and that extends to ancient Greece or China as well as
current Soho shows. The exception I'd make is for the Whitney Museum, which
often approaches unity in this regard.

Doctrinare expressions are not art, never will be, can't be, and can't
possibly be avant guarde. The appropriation of the avant guarde by the
doctrinists having failed, they are now setting about to renounce it's ideal
- that in a nutshell is my reading of the pomo critique's prime motivation.
Indeed there's nothing in your statement (excerpt below) I disagree with,
except that I do not accept that we are in a soi-dissant "postmodern
context" - and that was the point of departure in my earlier post. Excuse me
for emphasizing the point of disagreement, when what you're saying is
otherwise quite agreeable.

The whole concept of "post" seems lame to me. We're supposed to be
post-industrial; but our industries are turning out more items than ever, at
an accellerating rate. They say we're post-agrarian; but agricultural output
(and indeed the energy input to it) is higher than ever. All this emphasis
on leaving behind, on being post something or other - while I _do_ believe
in progress, progress is an accumulation - not nearly so much is lost
(except perhaps recently in terms of environmental devastation) as some
would like to believe. Despite the pride of the churches, we are still the
pagans we've always been. And so on.

>Whit, I'm merely suggesting that the avant-garde idea is relevant for 
>discussion in the postmodern context, perhaps under erasure, but still 
>worthy of discussion. Avant-garde is, in the sense that I have been 
>discussing it in these posts (which are my first on this list, so bear 
>with me and hello), an esthetic theory or category adopted by 
>art/anti-art, political movements, and all the variants of these 
>positions. What we are facing now is an attack on the culture and 
>concept of the avant-garde, its adherents, etc. This attack is taking 
>place in the political camp, or at least in the politicized esthetic. 

\/\/ I-I I T         = < [  whitfb-AT-dorsai.org  ] > =          nyc usa



     --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------