Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 16:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Simon Ford's article




On Wed, 31 May 1995, SIMON B DANG wrote:
> Vance, I think we need to clarify what each of us is saying.
> So let me get this straight, (roughly) you are saying that a-g presumes no
> followers - there is only the leading edge.  

No. I'm saying the opposite: there can be no a-g *without* followers. 
Avant-garde, meaning advance guard, which scouts ahead of the army for 
the direction the others will follow. No monolithic army, no advance 
guard. What I'm saying is that if pomo posits pluralism (a war of 
individual guerilla actions rather than a large unweildly army all headed 
in the same direction), then it leaves no room for a-g.

Whit feels that any followers
> can only repeat what the a-g have done (and that would be anal retentive).
> So no folowers are possible.  But how do you then make the assumption that
> the leading edge/leaders can not exist and henceforth a-g likewise.
>
> (Unless you are suggesting that "leader" is the binary counterpart to 
> "follower" and the two cannot exist without each other?)

Yes. Is there another alternative that I'm missing. It's hard for me to 
imagine leaders without followers. If no one follows you, you are not 
leading. Sounds like the sound of one hand clapping to me :))

 
> I am merely proposing that a-g creates an battery/spawning ground from
> which others (call them followers if you want) can launch distinct and
> diverging material. 
> -simon

Yes. That's what the a-g does: if there's an a-g, or a culture that 
values it. What I'm saying is that we have entered a period when, in 
lip service at least, pomo denies its value because it denies a 
monolithic movement or direction. Each artist is an individual 
guerilla--so long as s/he remains politically correct.

vance


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