The term is merely a convenience, I think, but with increasing
inconveniences in its use, and I think you make too much of it.
I do agree with your three points, which is why I didn't address them. I
was only concerned that you might be setting up a straw man.
Mark
At 08:04 AM 5/31/2001 EDT, Henry wrote:
>Good point, Mark - but I think it confirms rather than conflicts with the
>statement that "avant-garde tradition" is an oxymoron. If poets consider
>themselves part of an alternative tradition, can they also call themselves
>(or allow themselves to be called) avant-garde? Peter said there needed
>to be re-thinking about this. & Geraldine's & Michael's responses seemed
>pretty incisive to me. They connected "avant-garde" with spiritual
>& political iconoclasm or resistance (Blake, for ex.) - a certain
>freedom of mind & attitude - rather than with a particular 20th-cent.
>artistic movement.
>
>This seems closer also to your "alternative tradition" sketch.
>
>The specific problems I was trying to point out were:
>
>1. the co-optation of resistance, when it becomes a specialty aimed
>only at a limited audience, and a cultish tradition;
>2. the threat to originality posed by same;
>3. the substitution of a theoretical/critical "avant-garde" - a sort
>of academic revolution of discourse - in place of art itself.
>
>Henry
>
|