ABSTRACT
In Faces of Modernity, Calinescu (1977: 95) writes that the concept of the ‘avant-garde’ has ‘obvious military implications’ and is ‘indebted to the broader consciousness of modernity.’ The attitude in question includes ‘a sharp sense of militancy, praise for nonconformism, courageous precursory exploration’ and, more generally, ‘confidence in the final victory of time and immanence over traditions’ (Calinescu, 1977: 95). Calinescu (1977: 95) suggests the avant-garde’s heroic ‘struggle for futurity’ tells us a great deal about the culture of modernity, including its ‘alliance with time and longlasting reliance on the concept of progress.’ There are echoes here of aspects of modernity we have already empha-
sized in this book: for example, the quasi-religious character of the modern artistic persona and the tendency of Modernists to adopt the ethos of the prophet and mystic. The point has been made by other authors, including Bourdieu (1993), who readily see parallels between the display of charisma in avant-garde art and Weber’s depiction of the Old Testament prophet, especially the ‘prophet of misfortune.’ Born (1995: 28) draws upon this schema in her analysis of Boulez and IRCAM, and proposes that Bourdieu contrasts the ‘role of priest and prophet/sorcerer’ within the field of artistic production and that the latter role is linked to ‘youth, asceticism, discontinuity, revolution. The artist … [as] charismatic leader.’ In terms of our own four-part typology, we argued that the ascetic – like the prophet and mystic – readily conceives of him or herself as an avant-gardist. It is the priest that finds it most difficult to adopt an avant-gardist persona, given their investment in tradition and Classical ideals. Calinescu’s characterization of the avant-gardist also resonates with our
prior discussion of the link between Modernism and Romanticism, including the latter’s view that art’s mandate is to violate rules and transgress boundaries. On this theme, Martin (1981: 80) writes that the artistic ‘enfants terribles of the 1950s and 1960s were the legitimate heirs of the tradition of modernity which began with the Romantic movement.’ She adds that the post-war avant-garde (and its non artistic counterpart, the counter-culture!) simply pushed the techniques of ‘anti-structure’ to their furthest extremes and in the process managed to be ‘noticed by a wider audience’ (Martin,
1981: 80). My argument would be that the latter proposition needs to be qualified in the following way: the 1950s avant-gardist is still something of a specialist (Boulez, Babbitt and Stockhausen Mark I); whereas some of the avant-gardists of the 1960s were celebrities (Cage, Stockhausen Mark II, and the minimalists). Many of the latter also came to be celebrated by pop and rock musicians, thereby broadening their reach and status in the wider culture. In any case, what is clear, from the list of avant-garde traits, is that avant-
gardism follows the more general tendency within modernity to invest psychic, emotional and intellectual energy in cultural change. Catherine Cameron (1990: 219) argues that avant-gardism has to be seen as more than a ‘marginal or meaningless’ cultural phenomenon. For her, it constitutes a ‘distinctive perspective on society, history, and the arts, one that has become dominant as an ideology in this century’ (Cameron, 1990: 219). Cameron argues that avant-gardists are agents of change, as well as re-definers of what we mean by stylistic change. This puts her at odds with both ‘internal dynamic’ (Kroeber and Meyer) and ‘historical’ (Poggioli and Bürger) accounts of the avant-garde. In contradistinction to transhistorical theories of stylistic growth/evolution and stasis/decline, she argues that ‘the dynamics of change are qualitatively different in this century, and the reason for this lies in the nature of the avant-garde’ (Cameron, 1990: 227). Avant-gardists are more than ‘pattern wreckers’; they are also a ‘force for cultural change.’ This view is also at odds with the historicist or determinist theory of the avant-garde:
Modern artistic radicals have rejected the notion that there are inexorable laws of history and have liberated themselves from the idea there is some grand plan or sacred script that is divinely inspired. Rather, they have discovered that history is for the making, the first step being to disavow the past and begin anew … The social reflexivity and historical awareness of the avant-garde seem to have altered the nature of artistic change and will do so for as long as artists regard history as a creative enterprise.
