|
 The Canonization of the Avant-Garde Panelists: John Clancy, Frederica Jarcho, and Ibrahim Quaraishi Moderated by Debra Singer The following white paper is drawn from the remarks of the panelists and moderator for this session, along with the questions and responses from members of the audience. This document is intended to reflect the variety of viewpoints offered during the discussion, and to frame broadly the issues discussed; it should not be taken as a formal statement of opinion by the panelists. When the term "avant-garde" first gained currency, it was used to identify art that challenged the norms of culture, and tested the limits of audiences, critics, and organizations alike. At the time, the nature of arts consumption was itself more constrained: overall audiences were smaller, and methods for widespread distribution of the arts (like radio, television, and the internet) were either unavailable, in their infancy, or simply financially inaccessible. Stuck in a Moment From the original use of the term avant-garde at the Salon des Refusés in Paris in 1863, through artists such as Isadora Duncan in the early 1900s and John Cage in the 1940s and '50s, the nature, style, and content of the art evolved, all while under the rubric of that loosely-descriptive term. The avant-garde artists that took on the establishment gained a degree of respect for their rebellion and a mystique from its limited accessibility. Yet more than a half-century later, the term seems to have much less relevance. Or, rather, it seems meaningful only to describe either that same body of now-canonical works to which it was applied originally, or a related group of followers who launched their own, later initiatives in the same mold, practicing the same formal methods of artistic creation and presentation. In relation to art produced now, the avant-garde may seem quaint, historical, or simply too formal. While there is much for contemporary artists to learn from this period, it must also be viewed within a larger art-historical process, one that leads artists up to the contemporary environment in which they work—and the impact of all the tools, techniques, and methods for distribution available in the twenty-first century. Similarly, artists should acknowledge the restrained environment that surrounded the works of the avant-garde period, and contrast this with what is typically a much greater societal flexibility and acceptance today. Keep On Changing. . . The premise of the avant-garde was "originality"—an idea that held great sway at a time when established arts and institutions looked like ossified parts of the dominant culture, presenting the same (old) works again and again. However, in an era when the mechanisms of global capitalism can co-opt innovation almost instantly, "originality" as a concept may take on a different meaning, or even appear meaningless. For contemporary artists, that loss of originality is distinctly untrue; the value of their experimental work should not be sacrificed either at the altar of an art-historical movement or as a result of societal demands to produce more art and commercialize instantly. Indeed, the pressures of outside forces—corporate or not—are often focused on the development and sale of new technologies, since this has become such a focal point for society as a whole. Technology may have taken the place of other kinds of formal artistic tools, but this can have a numbing effect on artists and their work. Artists working now may find themselves having to resist pressures to incorporate technology into their work, particularly when there is a less strong or compelling connection to their artistic content. Moreover, where the use of new technologies as part of the original body of avant-garde works was just that—new—in today's environment the technology itself can take over. One result is that audiences may be less appreciative of labor-intensive work that is not technologically meticulous or "advanced" in appearance. . . . And Keep on Fighting It is clearly important to nurture the next generation of experimental artists, despite the continued codification of the "rules" of the art world. Looking at theater as an example, there are now two prominent traditions: old fashioned narrative theater and experimental theater. Yet both are equally codified (despite the use of the term "experimental" to describe one approach) and may be similarly inaccessible to a younger generation of radically experimental artists, or their hungry and engaged audiences. One approach to supporting the development of new art and artists may be through the politics of social struggle, rather than the formal terms of art itself. Much as the artists of the avant-garde were shaped by their struggle against a restrained and restrictive social order, today's experimental art could be fueled by the need to push back on existing political conditions, rather than just responding to their artistic predecessors. Long-term, this may be of critical importance, since the context for examining art is determined as much by society's political milieu as its social and cultural trends. And those trends are definitely consumer-driven and corporately managed, in a society that is overloaded with information, from advertisements to terror alerts. One result is that human communication has been affected by the pervasive nature of new technologies that simultaneously make interpersonal dialogue both easier and less personal. Another is that attention spans continue to dwindle, as "multi-tasking" becomes not just an applied skill, but as a constant behavior and a way of life. Artists can (and, arguably, should) address these social changes, through their work and its presentation. Although political apathy may be common, contemporary artists do not have to be apathetic, and in fact may have the best vantage point from which to challenge the dominant political ideas of the day, and to present alternatives to the public—much as their avant-garde predecessors did. Artists can also push back on the trend toward commoditization and consumerism by reinforcing the value of authenticity and originality in art, and by resisting the urge to allow the extrapolation of their artistic concepts into sales-driven marketing campaigns. Most critically of all, contemporary artists can throw down the gauntlet to the increasing number of meaningless distractions in society, and stand as a bulwark supporting the humanistic values that underpin our society. Artists can challenge audiences (younger ones, particularly) to pay attention, to respond, to engage, and to learn. And even though every generation or two there may be a cultural upheaval that produces a new artistic paradigm—a new avant-garde—that is, in a sense, a tradition of its own. For citation, please reference: http://berkshireconference.org/content/2005-canonization.cfm
|
