yes ann
the function of an avant-garde, or of a rear-guard, is neither to advance
nor retreat, but rather to maneuver
check pavu.com at http://pavu.com
best regards
--
jean-philippe halgand - Executive Directeur of pavu.com
http://pavu.com
-/ don't miss the next train, train with pavu.com ! /-
> De : ann klefstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Société : klefstad / kalstrom sculpture
> Répondre à : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date : Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:51:48 -0800
> À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Objet : Re: FLUXLIST: avantgarde?
>
> I myself would hope that the notion of "progress" in art, an imagining of
> arthistory to parallel, say, the development of material technologies, could
> be discarded. Thus the notion of the avantgarde--that is, those out in front,
> those "most progressive"--could also be discarded. I don't think that an
> "avantgarde" today is anything but a competitive positivist impulse that
> unconsciously models itself on technological development, you know, "The Rise
> of Man" kind of thing.
> The thing I always liked about Fluxus was its refusal of narratives of
> prowess, its ability to mock such narratives (say, the "Twelve Big Names"
> thing) and its choice of, instead of the slogan "forward!", the slogan
> "sideways!" Many Fluxus practitioners used the "stupid" relation of the body
> as animal body to the physical world, and their work (such as Ken's salt
> projects) used the elemental physical attributes of things. This does not
> make for forward motion, it makes
> instead for a recursion to simple perception, an invoking of thoughtfulness
> about what conditions the perception, an invoking of memory--in other words,
> movement back, sideways, in circles, not the forward rush of the avantgarde
> and its oppositional tactics. Fluxus didn't so much oppose, beat back, fight,
> as, say, unravel, comb out, or knit up.
>
> Can we speak in terms of what things do rather than what they oppose?
>
> AK
>
> Josh Ronsen wrote:
>
>> Heiko Recktenwald writes:
>>
>>> When fluxus began in the Cage class, they were some of the
>>> most avantgarde people of its time. Those who call themself
>>> "fluxus" today are not.
>>
>> What does avantgarde mean, today? Who is avantgarde today? These are
>> interesting questions and I do not know how to approach them.
>>
>> Don't hate me, but I have been reading an article about Online (Internet)
>> Education in a recent issue of the New York Times Sunday Magazine. There is
>> quote from a professor (my copy is at home) who is trying to get "top-notch"
>> universities to let their faculty lecture for his online ed company: to
>> paraphrase-- the avant-garde (in art) and capitalism as similar because they
>> are both concerned with the "new."
>>
>> I disagree with this statement, or at least with the superficial aspects of
>> it. My conception of the avant-garde is one of overturning established orders
>> and ideologies, which I guess could be considered "new," but it is a new
>> mentality. Capitalism is ALWAYS concerned with producing goods or services at
>> a profit, and hasn't changed at all. There is a drive for new goods and
>> markets and a silly marketing spin on Internet Business as "the New Economy"
>> (tm), but it isn't.
>>
>> Now the relation between art and capitalism can be scary: is the avant-garde
>> in art just the capitalist quest for new markets? Ack! I hope not. Maybe it
>> has become that.
>>
>> For me, if the avant-garde is "overturning established orders and
>> ideologies," the one it should be directed against is capitalism.
>>
>> I'd be interested in thoughts/reactions on this topic.
>>
>> -Josh Ronsen
>> http://www.nd.org/jronsen
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
>> Before you buy.
>
