Avant-Garde, Vanguard or “Avant-Garde”

What we talk about when we talk about avant-garde

Per Bäckström

Introduction
The term “avant-garde” was adopted from military use in the 1820s by a group of utopians
closely connected with Saint-Simon.1 Apparently the metaphor was coined in France, and it
was there it became popular during the 19th century. From here the phenomenon spread into
the art world all over Europe, and the means and strategies of the avant-garde movements in
the first quarter of the 20th century became one of the most significant emblems of the
aesthetics of modernity. During the last part of the century something happened with the term
as such, though: it became so broad and diffuse that it was evident that it could not signify
anything by itself, that it was a critical construction. Its content was hollowed out by the
widespread use critics, journalists and artists made of the term. Now in the early 21st century,
I therefore find it urgent to ask the question: is there any theoretical discussion at all about the
use of “avant-garde” and what does the notion represent, if anything, today?2
A previous version of this article was presented at the conference Rethinking the
Avant-Garde: Between Politics and Aesthetics in the USA,3 and it struck me then as
paradoxical to be at such a conference in a country that did not really have any avant-garde in
the first half of the 20th century. This comment is not intended as a criticism, but as a factual
statement that is vital to my argument, because it does matter for the meaning of the concept
“avant-garde”.
The implication of the question that I am posing in the title of my article – “Avant-
garde, Vanguard or ‘Avant-garde’. What we talk about when we talk about avant-garde” – is:
what is there in the notion avant-garde? My answer is that of course there can be a lot in a
notion, even in such a “foggy notion” as this, but also that my question as such, worded as it
is, might be badly put. The main problem might not be the term itself, but the all-inclusive

1
According to Matei Calinescu (1987: 101-2), it was Saint-Simon who formulated the premises for art to be
avant-garde in 1820, but it was others around him who adopted the military term as a metaphor in 1825.
2
A lax use of the term by journalists and literary historians is the reason for the hollowing out of the concept
“avant-garde”. My discussion in this article therefore concerns theoreticians’ attitudes towards the notion, in an
attempt to recover the term for stringent use in comparative literature (and other disciplines), with the purpose of
gaining deeper insights into the aesthetic movements of modernity and postmodernity.
“we” in my phrasing. Who is doing the asking? Where do they come from? What language
are they speaking?
To exemplify the problem behind the alternative phrasing of my question I would like
to cite two respected literary critics, one from Italy and one from the USA, talking about the
relationship between avant-garde and kitsch or mass culture. The first theoretician is Umberto
Eco, who in his book The Open Work, originally published in Italian in 1962 as Opera aperta,
comments:

The definition of Kitsch as a communication aiming at the production of an immediate

effect has certainly helped to identify it with mass culture, and to set it in dialectic
opposition to the “high” culture proposed by the avant-garde. (1989: 185)

Compare this with what Andreas Huyssen says in his 1986 book After the Great Divide:
Modernism, Mass Culture, Postmodernism:

My point of departure, however, is that despite its ultimate and perhaps inevitable
failure, the historical avant-garde aimed at developing an alternative relationship
between high art and mass culture and thus should be distinguished from modernism,
which for the most part insisted on the inherent hostility between high and low. (1986:
viii)

Umberto Eco and Andreas Huyssen seem to represent contrary positions, and one might ask:
who is mistaken? My answer is that no one is; they are both right. This might lead to the
conclusion that the author of this article is a relativist, but actually I am not. On the contrary, I
am more of a realist, since I believe that the real reason for Eco’s and Huyssen’s disagreement
is their different (national) backgrounds: Eco is Italian and Huyssen works in America –
although he is German by origin – and a wide ocean divides their use of the word “avant-
garde”.

The concept of avant-garde before 1960

“Avant-garde” in Romance-speaking countries
To put it simply: the Romance-speaking theoretician’s use of the term is quite different from
the Germanic-speaking critics’ stricter usage.4 (I am here using the term Germanic in the

3
Rethinking the Avant-Garde: Between Politics and Aesthetics, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana,
USA, 14–15 April 2000.
4
In stating this, I am not arguing that the divide between the language areas is absolute and essential. What I
want to show is that there are certain principal differences in how the term avant-garde is used.
linguistic sense, i.e., including the Anglo-Saxon world). In my opinion the translation of the
Umberto Eco quotation is misleading, since Eco does not talk about the avant-garde in the
strict Germanic sense at all. He is referring to a phenomenon that can best be described by the
notion “high modernism”, which is the preferred term in talking about the 1920s in the
English and American languages.
In the Romance-speaking countries there seems to be an awareness of the
heterogeneity of the avant-garde movements: there is not really anything like “the avant-
garde” in the singular, but several disparate movements that share a collective feeling or idea
about mixing art and life. On the other hand, there exists no second term, corresponding to the
Germanic notion of “modernism”.5 The Romance languages only have one term for referring
to the modern art movements of the 20th century, i.e., “avant-garde” in its national variations.
This is a fact made clear by analyzing the use of the concept avant-garde in the
Romance languages. The Spanish critic Guillermo de Torre discusses James Joyce, T. S. Eliot
and André Gide under the concept of “vanguardia” in his early book (1925) on the subject,
Literaturas europeas de vanguardia (1971: 30, 42). In L’avanguardia e la poetica del
realismo, the Italian critic Paolo Chiarini discusses both Virginia Woolf and Thomas Mann
(1961: 10-1). And in the best known Romance-language treatise on the avant-garde, the
Italian critic Renato Poggioli’s Teoria dell’arte d’avanguardia, translated as The Theory of
the Avant-Garde, one reads:

the avant-garde as much as any other art current, even perhaps more extremely and
intensely, is characterized not only by its own modernity but also by the particular and
inferior type of modernism which is opposed to it. (1968: 216)

This last quotation, with its rather confusing use of the term modernism, makes it apparent
that the Romance-speaking subjects do not recognize the notion “modernism” in the
Germanic sense of the word. They prefer to use their native term: “vanguardia”,
“avanguardia” or “avant-garde”, since it is the well-established term that bears theoretical
significance for them.
The term avant-garde continues to be used in the Romance countries in the same way
even after the sixties. Octavio Paz discusses the avant-garde, including James Joyce, T.S.
Eliot and Ezra Pound, in his book Children of the Mire: Modern Poetry from Romanticism to
the Avant-Garde in 1974, well after the debate about the term in the Germanic-speaking

5
Even if one can find Rubén Dario using the word “modernism” in 1890, it is in a different meaning, according
to Bill Everdell in an e-mail to: Modernism Discussion List, modernism@u.washington.edu, 28 May 1999.
countries. This debate will be further dealt with after a short interlude.

“Avant-garde” in Germanic-speaking countries

The Germanic-speaking subjects, on the other hand, do not seem to recognize the Romance
speakers use of the word “avant-garde”, since for example Eco’s term avanguardia is
mistakenly translated by “avant-garde”, and not correctly – as I will insist – by “high
modernism”.
A recent example of the inconsistency in the use of the term is found in Jochen
Schulte-Sasse’s foreword to the translation of Peter Bürger’s Theorie der Avantgarde,
published in English in 1984, where Schulte-Sasse critically discusses Renato Poggioli’s
contribution to the analysis of the term avant-garde:

Poggioli’s criteria are both historically and theoretically too unspecific; his arguments
cannot accomplish what must be the primary task of a “theory of the avant-garde”: to
characterize with theoretical accuracy the historical uniqueness of the avant-garde of
the 1920s (Futurism, Dadaism, Surrealism, the left avant-garde in Russia and
Germany). (1984: x)

I can only agree that Poggioli is “too unspecific”, and the reason for this is that his aim is not
to “characterize [...] the historical uniqueness of the avant-garde” in the Germanic sense.
Poggioli’s main task is to characterize the dominant strategies of high modernism. Why else
would he be discussing Joyce, Eliot, Yeats et al, under the heading of “avant-garde” (1968:
224), just as Romance-speaking theoreticians in general do?

The concept of avant-garde after 1960

I have not yet seen anybody commenting on the vast difference between the Romance and
Germanic uses of the term avant-garde, and I think that the reason for this is the debate about
“the death of the avant-garde” from the 1950s onwards, a debate that blurred the fact that the
discussion of the term was not parallel on both sides of the language “barrier”. It started as a
reaction on the part of the theoreticians to the inactivity of the modernistic and avant-gardistic
movements immediately after the Second World War, a silence that began already in the
decades preceding the war, with the witch-hunt against avant-garde movements in Germany
and the Soviet Union from the late 1920s until at least 1945 and 1953, respectively.
In the 1960s a stream of books appeared speculating about the “failure” of the avant-
garde: Hans Magnus Enzenberger speaks of “Die Aporien der Avantgarde” (1962: 50-80);
James S. Ackerman talks about “The Demise of the Avant-Garde” (1969: 370-384); Robert
Hughes writes about “The Decline and Fall of the Avant-Garde” (1973: 184-194), to mention
a few. Of course, they had a very reasonable point in perceiving the avant-garde as a flop,
when one considers the “failure” of “the historical avant-garde” in trying to forge coalitions
with the revolutionary parties of the 1920s. Those coalitions mainly turned out to be the
impetus for the witch-hunt just mentioned, rather than a successful merger of art and life.
However, the target of the theoreticians of the 1960s seems to be, not only the non-
existence of avant-gardes immediately after the war, but also the reappearance of avant-
gardes in the 1950s and 1960s as a reaction of a new generation of writers and artists against
this lack of continuance. The critics seem to have had an urge to declare these “neo-avant-
garde” artists bankrupt, almost before they got the chance to act out their strategies on the
roads and in the galleries. In the attacks on the post-war avant-gardes, the theoreticians
needed stable ground as a foundation for their analysis of the “decline” of the avant-gardes.
This ground had to be a concrete definition of what avant-garde as a concept actually
represents.

The desire for definition

The 1960s is therefore characterized not only by attacks on neo-avant-gardes, but also by the
emergence of books and articles trying to close in on what “the historical avant-garde” really
was. At a distance of 40 years and a world war, the avant-garde movements of the 1920s
stood out as something that could not be covered accurately by the term “modernism” alone.
Thus, Germanic-speaking nations imported the notion avant-garde, a word which had not,
until the 1960s, been used in Germany.6
If one considers the Anglo-Saxon part of the Germanic language area, the term was as
little in use here, with the exception of the American art critic Clement Greenberg, who
investigates a phenomenon he calls avant-garde in his article “Avant-Garde and Kitsch”
(1939: 3-21). By the term avant-garde he means a movement in opposition to kitsch, but if
one considers the approach of different movements to “the great divide” between high and
low art, in Andreas Huyssen’s sense, as a criterion for the difference between avant-garde and
modernism, Greenberg is actually talking about modernism in a traditional American way.
The lack of a significant term for the “revolutionary” art movements of the 1960s
therefore provided the impetus which led the Germanic-speaking theoreticians to import the

6
As Ulrich Weisstein (1975: 10-37) has convincingly argued.
metaphor of “avant-garde” from the Romance-speaking countries.7 The concept of
modernism was too wide to be useful in an explanation of the phenomenon, and to reuse the
notion of “high modernism”, meaning the art movements of the 1920s, was no better option.
It therefore proved necessary to coin a new term to make it possible to distinguish between
modernism as a purely aesthetic movement, and avant-garde as both an aesthetic and a
political movement.
In my opinion, the use of “modernism” before the 1960s in the Germanic-speaking
countries does not entirely coincide with the Romance-speaking use of the term “vanguardia”.
The Germanic-speaking theoreticians approached the phenomenon from a modernistic point
of view, while the Romance-speaking subjects took an approach that was closer to the avant-
garde movements of the 1920s (I am here using the concept of avant-garde in the Germanic
meaning, i.e., sensu stricto). The reason for the differing approaches seems to be the function
that the avant-gardes played in the aesthetics of the early 20th century. In the Romance-
speaking countries the avant-garde movements as such were more in the forefront of artistic
development as a whole, while in the Germanic-speaking countries, several different
modernistic currents took the lead (without denying the importance of the Dada movements in
Germany and Geneva).8
This, I would say, is the reason for the adoption of a second concept in the Germanic-
speaking countries to characterize the art movements of the 20th century. There was no actual
need to import a second term to the Romance-speaking countries, since they could manage
with their – as Jochen Schulte-Sasse puts it – “unspecific” notion, which moreover could be
applied with the prefix “neo” to the different phenomena that occurred in the second half of
the century.

Avant-Garde sensu stricto

The German critic Peter Bürger is one in “the wild bunch” that has declared the impossibility
of a neo-avant-garde. He is also the one who has taken upon himself the task of analyzing the
avant-garde sensu stricto in his book Theory of the Avant-garde (1984), and thanks to him we
now have a better understanding of what he calls “the historical avant-garde”, i.e., the

7
By “revolutionary” I do not mean political art currents in general, but movements that are both politically and
aesthetically inclined in a way that foregrounds the aesthetic (as “the historical avant-garde” did).
8
Whether Expressionism belongs to the avant-garde or not is highly debated, but the movement is usually
included in theoretical approaches to the avant-garde. In the Anglo-Saxon countries there was almost no avant-
garde, with the exception of Vortex, which I would say was a typically continental phenomenon, since
Wyndham Lewis, Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot were all directly influenced by the French, and more especially the
“revolutionary” art movements in the short period stretching from about 1915 to 1925. The
goal of the historical avant-garde was to reintegrate art into life, but not in the “modernist”
way, by raising life up to art. The ambition was rather the opposite, to include art in life, since
art appeared to be autonomous, with no contact with everyday life. For that purpose, the
avant-garde had to attack “art as institution”, and with it the concept of “the work of art”.
The problem with Bürger’s analysis is not so much his reflection on the historicity of
the epoch of “the historical avant-garde”, as his transposition of his results as valid also for a
period that comes after; a strategy that is not really possible with his methodological
suppositions. Transferring a theory based on an epoch that has passed can basically not be
done to explain another later period.9
Bürger did, however, narrow the analysis down, placing it under a magnifying glass
under which not much escapes the eyes of the analyzer. His theory has become the eye of the
needle through which everyone who wants to analyze the phenomenon of avant-garde has to
pass. But today, when this passage occurs in current debate, time has come to broaden the
view again to make it possible to see the issue sum specie aeternitatis.
I therefore want to propose a recycling of the Romance-speaking theoreticians, who –
for reasons discussed above – for the most part have been neglected or misunderstood in the
Germanic-speaking treatises on the avant-garde. The approach of Guillermo de Torre, Paolo
Chiarini, Renato Poggioli, Octavio Paz et al, is broader, with an urge not to make the field of
research too narrow, and shows a greater awareness of the fact that avant-garde not only
consists of a break with tradition, but also in many ways provides a continuous line from
Romanticism.

Avant-garde in postmodernity
The broad field of treatises on the death of the avant-garde in the 1960s and after missed a
basic point (and Peter Bürger’s misuse of the dialectic method is a flagrant example of it),
namely that neo-avant-gardes do not react against modernity, as the historical avant-garde did,
but against what we today call “postmodernity”. They therefore cannot possibly use the same
strategies as the historical avant-garde; nor can they rely on the same means.
I want to relate back to my opening comment about the USA as a country without an

Italian, avant-garde, and not by any Anglo-Saxon art movements, which instead became the direct object of
attacks by Vortex.
9
By this, I do not mean that the theory of Peter Bürger is wrong. On the contrary, nobody has done so much for
the understanding of avant-garde movements as him, but one has to remember that his work concerns “the
historical avant-garde” and can make no claim to explain a later phenomenon.
avant-garde during the first half of the 20th century. When an avant-garde appears after the
Second World War, it is thoroughly American, building on the tradition rather than breaking
with it, creating its own canon, incorporating Romanticism, Walt Whitman, etc. This
behaviour is, I would say, more a reaction against postmodernity than against modernity.
When it comes to determining criteria for the corresponding aesthetic movement,
postmodernism, they are very similar to the determining criteria for the avant-garde: both
movements use eclecticism and break in one way or another with tradition. One feature that
separates them, however, is a utopian urge that is characteristic of the avant-garde, but not of
postmodernism.
The avant-gardes of the 1960s, that are so often credited with failure, did succeed in
one very important aspect: they did away with the remains of “the art work”, which means
that they also did away with experimentalism as an end in itself. There is, namely, not very
much left for an artist to do today, other than to use the tradition in a (passively) eclectic way
as the postmodernists do, because it is more or less impossible to accomplish anything
substantial by “making it new” after the 1960s. This was realized by the avant-gardists:
Experimentalism formed an important part of their practice, but it was never a goal per se. As
long as it was functional, it was just one of the means in the attack on “art as institution”. But
today, art as institution thrives on experimentalism, and other methods have to be used in the
battle for an art that is integrated in everyday life.
I therefore want to argue against the usual habit of using the concept avant-garde when
one means postmodernism, because this is a sloppy (journalistic) way of boxing things up,
and has nothing to do with a deeper understanding of either avant-garde nor postmodernism.
The postmodernist is, as I have argued, not avant-garde, since he or she lacks the fundamental
criteria: the urge for utopia, i.e., to mix art and life for an experience of wholeness.

Conclusion
To conclude, I want to stress the tendency to disregard what one actually talks about when
one talks about the avant-garde. The concept of avant-garde as such has been taken for
granted, while the analytical urge has been directed towards examination of the content of the
term, from the supposition that it means the same in all language areas and countries. In this
article I have argued against such a view, and pointed towards the possibilities that lie in
acknowledging the differences instead. A merger between the Romance- and Germanic-
speaking notions of the avant-garde ought to be a good idea, but at the same time it is vital to
retain the Germanic division between avant-gardistic and modernistic views on art and life, as
Andreas Huyssen suggests:

Paradoxically, the 1960s, for all their attacks on modernism and the avant-garde, still
stand closer to the traditional notion of the avant-garde than the archeology of
modernity so characteristic of the late 1970s. Much confusion could have been
avoided if critics had paid closer attention to distinctions that need to be made
between avant-garde and modernism as well as to the different relationship of each
one to mass culture in the United States and Europe respectively. (1980: 26)

I also want to stress the difference between avant-garde and postmodernism, where the latter
does not have the utopian urge to merge life and art, which is the prime mover for an avant-
garde. An analytical view that separates these two movements, will make it possible to detect
the actual heterogeneity of aesthetic movements in postmodernity, as well as in modernity.
This has been pointed out by the Rumanian theoretician Matei Calinescu. His book on the
subject is a brilliant example of the Romance-speaking subject’s ability to recognize
heterogeneity and diversity, where the Germanic thinkers have a tendency to “square” things
up under one central notion.
I therefore believe that we will have to live for a long time yet with what Calinescu
has referred to as the Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avant-garde, Decadence, Kitsch,
Postmodernism.

References

Ackerman, James S. 1969 “The Demise of the Avant-Garde: Notes on the Sociology of
Recent American Art”, Comparative Studies in Society and History vol. 2, pp. 371-
384.
Bürger, Peter 1984 Theory of the Avant-Garde [Theorie der Avantgarde], Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press [originally published 1974]
Calinescu, Matei 1987 Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avant-garde, Decadence,
Kitsch, Postmodernism, Durham: Duke University Press
Chiarini, Paolo 1961 L’avanguardia e la poetica del realismo, Bari: Editori Laterza
Eco, Umberto 1989 The Open Work, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press
Guadarrama [originally published Opera aperta 1962]
Enzenberger, Hans Magnus 1962 “Die Aporien der Avantgarde” in Einzelheiten II: Poesi und
Politik, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag
Greenberg, Clement 1961 “Avant-Garde and Kitsch”, Art and Culture: Critical Essays,
Boston: Beacon Press [originally published 1939]
Hughes, Robert 1973 “The Decline and Fall of the Avant-Garde” in Gregory Battcock (ed.)
Idea Art: A Critical Anthology, New York: E.P. Dutton
Huyssen, Andreas 1986 After the Great Divide. Modernism, Mass Culture, Postmodernism,
Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press
Paz, Octavio 1974 Children of the Mire: Modern Poetry from Romanticism to the Avant-
Garde, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press
Poggioli, Renato 1968 The Theory of the Avant-Garde [Teoria dell’arte d’avanguardia],
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press [originally published 1962]
Schulte-Sasse, Jochen 1984 “Foreword: Theory of Modernism versus Theory of the Avant-
Garde” in Peter Bürger, Theory of the Avant-Garde, Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press
Torre, Guillermo de 1971 Historia de las literaturas de vanguardia, Madrid: Ediciones
Guadarrama [originally published Literaturas europeas de vanguardia 1925]
Weisstein, Ulrich 1975 “Le terme et le concept d’avant-garde en Allemagne”, Revue de
l’Université de Bruxelles, no. 1, pp. 10-37