Thank you Owen for a good point, the one of Crow's.
In her essay "Composition as Explanation" Gertrude Stein relates
how art, new art, is just a step ahead of what rapidly becomes familiar,
not only in commerical but also military terms, objects, actions. She
recounts walking with Picasso thrugh the streets of war time Paris (First
World War) and seeing camouflaged tanks--
"we have already done that" Picasso says--in reference to Cubism.
Likewise Marinetti's Futurist Manifesto (1909) and other
manifestos, works and actions of Italian Futurism preceded their appearnce
as military forms, actions--deaths--in the First World War.
Avant-garde itself of course, is a military term.
--dave baptiste chirot
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Owen Smith wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >If manditory transgression is written into the job description of a
> >particular group of individuals (artists), and if this is depended upon
> >by another group(s) of people (art enthusiasts) for amusement and/ or
> >reassurance, then how can those who wish to be 'truly' transgressive
> >(within the sign/ language of 'art') act out anything more than a
> >grotesque caricature of culturally reproduced expectations about their
> >role (as artists)?
>
> . . . . . in relation to the above I always think of Crow's line that
> the Avant-garde is (in its oppositional, transgressive position)
> nothing more than the research and development arm of late capitalism.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
