The term Avant-Garde has changed and morphed throughout history, starting as a military term but is now much more known as an art term. I have heard this used as way to describe art a number of times, but was never quite sure about its actual meaning. Though I still have much to learn, this weeks introduction has shed some needed light on what it means for art to be Avant-Garde. To my understanding, Avant-Garde at its core is to challenge what is established. In its early stages, this meant art that challenged and went outside of what was established and valued by the Academy of Art, who put high regard on paintings of history scenes, accurate anatomy, strong illusionism and smooth brush strokes. In modern times this could be a rejection of styles and elements found in early Avant-Garde work in attempt to push art into further uncharted areas and expression. The irony of this whole relationship is that artists who take up the fight of the Avant-Garde in any time, past or present, are completely reliant on the establishment they are trying to move away from. If there were never an Academy of Art and they had never put such emphasis specific elements of art, there would be no establishment for Avant-Garde artists to directly discard in their new direction. The establishment creates the contrast and interest in breaking these rules. To further the irony, those who were considered to be Avant-Garde at one time then have the potential to become the new establishment that a new generation of Avant-Garde artists may one day reject.
When art challenges what has long been established, it will then no doubt challenge the viewers who have been viewing this long established way of creating art. With a piece like Manet's Luncheon on the Grass, those who were used to seeing clear narratives were now being exposed to scenes that showed no obvious story. The riddle of what they were now looking at could be both what initially turned people and critics off from this new way of art but could also be what ultimately kept them intrigued. This was not the only new element introduced by this particular painting. Manet had left his piece with very visible brush strokes and application of paint. Where before paintings were to be done with a smooth brush stroke and finished with a varnish, he chose to show his process in the piece and leave it looking very painterly. He also shrinks the perspective and creates the surrounding with a much more flat quality than was popular. This can also be seen by the size of the woman in the water, how she is much larger than she should be depicted if the viewer is supposed to see that pond as further in the distance. Most obvious however, is Manet's inclusion of modern people in his painting. This is a direct contradiction to the Academy and their emphasis on scenes being depicted historically and is a move toward a type of realism in which the artist tries to depict the world around him. He does this by dressing the men in contemporary clothing and by giving obvious and definite clues that though the nude woman is in reference to a classical nude, she too is very much a modern and contemporary person as well.
You have brought up a good point about how avant-garde artists run the risk of being overthrown by a new wave of avant-garde artists. It's true!
ReplyDeleteI'm particularly reminded of Picasso. He had a very long career that went well into the mid-20th century, but his later art always stuck to the Cubist ideas that he developed in the beginning of the 20th century. Even though several other avant-garde groups replaced Cubism before the end of Picasso's career, he stuck with his style. As a result, the most current "avant-garde" artists in the mid-20th century viewed Picasso as a rather passé artist.
-Prof. Bowen