Theory of the Avant-Garde

by Peter Bürger, Michael Shaw (Translator), Jochen Schulte-Sasse (Foreword)

Suggests a theory of art, tests against the French and German avant-garde movements of the twenties, and discusses hermeneutics, ideology, aesthetic categories, and the autonomy of art."

Genres: Art, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Theory, Art History, Criticism, German Literature

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1974

Reviews

[Bertrand · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well that was very slow start; Actually a very slow, painful and dull start: those like me, unfamiliar with the contorted lexicon of marxist critical theory, might be tempted to re-shuffle their "to read" pile every time they face this one, which would definitely be a mistake since after the first chapter it turns out to be very much readable! So if you browse the reviews looking for a guiding hand that could encourage you from the other shore, take note: by the end of the second chapter at the latest you will be past the strictest discussions of historicizing and ideology critique, and enter the more welcoming homeland of art theory proper.
What of the book itself then? Chances are, if you have any interest in the avant-gardes, you are already indirectly familiar with Burger's theory: in fact, although he does not feel the need trace it, there is within the avant-garde corpus itself many an example of art turning into life.

The crux of the argument goes something like this:
Art is not a perennial category, but what qualifies as art, and a forteriori as good art, is defined and conditioned by the world at large. Whereas in the middle-ages, art was subservient of other fields, in particular religion, it has subsequently evolved towards autonomy, that is it has ceased to be limited in the contents considered worthy of representation: from being restricted to religious themes, it evolves towards the representation of political power during the Renaissance, and with the rise of the bourgeois societies and the revolutions, it reaches an autonomous status proper.
What this means is that rather than being restricted in its subjects and methods, art, left to its own devices, becomes increasingly concerned with itself; Art about art, art for art's sake. Burger's original contention is that the apex of this process, the "turning point", he situate not with Baudelaire or the impressionists, but with aestheticism, in which art's autonomy and self-interest comes full circle, leaving the artists with a bitter taste of oblivion and pointlessness in the face of an art entirely withdrawn from the world, yes, fully independent, but also fully disconnected.

Enters the avant-garde: the only thing to do from the standpoint of aestheticism is to start a critique of this autonomy, a critique of art itself, as a concept (in Burger's lingo, as an institution) - process which will take the form of a systematic collapsing of the frontiers between art and life itself.
Think of the futurist serata, of Duchamp's ready-mades, of all the manifestos, of the narrowing divide between noise and music, of Russian productionism, of the obsession with architecture, and so on. All those quite clearly aim to either bring us to look at the real and see art (Duchamp) or to look at art and lead us to see the real (abolition of the footlights) - if others have seen contradictory tendancies in those two directions, it seems that to Burger both converge in the destruction of art as a category. Art was meant to become indistinguishable from life.

In terms of methodology, there is a consistent return to three categories taken to be constitutive of the art institution: function, production and reception, and sometimes a return to form and content. On the whole the "theory of art" Burger takes great pain to justify, constitutes a relatively small section of the 100 pages, and is scarcely illustrated.
On the other hand there is plentiful discussion of marxist and hegelian aesthetics, with short but gratifying (at least to the philistines of my ilk!) outlines of the thought of Adorno, Benjamin or Lukacs (despite the regretted absence of such a discussion of Bloch); Those seems to bring little to the argument, set aside I suppose an increased credibility in the marxoid circles, but I found them in a sense to offer a welcome background. At any rate this might well explain the accusation of Burger's being a "theory of the theory of art"...

All in all: should you read it? Well if you've read my review so far, probably! Its a bit tough for the first third of the book but gets much easier, and although you might be familiar with many of the concepts here developed, there is a good reason this book is so influential. Beyond the scope of marxist theory (and within too, I suppose!) it does a great job of outlining how much of a break the AG constituted, and offer a very credible explanation of what might have motivated such a shift.

[Megan · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read this in a class on modernist aesthetics, and thought it was one of the most frustrating and inaccessible texts of the class - and we read a LOT of Adorno. Burger's major points are somewhat confused reworkings of Renato Poggioli's earlier text on the Avant-Garde (with the *same* title) as well as a reiteration of the major points of Adorno and Horkenheimer about society's consumption of culture and the difficulty/impossibility of producing art that can foment social change rather than be subsumed by the institution of art and the culture industry. His attempts to break out classifications between contemporary artistic movements seem like a desperate attempt to navigate the churning abyss where art and culture and criticism found themselves mired during the modernist period, but ultimately, they are more confusing than useful. His original points about the schizoid nature of modernism notwithstanding, this text provides little in the way of new thought. And what could be a crash course simplifying the main points of older, more prolific theorists instead is a muddled and incomplete theoretic defense for the avant-garde that comes off sometimes more like a criticism, sometimes like an apology.

[Skrivena stranica · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book about avant-garde. I think it's a must-read for those interested in this artistic period.

[Emannuel K. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Já tinha lido um trecho desse livro para o mestrado e achado complexo. A leitura dele inteiro me deixou a sensação oposta, de ser muito simples. De que vários dos argumentos do autor são simplificações baseadas simplesmente em suas inclinações estéticas, e que não dialogam com a historicidade das vanguardas (ou seus efeitos) tanto quanto o autor gostaria. Ainda assim, muitos dos conceitos determinados nesse livro são fundamentais para discutir estética no século XX. O trecho que li no mestrado foi aquele que trata da relação da autonomia artística e da práxis vital. A decisão foi acertada, por serem essas ideias muito importantes para pensar criticamente a arte em todos os seus desdobramentos recentes. Também algumas sessões mais específicas, como as sobre o acaso ou a montagem podem ser interessantes para quem quer um primeiro contato com esses assuntos. De modo geral, são muitos altos e baixos. Alguns momentos esmiúçam de forma necessária os tópicos ao redor da questão das vanguardas artísticas, outros são demasiadamente amplos para deixarem uma sensação de faltar algo.

[Soeine · Rating 3 out of 5]

His ideas are interesting, but the writing is terribly jagged. Especially, his distinction between avant-garde art and modernist art helps understand how self-consciousness of modernist art was taken over by anti-art of avant-garde art. His theoretical analyses, in the Hegelian and Marxist currents, offer a comprehensive overview of the social status of art during the time. However, his selection of artworks is limited, and his accounts of the artworks lack convincing details.

[Brodolomi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I dalje najinteresatnija studija o avangardi koju sam pročitao, iako lično nisam obožavalac žurki kritičke teorije. I pored nužnih uopštavanja i zahtevnog teksta, ova knjiga omogućava da se deo istorije umetnosti spakuje u jasno razdvajajuće fioke, te da se istorijska avangarda odredi i prema svom prethodniku (esteticizmu) i prema svom kopiletu (neoavangardi) kao neuspešni pokušaj oslobađanja umetnosti iz građanskih institucija i organizovanja jedne nove životne prakse.

[Dermonduebersoho · Rating 4 out of 5]

Das Buch war echt gut, sowas wie Adorno in besser, ich hätte auch Lust mal das Buch von ihm zur Postmoderne zu lesen

[Valentina · Rating 1 out of 5]

Muy aburrido.
Se nota como el autor quiere alargarlo al pedo poniendo palabras difíciles. Si te vas quejar de algo en las primeras páginas no te retractes en las últimas páginas vv

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Useful in highlighting how in multiple arts what was running parallel to modernism. While Burger's prose itself is turgid, the introduction by Schulte-Sasse does a good job opening up the implications of what Burger is saying about the historical boundedness of the AG, the limits of B's own theorizing, and his relationship to Derrida and other heavies. If you're interested in questions of whether or not political art is viable, the historicity of the terms we develop to define movements, and what a contemporary AG that isn't just a rehash of Duchamp/Warhol might look like, it would make sense to read this. Or at least the lengthy introductions by SS.

[Warren]

So far a wonderfully informative formalization of the two competing literary/art theories of Adorno and Derrida. The book takes up the issue that aesthetic theory itself is mediated and thus must consider itself in relation to the production of the 'institution of art.'

[Jonatan Södergren · Rating 3 out of 5]

A brilliant analysis of the avant-garde movement’s intent to reintegrate art into the praxis of life. Inspired by Marcusean theory on the (twofold/dialectic) social function of art as either affirmative or negating, it is concluded that the avant-gardist attack on bourgeois society ultimately is a false sublation. This also raises the point whether or not it is necessary for art to be different from society in order to criticise it.

[Abdullah Başaran · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bürger's some critiques, esp. which are against Adorno, are quite well. Particularly, comments that over hermeneutics. Even though it is necessary that the book must update, it have continued to impact. Nevertheless, the book deserves 3-stars.

[Carrie Lorig · Rating 3 out of 5]

fine. good for background. meh on actual ideas. don't read it unless you can talk about it with an awesome tiny all girl kick ass seminar league.

[Uroš Đurković · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ovo nije samo jedna od ključnih knjiga o avangardi, već i važno štivo za razumevanje statusa angažmana i društvene funkcije umetnosti. Birger uredno, postupno i ubedljivo pokazuje prekretničku ulogu istorijske avangarde, insistirajući na njenoj kritičkoj dimenziji usmerenoj prema umetnosti kao instituciji stvorenoj u građanskom društvu. Pojam umetnosti kakav danas poznajemo znatno je mlađi nego što bi se to nekome moglo učiniti. Da bi ilustrovao to istorijsko kretanje, u duhu Hegelove dijalektike, Birger uspostavlja tri istorijske kategorije: 1) sakralna, 2) dvorska i 3) građanska umetnost. Od kultnog predmeta, preko životne prakse dvora, do građanskog samorazumevanja, umetnički objekat teži ka svojoj individualizaciji i autonomiji. Tek pojavom građanskog društva umetnost se izdvaja iz mreže životne prakse (72) i ta samostalnost poseduje i ideološku pozadinu. S tim u vezi, da bi umetnost uopšte mogla da bude društveno delatna, ona mora da bude samoprepoznata kao takva, kao nešto odvojeno od celine društvene zbilje. Upravo zbog toga pokreti istorijske avangarde predstavljaju napad na status umetnosti u građanskom društvu (76), odnosno, pokušaj da se kroz kritiku ne nekog prethodnog umetničkog izraza, već čitave institucije umetnosti, uspostave temelji nove životne prakse (77). Avangarda, dakle, predstavlja ne samo udar koji dovodi do samorazumevanja istorijskih kategorija, nego i potreban okret od umetnosti prema životu, ali na neočekivan način. I mada spomenuti udar nije doveo do istinskog uvođenja nove životne prakse, omogućio je prepoznavanje umetnosti kao institucije (90) što je sa sobom povuklo različite, važne posledice. Jedna od interesantnijih je menjanje nekadašnjeg organskog jedinstva dela u neorgansko – upliv proizvodnje slučaja u umetničko tkivo (105). Na taj način jedna od najvažnijih tehnika organizovanja umetničkog matetijala postaje montaža (108), a jedan od ključnih medija – film (112) – i dok ne-avangardni umetnik u materijalu prepoznaje i poštuje nosioca značenja, avangardist u njemu vidi samo prazan znak kome sam on može da pozajmi značenje – delo se kod avangardista, stoga, ne stvara kao organska celina, već se montira od fragmenata (109). I dok organsko umetničko delo hoće da prikrije činjenicu svoje proizvoljnosti, avangardno delo hoće da bude prepoznato kao umetnička tvorevina, kao artefakt (111). Birger pokazuje kako i sama forma dela je u sebi implicitno ideološka – odabir oblika predstavlja izraz svetonazora koji je znak u istoriji. Naravno da istovetni umetnički postupci označavaju različite stvari u različitim društvenim kontekstima, ali forma kao ideološki znak je nezaobilazna. Totalitet znanja nasuprot rasparčanosti. Iluzija sigurnosti nasuprot sigurnosti iluzije... I s tim u vezi zanimljiv status neoavangarde, koja ne može da ima istorijsku oštricu istorijske avangarde, budući da se glavna bitka već odgirala – šok više nije šok, jer to ni ne može da bude. Ali pozivi za novo uspostavljanje institucije umetnosti, za novi susret umetničkog sa životnim, i dalje su tu i, makar se meni čini, nikad aktuelniji. To je neizgovoreno, a goruće pitanje teorije književnosti danas: odnos tekstualnog i vantekstualnog sveta. Zanima me kuda sve to može odveti. Mogućnosti su uzbudljive, čak i kad su deprimirajuće.

[Kevin Fitzpatrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Whether this condition of the availability of all traditions still permits an aesthetic theory at all, in the sense theory existed from Kant to Adorno, is questionable, because a field must have a structure if it is to be the subject of scholarly or scientific understanding. Where the formal possibilities have become infinite, not only authentic creation but also its scholarly analysis become correspondingly difficult. Adorno's notion that late-capitalist society has become so irrational that it may well be that no theory can any longer plumb it applies perhaps with event greater force to post avant-gardiste art." Peter Burger, "Theory of the Avant-Garde"

Divided into five discrete subsections ("Preliminary Reflections on a Critical Literary Science"; "Theory of the Avant-Garde and Critical literary Science"; On the Problem of the Autonomy of Art in Bourgeois Society"; "The Avant-Gardiste Work of Art"; and "Avant-Garde and Engagement"), Peter Burger's "Theory of the Avant-Garde" is a fine, top-rate exploration of the aesthetics of the avant-garde from a decidedly Marxist perspective. Starting with the aforementioned reflections on Hermeneutics and art's functions, the focus of the essay soon turns to the position of the categories of Aesthetics in a Bourgeois society, and how Walter Benjamin's Theory of Art influences such an exploration. Soon the book launches into an arena of high interest to this reader, the development of Aesthetic theories with the rise of capitalism as reflected in the work of Kant and Schiller. It is here where the author summarizes and applies his own theories to forerunners of the past that the book truly achieves a clarity which makes the ideas and suggestions as clear as a summer day. The piece concludes with an exploration of the 'problem of the category of 'work'' in the Avant-Garde, with illustrations and examples provided by Duchamp and Picasso. Finally, the text ends with a discussion of Luckacs and Adorno, particularly in how they treated Brecht, an essential thinker for Burger, and their theories of Aestheticism, the Avant-Garde, and Realism. Overall, this is a wonderful foray into the theoretical background of where we find ourselves as a society in the arena of Art. Mr. Burger's command of the theoretical material is masterful, his prose is as clear as glass, and if one is looking for a Marxist perspective on the avant-garde, this tome provides some real fine material.

[E. C. Koch · Rating 3 out of 5]

Any meaningful conceptualization of twentieth-century literature must contend with the avant-garde movements that helped establish its two periods (modernism and postmodernism). The avant-garde can only come about once art as an institution has been established (which comes about, Burger tells us, after the bourgeoisie come to political power in the mid-nineteenth century). After this institution is codified, Aestheticism rises as a dominant mode of artistic evaluation which rejects functionality and embraces art's reflection of what Burger terms "life-praxis" (which is something like "real life"). So now individual artworks define the institution they aspire to belong to (ahem, Derridean genre construction) and don't have any function other than to reflect the world and can be critical of bourgeois values but can't be too critical because then they'd have a function and would cease to be art. Enter the avant-garde. Burger's definition of avant-garde art is art that seeks to reintegrate art back into life-praxis, art that seeks to call the viewer's attention to the amorphous institution that assigns value. The only card that the avant-garde has to play, however, is "shock," which works well for Marcel Duchamp and his Ready-Mades and for Picasso and for Dali and that's pretty much it. These examples employed shock to great effect and called attention to art's institution and led to questions about "what art is" but could only play that card for so long before the shock was no longer shocking. Subsequent avant-garde movements (uglily called the neo-avant-garde) have failed for this reason, which is why Warhol will never be as radical as Duchamp et al. The result of the avant-garde movement(s) is the relativism that characterizes contemporary art whereby a work's value as art isn't immediately apparent or easily agreed upon. Even so, it's the avant-garde that lays the foundation for the dominant artistic movement to follow, so to understand modernism means contending with Fountain and understanding postmodernism means reckoning with Brillo Boxes (which latter case pretty nicely exemplifies exhaustion and pastiche and art as anti-art). This little book has a lot of great ideas packed densely into some fairly laborious prose. Caveat lector.

[Μάγκυ · Rating 4 out of 5]

-Τα κινήματα της πρωτοπορίας δε μπόρεσαν βέβαια καταστρέψουν το θεσμό της τέχνης, κατέστρεψαν ωστόσο τη δυνατότητα εμφάνισης ενός ορισμένου καλλιτεχνικό ρεύματος με την αξίωση της καθολικής εγκυρότητας. ... συνιστάται τη καταστροφή της δυνατότητας να θεσπίστηκε ως έγκυρα οποιαδήποτε αισθητικά πρότυπα. σελ. 183

- Για τον Hegel η ρομαντική μορφή τέχνης που περιλαμβάνει την εποχή από το μεσαίωνα μέχρι το παρόν του hegel συνιστά ήδη τη διάλυση της αλληλοδιείσδυσης μορφής και περιεχομένου που χαρακτηρίζει την κλασική (ελληνική) τέχνη, διάλυση η οποία προκαλείτε από την ανακάλυψη της ανεξάρτητης υποκειμενικότητας. σελ. 190

- Η σκέψη του Adorno ότι η υστεροκαπιταλιστική κοινωνία έχει γίνει ανορθολογική, σε βαθμό που ενδεχομένως να μην είναι πλέον εφικτή η θεωρητική της σύλληψη, μπορεί να ισχύει για τη μεταπρωτοποριακή τέχνη. σ 193

[Dora · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great, useful book for anyone interested in the subject of avant-garde art, but it is quite difficult to read because of Burger's writing style. You really have to be completely concentrated and mentally prepared for his philosophical and somewhat abstract thoughts and discussion points. I would recommend reading the book in some sort of environment that enables a discussion around it because it just needs to be discussed and really analyzed page by page (maybe even paragraph by paragraph) to be fully understood.

[Cole Blouin]

very helpful! wish I'd read this after I read that Verso book "aesthetics and politics" that f*cked my thinking around art up so badly for years. I mean that other book is good but this one historicizes it and contextualizes it in dare I say essential ways for anyone who hasn't already figured out that Adorno's ideas were products of a certain place and time and that taking his ideas as absolute truth is a great way to remain artistically paralyzed for decades. anyway, this is a very helpful text. I feel like I now know what "avant-garde" art is.

[poppet.]

okay so I'm not rating this because I really struggle with books like this, they tend to be quite dense and i have a short attention span 😭 I don't really vibe with philosophy books, im not at that level lmao. There's a couple of chapters that i didn't need to read for class, so technically I ...didn't finish.... the book... but Im still adding this to my shelf haha peace out ✌️

[Grazie K. Zeligara · Rating 4 out of 5]

Um panorama que aborda os efeitos políticos e econômicos ambíguos da arte de vanguarda na apropriação comercial dos procedimentos criativos do início do século XX, assim como as variadas motivações para as provocações artísticas e políticas. A partir de uma perspectiva materialista, o autor recorre frequentemente a Adorno. Li em português.

[Camille · Rating 4 out of 5]

Malgré des développements et des commentaires un peu abscons sur Hegel et l’École de Francfort, Bürger présente l'avant garde comme ayant été repêché par l'institution de l'art, jusqu'à en devenir une partie intégrante.
De belles pistes de réflexions.

[Carla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tuve que leer este libro completo para la clase de filosofía musical de la universidad y la verdad es que me gustó un montón pero tuve que leerlo tan a las apuradas para el parcial que me pareció una tortura.
Fuera de eso, me gusta como se expresa Bürger y como va hilando todo.

4⭐️

[Iga Machowiak]

Absolute pain to cite. Great for my essay though! Said everything I already thought but I could get some guy called burger to back it up. Love how the entire foreward is just burgers friend saying 'that guy is terrible burger is awesome'

[Özge Günaydın · Rating 3 out of 5]

Anlamı kopuk uzun cümleler arasına yerleşmiş bilinmeyen kelimelerle dolu bir kitap. Bir sanat aşığı olarak bile sıkıldım.

[Palmina]

painful
with some good points

[Flor · Rating 3 out of 5]

El prologo es LA cosa mas innecesariamente complicado, vaga, poco especifica y retorcida que lei en mi carrera academica. Salteen directo a la intro

[Comicsansarschgeweih · Rating 2 out of 5]

Decent work but didn’t spark joy reading

[Micaela · Rating 2 out of 5]

Una fiesta 🙂

[Laszlo Rapaport]

Leido cap. 3 para Historia del Cine II