The longevity of the avant-garde : a history of (avant-garde) theory

先锋范式是20世纪艺术和文学的基础。然而，在比尔格的先锋理论(1974)和曼的理论--先锋的死亡(1991)之后，人们徒劳地寻找一项全面的研究--在历史和当前的星座和表述中分析前卫理论的理论。由于先锋派的存在，这本书分析了先锋派的理论史，从历史上的先锋派开始，以“第二先锋派”的艺术激进主义结束。分析的中心是对想象的以及对一种特定习惯的概念化，从而为讨论前卫概念的持久吸引力提供了基础。本研究在以下几个方面有所创新：--首次对政治社会与文艺先锋的关系进行了全面分析。-因此，它考虑到了各自先锋运动及其理论大纲的文化和社会背景。考虑到历史上的先锋派，这些背景是民族主义(意大利未来主义)、流亡(达达)、革命(未来主义/建构主义者)、欧洲网络(包豪斯)以及精神分析(超现实主义)。-它第一次引入了“第二先锋”的概念，它适应了最近的医学和技术发展以及艺术激进主义的社会艺术现象。-它的重点是将巴黎中心迁往纽约。虽然文学是本世纪上半叶的主流媒介，但美国新先锋派引发了对视觉艺术的转换，其结果是市场的更重要意义。-由于先锋派使用了广泛的文学和媒介形式，统一的前卫理论被基于概念的理论动力学所取代。这本书区分了历史-社会概念(Bürger，Bourdieu)和来自系统论的概念(Luhmann)，以及来自新前卫(后结构主义和后现代对原创性的解构，延迟行动)的概念和来自第二前卫的概念。-为了分析概念之间的动态关系，本研究借鉴了卡斯特里亚迪斯的异质性本体论，特别是他的“激进想象”。结论(“现在什么是前卫？”)利用开创性的假设，如先锋派的死亡理论，它的幽灵长寿，或者先锋派的想法，来讨论一个关键的问题：前卫项目仍然在与艺术活动的前卫的多中心全球和后殖民空间有关的辩论中发挥作用吗？这个问题很重要，因为先锋计划本身就向文学和艺术提出了一些(尚未)得到答案的问题。因此，他们一次又一次地挑战艺术和文学。

The avant-garde paradigm is fundamental to the art and literature of the 20th century. Nonetheless, one searches in vain for a comprehensive study – after Bürger’s Theory of the avant-garde (1974) and Mann’s Theory-Death of the Avant-Garde (1991) – that analyses the theory of the avant-garde theory in historical and current constellations and articulations. Since the avant-garde lives on, this book analyses the avant-garde’s history of theory, beginning with the historical avant-gardes and ending with the ArtActivism of the “second avant-garde”. The analysis is centred on conceptualisations of the Imaginary as well as on one specific habit, thus providing a basis for the discussion of the lasting appeal of the notion of avant-garde. This study innovates in several regards: - It is the first to provide a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between the political-social and the literary-artistic avant-gardes. - Accordingly, it takes the cultural and social contexts of the respective avant-garde-movements and of their theoretical outlines into account. Considering the historical avant-gardes, these contexts are nationalism (italian futurism), exile (Dada), revolution (futurists/constructivists), european networks (Bauhaus) as well as psychoanalysis (surrealism). - For the first time, it introduces the notion of the “second avant-garde”, which accomodates recent medial and technical developments and the social-artistic phenomenon of ArtActivism. - It focuses on the relocation of the Parisian centre to New York. While literature is the prevailing medium in the first half of the century, the US neo-avant-gardes induce a conversion to the visual arts, with the consequence of a greater significance of the market. - Due to the broad range of literary and medial forms used up by the avant-garde a unified theory of avant-garde is replaced by theoretical dynamics based on concepts. This book differentiates between historical-social concepts (Bürger, Bourdieu) and concepts from systems theory (Luhmann) as well as between concepts from the neo-avant-garde (poststructuralist and postmodern deconstruction of originality, deferred action) and from the Second avant-garde. - In order to analyse the dynamics between the concepts, this study draws on Castoriadis’s ontology of heterogeneity, especially on his “radical Imaginary”. The conclusion (“What is an avant-garde now?”) draws on seminal hypotheses, such as the Theory-death of the avant-garde, its longevity as a ghost, or the very idea of an avant-garde, to discuss a crucial question: Does the project avant-garde still play a role in the debates that are concerned with the polycentric global and postcolonial space of an ArtActive avant-garde? This question is important, as the project avant-garde itself puts questions to literature and art that have not (yet) received an answer. Therefore, they challenge art and literature time and time again.