Week One: Post #1 (Introduction to the Avant-Garde)

In my opinion the avant-garde was and is a new type of art that is contrary to the style and thought system that was prevalent in the nineteenth century and before. It is art that is conscious of itself as art, and is not trying to be a photograph or window into the realistic world. Originally it was thought of as means to lead society to good, and transitioned into something like creating art for the sake of art. Perhaps then avant-garde art attempts to better the world through beauty, aesthetics, being revolutionary, reactionary and innovative. Avant-garde art relies on tradition and art of the past in order to have something to react against, the heavy textured brush strokes of Manet for example.

I think for something to be avant-garde it needs to reference itself as art, through art history or through the technique used to create it. It also needs to be created in reaction to something, weather that is an art reference or a reference to the times I think it needs to speak to the viewer in a way that something is recognized in the style or aesthetics or in subject matter. When I think of avant-garde I automatically think of abstract expressionism, for some reason this is a deep association that I can not even trace… Now I realize there is so much more to the story going back to the artists Manet and Cezanne. Yet even in this understanding my mind immediately still jumps to abstract expressionism. I am excited to see this change and have my ideas broadly expanded.

As far as Manet’s Luncheon on the Grass is concerned I know that in its time it was extremely challenging to the viewer. I believe that even today it still poses challenges, especially to the person trying to understand how he was able to kick-start this new movement. Firstly the subject matter must have been startling to the original viewer; today it is out of context to the uninformed viewer. But to the original viewer seeing what to them was obviously a modern prostitute must have been wild. The men are wearing clothing that was not fit for the occasion, like the smoking hat for indoors for example. The woman’s clothing is right there for the viewer to see leaving no question that this is a modern woman. Then there are the stylistic differences like the perspective being much flatter and the woman in the background being much too large. The texture was completely unfinished in comparison with the works of the academy that were polished and finished with no visible brush strokes. This piece was avant-garde because it was challenging the school of thought and the academy and it was using modern day subject matter as well as new techniques that still required refined and amazing skills and craft yet were more, wild and would have looked messy to the viewer of the day.