Power Quote
Power Quote: Roland Barthes
True, there are revolts against bourgeois ideology. This is what one generally calls the avant-garde. But these revolts are socially limited, they remain open to salvage. First, because they come from a small section of the bourgeoisie itself, from a minority group of artists and intellectuals, without public other than the class which they contest, and who remain dependent on its money in order to express themselves. Then, these revolts always get their inspiration from a very strongly made distinction between the ethically and the politically bourgeois: what the avant-garde contests is the bourgeois in art or morals–the shop-keeper, the Philistine, as in the heyday of Romanticism; but as for political contestation, there is none.* What the avant-garde does not tolerate about the bourgeoisie is its language, not its status. This does not necessarily mean that it approves of this status; simply, it leaves it aside. Whatever the violence of the provocation, the nature it finally endorses is that of ‘derelict’ man, not alienated man; and derelict man is still Eternal Man.
*It is remarkable that the adversaries of the bourgeoisie on matters of ethics or aesthetics remain for the most part indifferent, or even attached, to its political determinations. Conversely, its political adversaries neglect to issue a basic condemnation of its representations: they often go so far as to share them. This diversity of attacks benefits the bourgeoisie, it allows it to camouflage its name. For the bourgeoisie should be understood only as synthesis of its determinations and its representations.
–Mythologies, page 139-140
Tags: mythologies, roland barthes
best power quote yet. Chapeau.
best power quote yet. Chapeau.
I second that.
I second that.
Ionesco: “The worst bourgeois are the anti-bourgeois bourgeois.”
Ionesco: “The worst bourgeois are the anti-bourgeois bourgeois.”
So to be consistent the art avant-garde should challenge not only the philistine cultural values of the bourgeoisie but also its “status,” which is dependent (for Barthes, who was, after all, a leftist) on its ownership and control of the means of production. In other words, artists (or at least those who claim to be avant-garde) should struggle against capitalism and not just bad bourgeois art. Sounds good to me.
So to be consistent the art avant-garde should challenge not only the philistine cultural values of the bourgeoisie but also its “status,” which is dependent (for Barthes, who was, after all, a leftist) on its ownership and control of the means of production. In other words, artists (or at least those who claim to be avant-garde) should struggle against capitalism and not just bad bourgeois art. Sounds good to me.
I’d be curious to see if you would still call Barthes a leftist after (re?)reading Mythologies, esp. the section near the end regarding the Myth of the Left.
I’d be curious to see if you would still call Barthes a leftist after (re?)reading Mythologies, esp. the section near the end regarding the Myth of the Left.
I’ve read it. Barthes was a left-wing critic of the left, one of many (like Guy Debord and the Situationists, to take another example). He was critical especially of the “orthodox” or conventional left, which at the time meant the PCF (the Soviet-aligned French Communist Party), which he and Debord and lots of others saw as essentially conservative and even “bourgeois” in many ways. For Barthes the problem with the mainstream communist parties was that they weren’t radical enough. In the quote above he wasn’t just slagging off the avant-garde for being “anti-bourgeois” poseurs or something like that, he was saying that they — like the PCF in a different way — weren’t radical enough.
I’ve read it. Barthes was a left-wing critic of the left, one of many (like Guy Debord and the Situationists, to take another example). He was critical especially of the “orthodox” or conventional left, which at the time meant the PCF (the Soviet-aligned French Communist Party), which he and Debord and lots of others saw as essentially conservative and even “bourgeois” in many ways. For Barthes the problem with the mainstream communist parties was that they weren’t radical enough. In the quote above he wasn’t just slagging off the avant-garde for being “anti-bourgeois” poseurs or something like that, he was saying that they — like the PCF in a different way — weren’t radical enough.
Hey EC: I had assumed you read it, but didn’t want to posit the assumption. Weird tangle of neuroses, that. Apologies. :)
Thanks for the history! I’m definitely intrigued/impressed by Barthes, and have Image-Music-Text up next…
Hey EC: I had assumed you read it, but didn’t want to posit the assumption. Weird tangle of neuroses, that. Apologies. :)
Thanks for the history! I’m definitely intrigued/impressed by Barthes, and have Image-Music-Text up next…
“I had assumed you read it, but didn’t want to posit the assumption. Weird tangle of neuroses, that.”
I didn’t think it was neuroses, I’d just assumed it was . . . no posit. (Rimshot.)
“I had assumed you read it, but didn’t want to posit the assumption. Weird tangle of neuroses, that.”
I didn’t think it was neuroses, I’d just assumed it was . . . no posit. (Rimshot.)
Is it possible to create art that is neither for nor against anything (bourgeois, etc.), nor resemble anything? Why is art that does not adhere to mainstream expectations labeled ‘against’ it. Can’t it be merely alongside it? The term avant-garde bothers me. Is it possible for art to be apolitical in an absolute sense? meaning no experiencer of that art thinks in terms of this work is for or against a movement that is bigger than the art itself? Why can’t art be left alone?
Is it possible to create art that is neither for nor against anything (bourgeois, etc.), nor resemble anything? Why is art that does not adhere to mainstream expectations labeled ‘against’ it. Can’t it be merely alongside it? The term avant-garde bothers me. Is it possible for art to be apolitical in an absolute sense? meaning no experiencer of that art thinks in terms of this work is for or against a movement that is bigger than the art itself? Why can’t art be left alone?
“meaning no experiencer of that art thinks in terms of this work is for or against a movement that is bigger than the art itself? Why can’t art be left alone?”
For what it’s worth I think art’s the ‘biggest’ thing there is. And I don’t think any artist needs to be self-consciously avant-garde in order to produce thoroughly ‘radical’ art, radical in the best and only really important sense, i.e., going “to the root” (rad = root, as in ‘radish’) of its own means and procedures. In the case of writing, using language in new and exciting ways. Nobody necessarily has to wear a special “Love me, I’m avant-garde (and anti-mainstream)” hat for that. Some folks — and I guess I’m one of them — like to be more programmatically “avant-garde” and bitch about the mainstream because it’s what gets our rocks off, gets our juices going. Somebody else’s creative alchemy is different, and yet they produce fine, genuinely radical work. More power to ’em.
“meaning no experiencer of that art thinks in terms of this work is for or against a movement that is bigger than the art itself? Why can’t art be left alone?”
For what it’s worth I think art’s the ‘biggest’ thing there is. And I don’t think any artist needs to be self-consciously avant-garde in order to produce thoroughly ‘radical’ art, radical in the best and only really important sense, i.e., going “to the root” (rad = root, as in ‘radish’) of its own means and procedures. In the case of writing, using language in new and exciting ways. Nobody necessarily has to wear a special “Love me, I’m avant-garde (and anti-mainstream)” hat for that. Some folks — and I guess I’m one of them — like to be more programmatically “avant-garde” and bitch about the mainstream because it’s what gets our rocks off, gets our juices going. Somebody else’s creative alchemy is different, and yet they produce fine, genuinely radical work. More power to ’em.
let me say it a different way. Is there a classification of art that is neither mainstream nor anti-mainstream (I’m assuming avant-garde is the same as anti-mainstream)? Something that somehow removes itself from the discussion of being for or against anything. Does all art have to be pro or con? Can any art be truly apolitical?
let me say it a different way. Is there a classification of art that is neither mainstream nor anti-mainstream (I’m assuming avant-garde is the same as anti-mainstream)? Something that somehow removes itself from the discussion of being for or against anything. Does all art have to be pro or con? Can any art be truly apolitical?
should check out writing degree zero
should check out writing degree zero
Hey Darby, excellent questions. They are very akin to the ones I’ve been thinking about and doing research on lately.
My short answer is: it seems to me that most thinkers want to position the avant garde as a negative force: working “against” the mainstream. Partly this is because some people want very badly to cling to that horribly outmoded Hegelian dialectal model. Another aspect of this problem (the more insidious aspect) is that by forcing the avant garde into a negative position these thinkers perpetuate the stigmatism against the avant garde, thus insuring its position as subordinate to the mainstream. In Nietzschian terms, the way it has been set up thus far by the majority of thinkers is that the mainstream is active (master) and the avant garde is reactive (slave).
I hold a different position (which sounds like it might align with what you’re thinking) which is to say that the avant garde is a positive force coming from an affirmative position. The avant garde is not “against” the mainstream – it exists alongside the mainstream as an alternative rather than an oppositional force.
Not sure if this helps much – it’s 7:49 AM and I have yet to drink my coffee.
Hey Darby, excellent questions. They are very akin to the ones I’ve been thinking about and doing research on lately.
My short answer is: it seems to me that most thinkers want to position the avant garde as a negative force: working “against” the mainstream. Partly this is because some people want very badly to cling to that horribly outmoded Hegelian dialectal model. Another aspect of this problem (the more insidious aspect) is that by forcing the avant garde into a negative position these thinkers perpetuate the stigmatism against the avant garde, thus insuring its position as subordinate to the mainstream. In Nietzschian terms, the way it has been set up thus far by the majority of thinkers is that the mainstream is active (master) and the avant garde is reactive (slave).
I hold a different position (which sounds like it might align with what you’re thinking) which is to say that the avant garde is a positive force coming from an affirmative position. The avant garde is not “against” the mainstream – it exists alongside the mainstream as an alternative rather than an oppositional force.
Not sure if this helps much – it’s 7:49 AM and I have yet to drink my coffee.
Hi Chris, yes this is along the lines of how I am thinking. I get a bad taste in my mouth when avant-guarde is used antagonistically. It probably comes down to one’s definition of ‘advance’ if we want to get semantic.I don’t think advance is in line with how I want to view it either though, and is why I’m looking for a different classification.
Hi Chris, yes this is along the lines of how I am thinking. I get a bad taste in my mouth when avant-guarde is used antagonistically. It probably comes down to one’s definition of ‘advance’ if we want to get semantic.I don’t think advance is in line with how I want to view it either though, and is why I’m looking for a different classification.
Will do, thanks.
Will do, thanks.