8/10/2019 The Significance of the Avant-Garde for Contemporary Aesthetics

1/4

The

Significance

f

the

Avant-Garde

or

Contemporaryesthetics: Reply

to

Jiirgen abermas

by

Peter

Biirger

Ever since the

appearance

of his first

ooks

publishedduring

he

early

1960s,

Jiirgen

abermas

has

devoted his effortsmore than

ny

other

on-

temporaryphilosopher

toward

making

the

tradition f

the

European

Enlightenment

ruitful

or the

thought

nd

practice

of

the

present.

n

Strukturwandel

er

Offentlichkeit*

e uncovered he socio-historicalondi-

tions which

contributed o the

decay

of that

major

politicalcategory

f

bourgeois

society.

Then in

Theorie nd Praxis**

he examined he

changing

relationship

between science

and social action.

In both

works

he

was

concerned withlocatingthe possibilities nd limitationsn regardto a

contemporary

ontinuation

f the

project

of

the

Enlightenment

hich

Kant had described

with the

concept

Miindigkeit,

he

coming

of

age.

Throughout

his studies

Habermas has

never ost

sight

f

the

fact hatthe

efforts o

salvage

the

hopes

of

the

Enlightenment

an

only

be

successful

today

to the

extent

that these endeavors nclude

a

critique

of

bourgeois

society.

t has

always

been self-evident or

Habermas thatMarx's

analysis

of

capitalism

mustnot

only

be taken nto

consideration,

ut must lso be

checked and corrected

n

ight

f

historical

xperience

ince the

end of

the

19thcentury.'

Habermas's

speech

Modernity

versus

Postmodernity,

which

was

given

n

Frankfurt henhe was awarded theAdorno

prize,2

estifieso

the

continuity

f his

thought.

He

takes

a

decisive

stand to

maintain the

project

of

modernity,

nd he is

just

as

decisive n

his

opposition

o the

coalition of

various

types

of

conservatism

hichhe examineswith

imely

diagnostic

precision.

Within

his framework

e

develops

his cultural nd

*

The StructuralransformationfthePublic phere 1962).Notavailablen English.

For

a

summary

ee

Jiurgen

abermas,

ThePublic

phere,

New

German

ritique.

(Fall

1974),

9-55.

**

Theory

nd Practice

1963).

1.

The fact

hat must

xplicitly

tress his

oint

o ounterubtlendnot o

subtle

ttacks

inWest

Germany

n

Habermas's

lleged

ogmatism

s itself

commentary

n

academic

freedom n that

ountry.

2.

See Die

Modemrne:

in

unvollendetes

roject,

ie

Zeit,

Nr.

39,

American

dition r.

39,

September

6,

1980).

19

8/10/2019 The Significance of the Avant-Garde for Contemporary Aesthetics

2/4

20

Biurger

theoretical eflections hich oint o a wayoutofthe ncreasingsotericism

of

art

Esoterisierung

er

Kunst),

nd he elaborates

what

non-specialized

reception

of art would

look like. I

should

like to discuss Habermas's

Frankfurt hesis

n

a critical

way,

but

I want to make

it

clear that

am in

basic

agreement

with the social and scientific

oals

whichhe has

formu-

lated.

I

am also consciousof

the extent

o which

my

own

work s indebted

to Habermas.

Stimulated

by

his

re-examination

f Max Weber's works Habermas

sees

the

development

f the modern

ge

as the differentiation

Ausdif-

ferenzierung) f the value spheresof science,morality,nd art, and he

characterizes

the

project

of

modernity

s the

endeavor

to

develop

the

spheres

in their

respective

nherent

ogic

(Eigensinn)

while

at

the

ame

time

using

their

potential

for a reasonable

(verniinftig)

rganization

f

everyday

ife.

In

this

way

he

can

emphasize

he

continuity

f his cultural

and theoretical

reflectionswith the modernist

roject

by

stressing

he

necessity

f a

specialized

elaboration f

artistic

roblems

while

t

the

ame

time

envisioning type

of

reception

which

uses aesthetic

xperience

exploratively

or he llumination

f a life-historicalituation. abermas's

arguments quite convincingnd consistent ithhisthoughto

the

extent

that

it

suggests

an

outline for

overcoming

he

aporias

of

contemporary

culture,

an

outline derived

precisely

rom he tradition f the

European

modernization

rocess.

However,

ask

myself

whether his

onsistency

f

argument

oes not demand

too

high prize:

the

moothing

ut of

ruptures

in the

development

of culture.

Ruptures,

fter

ll,

can be

key points

of

knowledge

because

they

reveal

the

contradictionsf culture. should ike

to summarize

my

deas

in

the

following

hree

paragraphs.

1.

I

am not

certainwhether

ne

can talk about

a

paralleldevelopment

of the

three

spheres science,morality,

nd

art)

as

Habermasdoes

when

he

posits

sublation claims

(Aufhebungsansprciche)

n the

spheres

of the-

oretical

knowledge

nd

morality

whichwould

parallel

the

sublation laim

of

the

avant-garde.

Habermas

neglects

he fact that there are

structural

differences etween

the

respective pheres

nd

that

he

pheres

hemselves

differn

social

tatus.

While

utonomousrt arries

ith

t the deaof ts

self-transcendencehis

cannot be said

to

be true of science

in

the same

way.

And

morality, ontrary

o

autonomous

art,

has

always

claimed to

guide

human

practice.

This

then

focuses

ttention

n

what the

Weberian

differentiationmodel

conceals:

the

different

mpact potential

of the

separate spheres

and their

nterdependence.

ere

it seems

to me

that

he

primacy

f science vis

vis

theother wo

realms

s

a central

roblem

within

the

social modernization

rocess.

When

autonomous

rt

constituted

tself

at

the

end of the 18th

century,

his was also

an

attempt

o counter

he

advance of

empirical

cientific

rocesses

n

the treatment f nature.

2.

Both

sides of

what Habermas calls the

project

of

modernitythe

development

of the

separate spheres ccording

o their wn

logic

and the

use

of

their

potential

for

reasonable

organization

f

everyday

ife)

have

8/10/2019 The Significance of the Avant-Garde for Contemporary Aesthetics

3/4

Avant-garde

nd

Contemporary

estletics

21

manifested

hemselves,

t least

n therealm f

iterature,

ot

s

parts

f

uniformrojectbutrathers a historical ovementfconflictingnd

antagonistic

endencies.

gainst

ourtly

ivertissement

ndthe ulture

f

representation

he

Enlightenment

eveloped

concept

f

iterature

hich

declared

the

reasonable

rganization

f

everyday

ife

s its

goal.

The

notion f

practical

se became

he

guiding

rinciple

f

iterary

roduction

and

reception.

twas under

onditions

f

decisively

ewhistorical

xperi-

ences

the ossof

validity

f

religious

orld

iews,

he

fragmentation

f

human

ctivities,

ndthe

discernment

f

the

negative

onsequences

fa

rapidly xpanding rofit-oriented

ook

market

that

art

constituted

itselfs autonomoust the ndof he18thentury.herewas n nsistence

on

the nternal

ogic

Eigensinn)

f

the rtistic

phere

hichrom

hat

ime

on

rejected

he

Enlightenment's

esthetics

f

mpact

y harplypposing

thenotion

hat rthadto

fulfill

ractical

eeds f

veryday

ife.3

ver ince

the

aesthetics

f

autonomy

as

nstitutionalized,

ttempts

o ink

p

with

the

Enlightenment's

oncept

f literature

nd to

include

ognitive

nd

moral

uestions

nart

have

been

fought

y

writers

nd

critics

examples

would

be

the

rejection

f

Zola's naturalism

nd

of Sartre's

ittirature

engagde).Only

in the field

of

commercial

nd

popular

iterature

s

a

reception

rom he

perspective

f individualifehistoryllowedand

therebymplicitly

enigrated.

n

fullyeveloped

ourgeois

ociety

auton-

omy

nd

use of

art

have

ncreasingly

ome o

oppose

ach

other,

hey

will not

be

so

easily

reconciled

s Habermas'

onstruction

f

modernity

suggests.

3. Habermas

s correct

n

rguing

hat ate

19-century

estheticism

olds

a

keyposition

or

n

understanding

f he

development

f rt n

bourgeois

society.

he

process

oward

ver

more

adical

utonomy

eaches

ts

high

point

n aestheticism

here

hedemand

or

utonomy

ecomes

ffective

andmanifestnthe evel f rtisticontent.utthismeans andhere

disagree

with

Habermas

that

he

development

f art

according

o

its

internal

ogicgives

ise o a

problem:

he

danger

f

semantic

trophy

f

the

works.

The

avant-garde's

evolt

esponds

o

aestheticism's

adical

claim

for

utonomy

ith n

attempt

hich

s

no

lessradical.

t

is

the

attempt

o sublate

he

autonomy

laims

ndto

reintegrate

rt nto

he

practice

f

everyday

ife.

Habermas

uses

the

terms

modernity

nd

avant-garde

s

syno-

nyms,

ollowing

dorno'susage.Thisterminology,owever, eilsthe

historical

chievements

f the

avant-garde

ovements.

nsofar

s

they

produced

works

which re

recognized

oday,

hey

re

ntegrated

nto

he

movement

f

modernity.

ut

their adical

emand

o

reintegrate

rt

nto

everyday

ife

s

rejected

s

a

false ublation.

ere

Habermas

s

just

as

3. See

Aufkliirung

nd

iterarische

ffentlichkeit,

d.

by

Christa

irger,

eter

Birger,

and

Jochen

chulte-Sasse

Frankfurt

m

Main,

1980).

8/10/2019 The Significance of the Avant-Garde for Contemporary Aesthetics

4/4

22

Bi'irger

explicit s Adorno: Nothingremainsfrom desublimatedmeaning r a

destructured

orm;

n

emancipatory

ffect oes

notfollow. As

a

result

we

are leftwith

a

question:

what does the failure f the sublation laims of

avant-garde

movementsmean? Habermas

recognizes

hat he

demand for

sublation carries a

legitimate rotest gainst

world n which

happiness

evidently

s neither

rovided

nor

anticipated.

He

nevertheless

ondemns

t

unrelentingly.

f the

outlined historical

rgument

s correct

the

avant-

gardist

revolt

as an

answer to aestheticism's adical

demand for auton-

omy),

then the

avant-garde

ttackon

the

autonomous tatus

f

art results

fromthe logic of artistic evelopmentsn bourgeois ociety.This attack

then

contains

he same

contradictions

s

aestheticism,

ut

t

resolved hem

in an

opposite

direction;

t

s

extremelymportant

o understand

his

f

we

are to

comprehend

he

meaning

f art

n

our

society.

Even

the

failure f the demand for ublation houldnot

be

regarded

s

a mistakewithout

esults.On the

contrary.

f

it

is

possible

today

to think

about

free

productivity

or

veryone,

hen t

s

certainly

ue to the

fact hat

the

avant-gardistsuestioned

the

egitimacy

f the term

great

rtwork.

The

&critureutomatique

till ontains

possibilities

or

he

development

f

a freeproductivity hichgoes farbeyondthe surrealists' wnendeavors.

Finally,

without he

avant-gardist

otionof

montage

numerous

ealmsof

contemporary

esthetic

xperience

would

be

inaccessible.

To sum

up.

The

unsuccessful ttackon the autonomous tatus

fart s

that vent n

the

development

f

art

which

irst roke

with he

esthetics

f

autonomy,

nd it

has

provided

us

with he

possibility

or

overcoming

he

latter's limitations.

ven Habermas's and Wellmer's

dea that

aesthetic

experience

can be

used to illuminateife-historicalituations nd

to

change

cognitive

nterpretations

nd

normative rientations

even

this

reliance

on pre-autonomous enlightened) esthetics s unthinkablewithout he

avant-gardist

ssault

which

hook

up

the

aesthetics f

autonomy.

Without

denying

he

importance

which

theory

f

continuity

olds for n

under-

standing

f

the

modernization

rocess,

would nsist hat

contemporary

theory

of

culture cannot

do without

dialectical

omprehension f

rup-

tures,

specially

because

it

s

important

o

prevent

his

mportant

istorical

category

from

becoming pawn

in the

theories f the

Young

Conserva-

tives.

Translated

yAndreasHuyssen nd JackZipes