Talk:Avant-garde

Picture not authentic

The picture is not actually Marcel Duchamp's famous work - it appears to be an imitation. Maybe somebody photoshopped out Duchamp's signature! The real work contains the signature "R. Mutt" painted in black on the bottom left of the work, as can be seen in these photographs of the original: You might want to see if you can find a photograph of the actual work, which we have permission to reproduce, for the sake of authenticity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.44.52 (talk) 07:45, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 1 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laricha325 (article contribs).

Frankfurt school

The Frankfurt school is pioneering for the concept of avant-garde, they said that the bourgeoise society could only be destroyed through the deconstruction of the superstructures and this is achieved precisely with avant-garde. I don't have a source but this needs to be in the article. The Blue Rider 18:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

translation

I speak just a few words of French, so can't be sure about this. But. I doubt if the translation of avant-garde into English is "advance guard". Maybe it's particular to England, but the juxtaposition of those two words seems to me (USA born and raised) to have no clear meaning in English. Guard of the Advance? Advanced guard? Either make sense; advance guard, unless it's a command (Advance, guard!) makes no sense. I distinguish here between a word-by-word "translation" and an actual translation of »meaning«.98.22.50.44 (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The French term avant‑garde is often rendered literally in English as “advance guard” or “vanguard.” While advance guard is a technically correct word‑for‑word translation (avant - before/advance, garde - guard), it is not the natural or idiomatic English equivalent in modern usage.

In English, the term vanguard is the historically established military and metaphorical counterpart. It refers to the group that goes ahead of the main force — the leading edge.

In distinguishing between literal and meaningful translation, it becomes clear that avant‑garde can indeed be rendered word‑for‑word as advance guard, but this version sounds awkward and is rarely used in natural English. The idiomatic translation vanguard aligns far better with both the historical and metaphorical sense of the term, referring to the group that leads the way. When the focus is on the artistic or cultural meaning, a conceptual translation is often the most accurate. In that context, avant‑garde corresponds to the innovators or the experimental forefront, expressions that best capture the radical, exploratory nature of the term. ~2026-39022-1 (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the IP user ~2026. I have always understood avant-garde to literally mean "vanguard" in military and other terms. And that it is metaphor for the "... intelligentsia that develops new or experimental concepts especially in the arts . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I also think the usage has fluctuated in some respects. We can see in the article itself that it's not necessarily espoused by an "intelligentsia" per se–it could very well be used (and is used) by those who have lost social standing and are not at all considered the intellectual elite. I remember seeing this for myself in the 1980s and 1990s punk and alternative music scene. Some of them were progressive, like Eddie Vedder, who has stayed true to his beliefs. But I don't think this was especially true for most, and people consistently misunderstand how conservative some of these insular art communities can be on some issues.

For example, the idea that Hollywood was a bastion for liberalism was invented in the 1970s by right wing activists. In fact, the film industry was ideologically conservative during and after McCarthyism, with progressive social issues covered less than 10% of the time in film from the late 1950s until the early 1970s. This was voluntary self-censorship that the studios imposed on themselves due to pressure from the federal government. The idea that there is a liberal elite in control of the arts has never been true. It's in fact the exception, not the rule, which is the opposite of what most people believe.

A more recent example of how right wing the avant-garde really is would be the meme merchants that arose on 4chan in the late 2000s and influenced internet culture. These people were not the intelligentsia by any stretch of the imagination, but they were the avant-garde in terms of internet culture, right wing politics, etc. Authors like Gary Lachman and others link the history of the right-wing European avant-garde to 4chan in some tangential respects. This idea that the avant-garde is left-aligned is probably an error of some kind, or more likely a kind of right-wing fever dream that infuses the literature. Sure, we would like to think the avant-garde is intellectually progressive, but it really never was.

My biggest surprise studying the history of Impressionism, to illustrate yet another example, was how many of these artists were right-aligned conservatives. That's generally not what we are taught. And it's not just Impressionism where this is evident, you see it just about everywhere. In many ways, Edward Hopper was considered avant-garde, yet he was anti-FDR along with his wife, who in fact was progressive earlier in her youth. It's still not clear why she changed, but it may have had something to do with her husband. It's also ironic to consider that while abstract expressionism was considered avant-garde at some point (and that's what Hopper and other conservatives opposed) it was later used by other (more liberal?) conservatives in the U.S. as a bulwark against Communism. Not sure if irony is the right word there.

To conclude, my overarching point is that the current version of this topic needs to reframe the discussion of political orientation, as it comes off as confused and contradictory. There is some merit in the fundamental idea that the avant-garde is challenging the establishment, but it can do so by calling back to the past, not necessarily to the future, hence the dichotomy between left and right. Finally, I want to dispute the idea that there exists an intelligentsia in the United States at this time. I believe that the actual intelligentsia in this country all but died out before 9/11.

But if pressed on the topic, I would really point to the 1970s as the last great era of the American intelligentsia. You can really get a sense of this by reading through newspapers.com and skimming through the top 200 books of that period. After Reagan came into office, the intelligentsia was mostly pushed to the side, and a new kind of fake pundit emerged. I don't want to name names, but the 1980s were full of a new kind of intelligentsia whose members were manufactured by right-wing think tanks and foundations, connections which were only discovered much later.

This new framework is mentioned in the book The Big Myth (2023) and supports my thesis that recent claimants and members of the so-called intelligentsia up to and during the post-9/11 era tend to be people who rarely, if ever, take avant-garde positions of any kind (for the reason laid out in the book). In fact, there's been a kind of recycling of controversial positions within the educated class, to the point where I'm convinced there haven't been any original ideas in decades in the U.S. because these people are risk-averse and don't want to rock the boat. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)