, , , , ,

The Cyclical Avant-Garde: Art, Politics, and Eternal Innovation

Octavio Paz’s discernment unveils a profound continuum within avant-garde epochs. The neo-avant-garde of 1967, he posits, resonates with the rebellious spirit of its 1917 precursor, sharing motives of challenging norms and seeking artistic freedom. This echoes a cyclical dynamism, ensuring perpetual relevance in the evolving artistic panorama.


min read


Permit me to express my jubilation at partaking in an intellectually enriching dialogue centered upon the profound musings of Octavio Paz, an illustrious luminary who adeptly navigated the intricate realms of modernity and artistic expression with unparalleled dexterity. With your gracious indulgence, I shall embark upon a riveting expedition, delving into the sagacious observations put forth by Paz during the mid-sixties. It is incumbent upon us to scrutinize, with meticulous attention, the nuances embedded within his articulation and traverse the multifaceted dimensions of his perspicacious insight.

To apprehend Paz’s observation with due profundity, it is imperative that we first fathom the very essence and significance encapsulated within the avant-garde, situated within the broader context of modernity. Deriving its etymological origins from French military parlance, the term “avant-garde” was appropriated to signify the vanguard or forefront of artistic and cultural movements. These movements, propelled by an ardent desire to assail established norms and redefine the confines of artistic expression, harbored the ambition of propelling society forward by infusing it with novel perspectives and sensibilities. The avant-garde, through a relentless scrutiny of prevailing norms and traditions, sought to propel societal progress by interrogating and reshaping the existing artistic topography.

Endowed with an astute intellect and profound insight, Paz discerned, with eloquence, that the neo-avant-garde of 1967 did not materialize as an autonomous entity but rather emerged as an artifact of historical continuity. It palpably bore the imprint of the avant-garde of 1917, which, in its wake, materialized as a response to the cataclysmic events of the First World War. The avant-garde of 1917, emblematic of the artistic movements of Dadaism and Surrealism, vehemently rebelled against the stifling societal, political, and artistic conventions of its epoch. It embraced chaos, spontaneity, and the profound recesses of the subconscious, eschewing the rationality and order that had precipitated the deleterious consequences of warfare.

As the temporal threshold of 1967 unfolded, the global landscape had undergone profound metamorphoses. Notwithstanding the ostensibly distinct and original veneer of the neo-avant-garde movements, including the likes of Pop Art and Conceptual Art, Paz astutely perceived that they echoed the actions and gestures of their avant-garde forebears. Analogous to their antecedents, the neo-avant-garde of 1967 aspired to challenge and subvert extant norms, rebelling against the established societal, political, and artistic structures, albeit employing a repertoire of strategies and instruments that were subtly nuanced.

The assertion proffered by Paz obliges us to meticulously scrutinize the underlying continuities and shared motivations that constitute the sinewy fabric connecting these two avant-garde epochs. Both undertakings were animated by an ardent desire to dismantle the constrictive structures that impeded genuine artistic emancipation. Acknowledging the potency enshrined within shock, irony, and the unconventional, both the avant-garde of 1917 and 1967 disruptively assailed the complacent status quo. By transgressing demarcations and subjecting the very foundations of art to interrogation, they paved the way for emergent paradigms within the artistic milieu.

Furthermore, Paz’s observation compels us to ponder upon the cyclical vicissitudes inherent within the annals of history and the intricate interconnections underscoring artistic movements across temporal epochs. Functioning as an inherently forward-looking impetus, the avant-garde resides within a dialectic of innovation and tradition. While each instantiation of the avant-garde is inexorably shaped by its specific historical milieu, it concurrently carries the vestiges and legacies of its precursors. The actions and gestures of the avant-garde from 1917 reverberated across the artistic tableau, leaving an indelible imprint upon successive generations.

The neo-avant-garde of 1967 is characterized by a dynamic interplay wherein homage intertwines with divergence. Practitioners of this era, in a gesture of deference, paid obeisance to their antecedents by appropriating and reinterpreting their techniques and philosophies. They imbibed the radical spirit of the earlier avant-garde while concurrently forging uncharted paths and confronting the exigencies of modernity. This synthesis of veneration and innovation facilitated the neo-avant-garde of 1967 in attaining an intricate equilibrium between historical continuity and the exigencies of creative evolution.

Moreover, Paz’s observation impels us to interrogate the very conception of avant-garde progress. He challenges the prevailing presumption dictating that artistic movements should inevitably gravitate toward greater novelty and estrangement from the past. Instead, Paz propounds the notion that the avant-garde partakes in a non-linear progression, ensnared in a continuous dialogue that bridges the realms of antiquity and contemporaneity. The actions and gestures of the avant-garde are not cast into the abyss of obsolescence; rather, they undergo a process of repurposing, reinvention, and reinvigoration, thereby infusing the artistic discourse with a revitalized vitality.

Emanating in the aftermath of the First World War, during an epoch characterized by profound disillusionment and shattered convictions, the avant-garde of 1917 emerged as a riposte to the horrors of war, the mechanization of society, and the oppressive structures that had precipitated such cataclysmic devastation. Artists of this epoch, bequeathing unto us proponents of Dadaism and Surrealism, embraced the irrational, the absurd, and the profound recesses of the subconscious. Their modus operandi sought to dismantle the established artistic conventions and assail the very foundations of rationality and reason. Through their performative acts, manifestos, and unorthodox artistic creations, they endeavored to jolt and provoke, thereby unsettling the prevailing status quo and rousing society from its dormant stupor.

By the temporal juncture of 1967, the global landscape had undergone a renewed transformative phase. Neo-avant-garde movements, exemplified by the likes of Pop Art and Conceptual Art, inherited the rebellious spirit and iconoclastic fervor from their avant-garde progenitors. However, they manifested their creative energy through diverse mediums and techniques. Pop Art, distinguished by its vibrant and consumerist imagery, appropriated and recontextualized mass culture within the precincts of fine art, seeking to demystify the entrenched elitism endemic to high art while testing the porous boundaries between popular culture and high culture. In contradistinction, Conceptual Art shifted the focal point from the artistic object per se to the conceptual underpinning it. It accentuated the significance of intellectual engagement and posed trenchant queries to conventional notions of craftsmanship and aesthetics.

Paz’s assertion pertaining to the recurrence of actions and gestures does not, by any means, suggest a mere semblance of imitation or replication. Instead, it underscores the fundamental motivations and principles that impelled both avant-garde epochs. The avant-garde of 1917 and 1967 share a commonality in their fervent desire to assail established norms, their quest for unfettered artistic expression, and the strategic utilization of shock and provocation as subversive instruments. The avant-garde, in its evolutionary trajectory, manifests its transformative efficacy through the continual reinterpretation and adaptation of these principles to the specific exigencies and challenges of each temporal epoch.

Furthermore, Paz’s observation beckons us to ruminate upon the cyclical undulations intrinsic to cultural and artistic movements. Despite the potential variances in specific manifestations and techniques, the underlying ethos of rebellion and innovation remains a constant. Each avant-garde iteration assimilates and transmutes the actions and gestures of its forebears, building upon their triumphs and learning from their failures. This perpetual process of reinvention ensures the avant-garde’s sustained relevance and responsiveness to the ever-shifting sociopolitical and cultural landscapes.

In acknowledging the continuum between the avant-garde of 1917 and 1967, we cultivate a heightened appreciation for the evolutionary trajectory of artistic expression. The avant-garde, far from being a static entity confined to a particular temporal or spatial locus, transcends the constraints of chronological boundaries as an indomitable force that perseveres and endures. It embodies an ongoing inquiry, an unswerving pursuit of nascent possibilities and alternative perspectives.

May the profound insights bestowed upon us by Octavio Paz continue to serve as an inspirational lodestar as we navigate the perpetually transmuting terrain of the artistic cosmos.

Octavio Paz, “Presence and present. Baudelaire art critic” (Mexico)
Peter Bürger, “Theory of the Avant-Garde” (Germany)
Renato Poggioli, “The Theory of the Avant-Garde” (Italy)
Hal Foster, “The Return of the Real: The Avant-Garde at the End of the Century” (United States)
Clement Greenberg, “Art and Culture: Critical Essays” (United States)
John Roberts, “The Intangibilities of Form” (United Kingdom)
Arthur C. Danto, “After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History” (United States)
T.J. Clark, “Farewell to an Idea: Episodes from a History of Modernism” (United States)
David Hopkins, “Dada’s Boys: Identity and Play in the Art of the 1960s” (United Kingdom)
Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, “Neo-Avantgarde and Culture Industry” (Germany/United States)
Carolyn L. Kane, “Chromatic Algorithms” (United States)