PDFlib PLOP: PDF Linearization, Optimization, Protection

Page inserted by evaluation version

www.pdflib.com – [email protected]
 KIRSTEN STROM

“Avant-Garde of What?”: Surrealism Reconceived as

Political Culture

However we may judge avant-garde art when we meet it, for us the phenomenon and idea are so present and evident
that we do not stop, even momentarily, to wonder if we might be dealing with an illusion or an appearance rather
than a reality, with a myth or a superstition rather than a concept.

Renato Poggioli1

I. INTRODUCTION longer meaningfully describe the cultural prod-

ucts of the historical moment in question.
“Obituaries” of the avant-garde can be dated Indeed, a historian clearly does not abandon the
back at least as far as the 1950s.2 They seem to sublime, for example, as a historical construct
have reached their heyday, however, with the meaningful to romantic landscape painting sim-
advent of discourses on postmodernism. Rosalind ply because it may seem no longer relevant to
Krauss, for example, decisively coupled the the production of art today. The question here,
notion of the avant-garde with the era of then, is not whether there can still be an avant-
modernism in her essay, “The Originality of the garde in the twenty-first century, but rather,
Avant-Garde” (1981): whether the theoretical model of the avant-
garde is fully adequate to articulate the full
In deconstructing the sister notions of origin and spectrum of activities engaged by the
originality, postmodernism establishes a schism individuals and groups defined by the term,
between itself and the conceptual domain of the who themselves might range from Tristan Tzara
avant-garde, looking back at it from across a gulf that to T. S. Elliot, and Hannah Höch to Piet
in turn establishes a historical divide. The historical Mondrian.
period that the avant-garde shared with modernism is Despite both the persistence of varying inter-
over. That seems an obvious fact.3 pretations of the term within the discourse and
the potentially problematic diversity of the
Nevertheless, as an historical construct for examples cited above, I believe that one might
discussing cultural production of the early reasonably posit that there has nonetheless been
twentieth century, the concept of the avant- a relative degree of consensus in defining the
garde remains virtually hegemonic, as is easily avant-garde. Renato Poggioli was among the
evidenced both by numerous recent titles (such first to attempt a systematic theorization of the
as that of a 2000 conference at Notre Dame, concept. He concluded that it can be described
“Rethinking the Avant-Garde”) and, perhaps by the following terms: “activism, or the spirit
ironically, by the proliferation of the obituaries of the adventure, agonism, or the spirit of sacri-
themselves. Of course Krauss’s essay, even in fice, futurism, or the present subordinated to the
arguing that “postmodernist” art “cannot be future, unpopularity and fashion, or the continual
seen as avant-garde,”4 does not attempt to sug- oscillation of old and new; finally, alienation as
gest that the model of the avant-garde can no seen especially in its cultural, aesthetic, and
The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62:1 Winter 2004
38 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

stylistic connections.” Poggioli then added to the concept and the apparent neglect of the term
this list of criteria: “experimentalism,” “nihil- within so-called “avant-garde” movements.
ism,” “antitraditionalism,” “dehumanization,” Although the early twentieth century is the
“iconoclasm,” and so on.5 While recent dis- period most commonly described by the rheto-
course has weighted some of these categories ric of the avant-garde, Matei Calinescu has
more heavily than others, most theories of the illustrated that the use of the term avant-garde
avant-garde seem in basic agreement that the as a cultural metaphor (rather than a purely
avant-garde is “nihilist” in its systematic rejec- military term) was already present in the late
tion of all existing aesthetic values, but simulta- sixteenth century, when “French humanist
neously (and perhaps somewhat paradoxically) lawyer and historian Etienne Pasquier” wrote,
“utopian” in its belief in progress and its seem- “A glorious war was then being waged against
ingly absolute faith in the power of aesthetic ignorance, a war in which, I would say, Scève,
alternatives of its own design to reshape culture Bèze, and Pelletier constituted the avant-garde;
as a whole. In the end, though, it is this very or, if you prefer, they were the fore-runners of
sense of an overarching consensus (rather than a the other poets.”6 This military metaphor, how-
lack thereof) that I would like to pose as a ever, seems not to have gained currency until
problem. Indeed, I would posit that the concept the early nineteenth century, when the term was
of the avant-garde has not only served to either revived or reinvented in a highly roman-
homogenize what may have been very diverse tic work generally attributed to Henri de Saint-
projects, but that it has also heavily influenced Simon (though Calinescu attributes the work to
and decisively restricted our concepts of such his disciple Oline Rodrigues7):
projects, allowing us to imagine a limited and
predetermined set of possibilities in theorizing It is we artists who will serve you as avant-
movements of the early twentieth century. garde . . . the power of the arts is in fact most immedi-
Adopting the notion that surrealism, for ate and most rapid: when we wish to spread new
example, is an avant-garde movement, means at ideas among men, we inscribe them on marble or on
least implicitly accepting the conditions canvas. . . . What a magnificent destiny for the arts is
outlined above as given. We would therefore that of exercising a positive power over society, a
imagine surrealism to have been above all an true priestly function, and of marching forcefully in
artistic movement, both nihilist and utopian in the [vanguard] of all the intellectual faculties . . . !8
its earnest pursuit of the irreversible over-
throwal of artistic or literary tradition. In such By contrast, however, as Calinescu would
ways, I would argue, the construct of the avant- summarize, the early twentieth-century avant-
garde, “so present . . . that we do not stop, even garde’s “offensive, insulting rhetoric came to be
momentarily to wonder if we might be dealing regarded as merely amusing, and its apocalyptic
with an illusion,” has inevitably affected and outcries were changed into comfortable and
indeed limited the possibilities of which we innocuous clichés.”9 It is indeed difficult to
have been able to conceive. Thus my ultimate imagine that the avant-garde envisioned by
purpose here is to suggest that perhaps we can Saint-Simon and his followers would have con-
begin to relinquish the idea of the avant-garde, sisted of “offensive, insulting rhetoric” or
not to abandon it completely, but to imagine for “apocalyptic outcries.” Nonetheless, Calinescu
a moment that we might have other options. has written that “Etymologically,” one of the
“conditions . . . basic to the existence and mean-
ingful activity of any properly named avant-
II. A CRITIQUE OF THE MODEL OF THE AVANT-GARDE garde (social, political, or cultural) [is] . . . the
possibility that its representatives be conceived
Before proposing such an alternative, however, of, or conceive of themselves, as being in
I would like to further expand upon the poten- advance of their time (obviously this does not
tial problems of the model of the avant-garde, go without a progressive or at least goal-
specifically those that, in my opinion, make the oriented philosophy of history).”10 It seems
possibility of alternatives especially desirable. reasonably clear that the Saint-Simonians may
In particular, these are the romantic origins of have indeed harbored such a progressive
Strom “Avant-Garde of What?”: Surrealism Reconceived as Political Culture 39

concept of history, but with later “avant-gardes,” avant-garde? Did the cubists, or the dadas? Did
dada, in particular, the original Saint-Simonian the surrealists?
model, in all of its romantic splendor, seems While, as previously suggested, the avant-
rather pointedly inappropriate. Nonetheless, garde might be exemplified by nearly anyone
Poggioli would declare that establishing itself who picked up a pen or paintbrush in the early
“as a function of the future, an anticipatory twentieth century, my primary case study here
anachronism . . . is exactly what the avant-garde will be surrealism, one of the most widely
in general . . . does do.”11 Even more explicitly known and studied movements of the “avant-
accepting and perpetuating such a progressive garde,” and indeed one that has even been con-
model of history with reference to the avant-garde, ceptualized as particularly characteristic of its
Sally Everett would write, “The avant-garde is tendencies. Jürgen Habermas, for example, has
the ingredient that causes society to change. suggested that “the spirit and discipline of
. . . The agitating activity of the avant-garde is aesthetic modernity,” which defined “various
necessary in order for society to progress, since avant-garde movements . . . finally reached its
progress is dependent on movement from one climax in the Café Voltaire of the dadaists and
state to another.”12 in surrealism.”14 Similarly, Hans Magnus
While the problem of assuming a progressive Enzensberger would declare, “Surrealism is the
model of history may seem particularly acute in paradigm, the perfect model of all avant-gardist
light of recent discourses of postmodernism, movements.”15
one finds that even in the nineteenth century, The surrealists indeed provide a particularly
connotations of the term avant-garde were compelling case study in that their documents,
called into question, though on rather different declarations, and manifestoes of the 1920s and
grounds. One of the first to argue with the term 1930s, in particular, reveal that they fought a
was Charles Baudelaire, who protested both the seemingly incessant battle against public misin-
metaphor itself and what he believed it stood terpretation of their intentions. If one considers
for: just how loosely the term surreal is used in com-
mon parlance today, one can begin to have some
In this country every metaphor wears a moustache. sense of their position. That two or three other
The militant school of literature . . . the littérateurs of artists or groups were also attempting to appropri-
the avant-garde....This weakness for military metaphors ate Apollinaire’s neologism only made the sur-
is a sign of natures that are not themselves militarist, realists even more guarded and determined to
but are made for discipline—that is to say, for con- define surrealism in their own precise terms.
formity—natures congenially domestic, Belgian Breton’s three surrealist manifestoes, as well as
natures that can think only in unison.13 his essay, “What is Surrealism?” quite obviously
have as their purpose the definition of the
Thus, for Baudelaire, the problem of the mili- surrealists’ project. And yet one finds Breton
tary origin of the metaphor, as well as the sense describing the project, presumably to his own
of uniformity it implied, was an insurmountable satisfaction, without recourse or reference to the
one. concept of the avant-garde. Similarly, the
Although Baudelaire’s very allegiance to the communal “Declaration of 27 January 1925”
notion of nonconformity might in fact lead one states quite clearly the term with which the
today to characterize him as all the more avant- surrealists wished their project to be understood:
garde, his statement suggests quite emphatically
that he did not recognize himself within the Regarding a false interpretation of our enterprise
model as he understood it. While Baudelaire that is stupidly circulating among the public, we
may be a relatively isolated case among “avant- declare to the entire braying literary, dramatic, philo-
garde” artists and groups for actively denounc- sophical, exegetical and even theological body of
ing the term, one might well question the degree contemporary criticism:
to which other “avant-gardes” adopted it.
Clearly, as Baudelaire’s quotation suggests, the 1. We have nothing to do with literature; but we
term was in circulation, but was it used? Did the are quite capable, when necessary, of making
futurists understand, define, or call themselves use of it like anyone else.
40 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

2. Surrealism is not a new or an easier means of independent claim at performing any sort of avant-
expression nor even a metaphysics of poetry. It garde role. Thus, since the early 1900s, but especially
is a means of total liberation of the mind and of after the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, and with
all that resembles it. increasing emphasis during the whole Stalin era, the
3. We are determined to make a revolution. term avant-garde came to be almost automatically
4. We have coupled the word surrealist and the associated with the idea of the monolithic Communist
word revolution only to show the disinterested, party. That was true not only for the Soviet Union but
detached, and even totally desperate character for Leninist orthodoxy all over the world.19
of this revolution.
5. We do not pretend to change the mores of men, Certainly anyone familiar with the surrealists’
but we intend to show the fragility of their largely painful relationship with the French
thought and on what shifting foundations, what Communist Party can easily understand the
caverns, they have built their trembling houses. degree to which the surrealists did not wish to
6. We hurl this formal warning to society: Beware conform to a Soviet model of art as communist
of your deviations and faux-pas; we shall not propaganda. Yet despite Calinescu’s argument,
miss a single one. clearly this was not the only context in which
7. At each turn of its thought, society will find us the term avant-garde was used in interwar Paris.
waiting. According to Poggioli,
8. We are specialists in revolt. There is no means
of action which we are not capable, when [The] divorce of the two avant-gardes [the aesthetic
necessary, of employing. and the political] took place in the 1880s, when
9. We say in particular to the Occidental world: expressions such as “the art, or literature of the avant-
surrealism exists. And what is this new ism that garde” came into vogue. . . . Thus what had up to then
is fastened to us? Surrealism is not a poetic been a secondary, figurative meaning became instead
form. It is a cry of the mind turning back on the primary, in fact the only, meaning: the isolated
itself, and it is determined to break apart its fet- image and the abbreviated term avant-garde became,
ters, even if it must be by material hammers!16 without qualification, another synonym for the artis-
tic avant-garde.20
While I acknowledge the document’s highly
assertive tone—and would freely allow for the In a rare exception to the surrealists’ apparent
possibility of overlooked exceptions else- avoidance of the term avant-garde, conscious or
where—what is striking to me about the surreal- unconscious as that avoidance might have been,
ists’ relationship to the concept of the avant- Robert Desnos gave an indication that this was
garde is that, for the most part, it seems not to indeed how the term was used in France in the
have occurred to them to articulate the basis of late 1920s. He did so in a rather scathing work
their project with the terminology of the avant- of film criticism called “Avant-Garde Cinema,”
garde construct.17 which he began on a sarcastic note: “Thanks to
Perhaps this might be explained by the more the persistent influence of Oscar Wilde and the
overtly political—and Marxist—appropriations aesthetes of 1890, an influence to which we
of the term. We have seen that Baudelaire owe, among others, the interventions of Monsieur
objected to the term, at least in part because, in Jean Cocteau, a mistaken kind of thinking has
Calinescu’s words, it “tended to point toward created much inauspicious confusion in the
the type of commitment one would have cinema.”21 Desnos then proceeded to generalize
expected from an artist who conceived of his that “An exaggerated respect for art and a
role as consisting mainly in party propa- mystique of expression has led a whole group of
ganda.”18 Indeed, in describing Lenin’s theory producers, actors, and spectators to the creation
of avant-garde literature, in which he referred to of a so-called avant-garde cinema, remarkable
the “avant-garde of the entire working class,” for the rapidity with which its productions
Calinescu has written: become obsolete, for its absence of human emo-
tion, and for the risks it obliges all cinema to
Reduced to the status of a little “cog,” it is not run.” In defining his target more specifically, he
difficult to understand that literature can have no would add: “Don’t get me wrong. When René
Strom “Avant-Garde of What?”: Surrealism Reconceived as Political Culture 41

Clair and Picabia made Entr’acte, Man Ray therefore of the identity and boundaries of the com-
L’Etoile de mer, Buñuel his admirable Un munity to which they belong. It constitutes the mean-
Chien andalou, there was no thought of creating ings of the terms in which these claims are framed,
a work of art or a new aesthetic but only of the nature of the contexts to which they pertain, and
obeying profound, original impulses, conse- the authority of the principles according to which
quently necessitating a new form.” In conclud- they are made binding.23
ing his essay, he would declare that, “In fact the
avant-garde in cinema, as in literature and In adopting Baker’s use of the term, Robert
theater, is a fiction”; but then, seeming to Gildea has similarly written, “By [political
reverse his position, he would state, “In fact culture] I mean the culture elaborated by
there is no more avant-garde cinema than the communities competing for political power, to
French cinema in its entirety. . . . The question define themselves against competing communi-
is, avant-garde of what?”22 This text, then, func- ties, to bind together their members, and to
tions to suggest that for Desnos, and perhaps for legitimate their claim to power.”24 Baker’s
the surrealists more generally, the term avant- work makes use of the dual nature of the term
garde was synonymous with a form of aesth- culture, as does Gildea’s. While Baker here
eticism, which they found lamentable, and that refers to “political culture” as a “set of dis-
the term was therefore not adequate to a courses,” he elsewhere uses the term political
description of their own project. cultures to refer to the communities in question
Yet of course the fact that the surrealists whose raison d’être is to engage themselves in
themselves seemed to have had little interest in such discourses. I would propose that the latter
characterizing themselves as avant-garde by no use of the term is potentially quite enabling for
means compels historians to abandon the avant- historians attempting to (re)theorize groups
garde as a theoretical model. Ingres certainly such as the surrealists. In other words, while
never described himself as an Orientalist nor I do not call for the abolition of the concept of
spoke of the Male Gaze present in his work, the avant-garde, I do call for an envisioning of
though both terms can be very useful in discuss- the prospect of beginning again with a new
ing his paintings today. I do not propose for a model.
moment that a historian should be limited to the One advantage of the political culture model
vocabulary of the historical object. Indeed, it is is that it allows for a more subtle discussion of
with this point in mind that I would like to pro- culture-making strategies, one that thus exam-
pose an alternative construct. ines performative, rather than product-oriented,
aspects of a movement. In adopting this model
for understanding surrealism, one finds that it
III. THE SPECIFICATIONS AND RAMIFICATIONS OF
better articulates the surrealists’ relationship to
“POLITICAL CULTURE” historical sources than that allowed by the con-
cept of the avant-garde. While the avant-garde
Here I would advance the model of “political model emphasizes the notion that the surrealists
culture,” as described most effectively by histor- were antitradition, and always seeking new
ian Keith Michael Baker. In addressing earlier forms of expression, even a cursory glance at
uses of the term, he has written that his own use surrealist periodicals reveals that the surrealists,
rather than emphasizing a severance from trad-
is more linguistic. It sees politics as about making ition, were actively authoring their own prehis-
claims; as the activity through which individuals and tory, a subversive alternative tradition, which I
groups in any society articulate, negotiate, imple- have elsewhere termed the surrealist “anti-
ment, and enforce the competing claims they make canon.”25 Very much against the grain of the
upon one another and upon the whole. Political cul- avant-garde myth of originality, as most expli-
ture is, in this sense, the set of discourses or symbolic citly exemplified by the Italian futurists who
practices by which these claims are made. It com- advocated the destruction of libraries and
prises the definitions of the relative subject-positions museums, the surrealists celebrated and adopted
from which individuals and groups may (or may not) as precursors a number of historical figures,
legitimately make claims upon one another, and ranging from the Marquis de Sade to Giuseppe
42 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

Arcimboldo to the Comte de Lautéamont, and the process rather than the outcome, that this
so on. Indeed a lengthy roll call of such figures attack, in other words, was executed with
is featured prominently in the defining text of widespread, even mainstream, culture-making
the movement, the Surrealist Manifesto of strategies—the same strategies being used by
1924: “Swift is Surrealist in malice, Sade is organizations ranging from the French Commu-
Surrealist in sadism,” and so on.26 Of course nist Party to the Catholic Church.
many of these appropriated proto-surrealists It may be particularly telling that Poggioli
had been left out of conventional, classically seems incapable of assimilating this aspect of
biased histories of literature and art. Thus while surrealism into his theory of the avant-garde,
the surrealists never authored an authoritative writing:
historical “textbook,” they opened the doors of
history not only to the neglected, but to the mad, In the rare moments when avant-garde art seeks to
the criminal, the scandalous, the non-Western, justify itself by the authority or arbitration of history,
and the untrained, each of whom problematized in any one of the partial and infrequent fits of human-
the narrow standards informing the conven- ism or traditionalism that now and again inflict it,
tional canon. Indeed, the surrealists’ revival of even it deigns to look for its own patent of nobility in
such figures functioned then to promote differ- the chronicles of this past and to trace for itself a fam-
ence and to critique the ideological biases inher- ily tree of more or less authentic ancestors.
ent in supposedly neutral accounts of history
purporting to be based on ideals of “timeless- For Poggioli, this is a “regression [that] is
ness” and “universality.” particularly erroneous.”29 While Poggioli is cor-
What is key here, however, is that the surreal- rect in arguing that this error is based upon a
ists were hardly alone—or original—in their process of “anticipatory anachronism,” his
efforts to use history as a political tool. Indeed argument fails to recognize the political nature
Gildea’s study, The Past in French History, is of history writing, as outlined above.
devoted to the topic of the political nature of A second example of the surrealists working
historical appropriation and the proliferation of within the system involves the presentation and
such appropriations in France since 1789. For design of the journal La Révolution Surréaliste.
example, he illustrates that the cult of Joan of Overseen by Pierre Naville, the journal’s design
Arc—which reached fruition precisely in the was modeled upon that of the scientific review
aftermath of World War I—was divided into La Nature, which presumably harbored few
many cults of both the right and the left, each of intentions of aesthetic achievement or innova-
whom worked fervently to claim the Maid of tion. Indeed, the surrealist journal’s very formal
Orléans as their own. She thus became a vehicle layout remained remarkably unremarkable from
both in the service of and in opposition to the a visual point of view, particularly when con-
Catholic Church and the monarchy, depending sidered in relation to the almost violent typo-
upon whether her story was told by radicals, graphic experimentation of the dada and futurist
socialists, communists, liberal republicans, con- journals that preceded it. In contrast to the lat-
servatives, monarchists, fascists, and so on.27 ter’s nonlinear compositions and mismatched
As Gildea’s work testifies, however, Joan repre- points and fonts, which seemed to stretch to the
sented just one of many hotly contested and breaking point accepted standards of legibility,
deeply politicized historical moments. Similar La Révolution Surréaliste consistently used a
debates would focus upon whether Napoleon tidy and even formulaic layout, including its
was a genius and a savior, or an opportunist and title in bold across the top, a boxed-off rectan-
a tyrant,28 and so on. The surrealists in France gular photograph in the center, and two col-
in the 1920s were thus surrounded on all sides umns of contents making up the bottom third of
by politically motivated rewritings of history, a very orderly composition. All elements are
and I believe it to be quite significant that they neatly centered, and the type is both linear and
followed suit. Yes, clearly their anticanon was homogenous. Interior contents were similarly
an avant-gardistic attack on mainstream cultural coherent, in terms of their visual presentation
values, and an attack on conventional and con- and their content. (While the dream entries, for
servative histories, but what interests me here is example, defied laws of rationality, in contrast
Strom “Avant-Garde of What?”: Surrealism Reconceived as Political Culture 43

to many dada texts, they were generally written nature of both the idea of art (as opposed to dis-
with conventional grammar and complete sen- course) and that of products (as opposed to
tences.) In all, then, La Révolution Surréaliste, strategies). This is by no means to deny that the
when considered as a visual object, defied surrealists, as well as other movements charac-
notions of originality and aesthetic experimen- terized as avant-garde, were prolific producers
tation so closely associated with the concept of of literary and artistic objects, and that those
the avant-garde. Consequently, I would argue, objects played a crucial role in the critique
the model of the avant-garde encourages very enacted by such movements. Bürger, in particular,
little discussion of such aspects of the surrealist has described these objects and their contribution
project that do not conform to its norms. (Dada to cultural criticism through the terminology of
and futurist design have received considerably antiart, suggesting that the avant-garde adopted
more attention.) While the surrealist journal artistic practices that exposed their own means
may indeed be relatively uninteresting from an of production, in the process undermining the
aesthetic point of view, I would maintain that its classical (“organic” in Bürger’s terminology)
significance lies in potential insights into sur- assumptions that segregated the arts of a seem-
realist strategies for producing or infiltrating ingly self-contained aestheticism from life, poli-
culture. Indeed, the apparent conservatism of tics, and so on. As I will discuss shortly, Bürger
the journal’s cover would make an unsuspecting believes this to be to the credit of the avant-
viewer less likely to categorically dismiss the garde.
journal on the basis of visual incoherence. I Although I do not necessarily wish to deny
would contend, therefore, that the surrealists art an appropriate—or even special—position
may have used design as a tool to strategically as a uniquely condensed form of sociocultural
position themselves in order to more effectively discourse, I do wish to suggest, however, that
participate in and diversify cultural discourse. even—or in some cases especially—when the
Another objection to the model of the avant- surrealists are understood as antiartists, art has
garde has to do with an understanding of the for too long had the first and last word. Indeed,
avant-garde as above all an (object-oriented) Habermas would conclude that the surrealist
artistic endeavor. While in many ways the pre- “rebellion” was “hopeless” and a “failure”31
viously cited 1925 surrealist declaration con- specifically on the grounds that:
forms quite satisfactorily to many of the
commonly accepted criteria of the avant-garde, In everyday communication, cognitive meanings,
one might do well to revisit the first of these moral expectations, subjective expressions and evalu-
statements: “We have nothing to do with litera- ations must relate to one another. . . . A rationalized
ture; but we are capable, when necessary, of everyday life, therefore, could hardly be saved from
making use of it like anyone else.” In a single cultural impoverishment through breaking open a
statement, then, literature becomes a means single cultural sphere—art—and so providing access
rather than an end, as it is defined as a strategy, to just one of the specialized knowledge complexes.32
and one apparently to be accorded no greater
worth than other surrealist strategies (scandal, Rather clearly implicit in this statement is the
games, manifestoes, history-writing, and so on). notion that the surrealists operated exclusively
At this time, I would suggest that the concept of within the “cultural sphere” of art. Here, too, I
the avant-garde has been too entrenched in an would propose that the fatal limitation might
understanding of “avant-garde” movements as not be that of the surrealists’ operation only
projects of artistic—or even antiartistic—pro- within the realm of art, but rather that perhaps it
duction. Janet Lyon, for example, in writing of is endemic to a construct that allows us only to
“revolutionary discourse” and “avant-garde aes- consider this aspect of their project.
thetics,” couples the term avant-garde with In recognizing the existence of other aspects
artistic production, simultaneously segregating of “avant-garde” production, Poggioli has sug-
it from discursive practice.30 gested that perhaps the (over)emphasis on the
In interrogating the notion of artistic produc- avant-garde’s aesthetic production is unavoid-
tion, so central to our definitions of the avant- able: “It may . . . be that the avant-garde is one of
garde, I do mean to emphasize the problematic those tendencies destined to become art in spite
44 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

of itself.”33 Whether or not this is the case, it is As previously discussed, however, the goal-
certainly true that one is significantly more oriented and positivist concept of history
likely to find surrealism taught in a course on implied by the very term is a product of the
twentieth-century art than in a course on romantic origins of this model. By envisioning
twentieth-century France. The proposal of the the surrealist group as a political culture, I wish
model of political culture is not likely to change to suggest the possibility of rethinking the
this. But it can begin to illustrate more clearly implications of applying the model of the avant-
that we do have options for theorizing the garde to such groups. As I have suggested, these
surrealist project outside the boundaries of implications include an assumption that the sur-
conventional art (or literature) history.34 Indeed, realists necessarily harbored a utopian faith in
as the example of the surrealists’ history the inevitability of their own revolution.
(re)writing suggests, “political culture” may Indeed, a close reading of the manifestoes may
well be better equipped to facilitate a discussion suggest otherwise. In a passage at first glance
not only of products (that is, objects) but also of suggesting what John D. Ericson has termed “a
strategies. tendency to substitute new master narratives for
Certainly once one has moved away from a the old,”37 Breton states:
conventional (high) art-historical model, one
can begin to give serious consideration to those I believe in the future resolution of these two states,
things dismissed by William S. Rubin as “mere dream and reality, which are seemingly so contradic-
cultural artifacts”: the tracts, posters, manifestoes, tory, into a kind of absolute reality, a surreality, if
periodical designs, dress codes, events, inflam- one may so speak. It is in quest of this surreality that I
matory rhetoric, and other aspects of the project am going, certain not to find it but too unmindful of
that cannot be readily assimilated by the con- my death not to calculate to some slight degree the
cept of art.35 This breaks open a vicious cycle, joys of its possession.38
in which one cannot see surrealism as more or
other than an avant-garde, because only “high” Thus, one finds in Breton’s articulation of his
art is considered; while at the same time, only purpose an outright admission that its utmost
“high” art is considered, because surrealism is ideals are unattainable. Similar tendencies
nothing more or other than an avant-garde. In emerge again in the group declaration of 1925.
other words, not only does the model of pol- Though points 2 and 3 speak of “total libera-
itical culture allow one to speak of other things, tion” and “[determination] to make a revolu-
both discursive and material, but those other tion,” point 4 describes the paradoxically
things furthermore have great potential to open “detached” and “desperate character of this revo-
up alternate interpretations of surrealism as a lution,” while point 5 denies outright that they
whole. believe they possess the ability “to change the
Specifically, I believe that the notion of mores of men.” We see, therefore, a pattern in
discursivity enabled by the model of political which surrealist declarations offer up certainty,
culture may hold promise to powerfully upset only to take it back. (One might even posit that
our histories of the “avant-garde.” I would pose a similar pattern motivates many of the artistic
discursivity, therefore, as a potential alternative products of surrealism. “Magical realist” paint-
to the virtually inevitable conclusion of utopian- ings, as well as Buñuel and Dalí’s Un Chien
ism assumed—and, indeed, taken for granted— andalou, offer up a semblance of conventional
within the avant-garde model. Commenting on coherence, only to dramatically undercut it in
the seemingly inextricable relationship between the end.) Thus, it may ironically be psychiatrist
the avant-garde and utopianism, Daniel Herwitz, Pierre Janet who best described the surrealists
for example, has remarked: in a “Discussion” among those in his field con-
cerned with the “attacks [the Surrealists were]
Nearly everyone has called attention to the utopian making upon mental specialists” (this was defi-
character of avant-garde art (and how could one not, antly republished as the opening to the Second
when “utopia” is stamped across every page of every Manifesto of 1929). According to Janet, the
avant-garde manifesto, pronouncement, periodical, surrealists were “men obsessed, and men who
letter, and debate?).36 doubt.”39 It is the subtlety of this apparent
Strom “Avant-Garde of What?”: Surrealism Reconceived as Political Culture 45

contradiction that I believe the avant-garde adopting the model of the political culture,
construct has overshadowed. But a different Mann, in particular, has nonetheless empha-
model affords different possibilities. sized its characteristics, by describing the
Indeed, a reading of Hal Foster helps to fur- “being-in-discourse” of groups such as the
ther complicate our understanding, by introduc- futurists or the surrealists: “For members of any
ing the notion that one might “speak of the given movement definition is partly a matter of
avant-garde in terms of rhetoric.” Responding publicity or propaganda . . . all such definitions
to Bürger and Habermas and using Duchamp as are essentially strategic, means of positioning a
his example, Foster elaborates: “For the most movement in relation to real or potential allies,
acute avant-garde artists such as Duchamp, the enemies, patrons, critics, etc.”44 With reference
aim is neither an abstract negation of art nor a to this concept he has noted that such groups are
romantic reconciliation with life but a perpetual “completely immersed in a wide range of appar-
testing of the conventions of both. Thus, rather ently ancillary phenomena—reviewing, exhibi-
than false, circular, and otherwise affirmative, tion, appraisal, reproduction, academic analysis,
avant-garde practice at its best is contradictory, gossip, retrospection—all conceived within and
mobile, and otherwise diabolical.”40 Implied as an economy, a system or field of circulation
here in the notion of rhetoric is the relative, as and exchange that is itself a function of a larger
apposed to the absolute, implied within the cultural economy.”45
model of utopianism. One might especially con- As previously suggested, the concept of polit-
sider in this regard Breton’s famous definition ical culture allows for a foregrounding of these
of the purest surrealist act, from the Second very (“apparently ancillary”) strategies. And
Surrealist Manifesto: “The simplest Surrealist indeed it may well be only by investigating such
act consists of dashing down the street, pistol in strategies that one can begin to consider the
hand, and firing blindly, as fast as you can pull alternative possibility of theorizing surrealism
the trigger, into the crowd.”41 No surrealist ever as a profoundly discursive project. This is to
committed such an act, and one might thus con- suggest, in other words, that perhaps above all,
clude that what may appear to be imperative or the surrealists were building an alternative sub-
absolute within surrealist documents may culture, which necessarily existed in relation to
instead be understood as strategically inflam- the “larger cultural economy” described by
matory rhetoric, which would, to adapt Foster’s Mann, but that functioned as critique by perfor-
terminology, perpetually test the conventions of matively illustrating that mainstream cultural
discourse. beliefs were themselves ideological constructs
Foster, however, has additionally written of rather than universal truths. The model of politi-
the avant-garde, “By now [its] problems . . . are cal culture, then, enables the potentially radical
familiar: the ideology of progress, the presump- possibility that that might have been enough. In
tion of originality, the elitist hermeticism, the other words, when theorized as a type of political
historical exclusivity, the appropriation by the culture rather than an avant-garde, it becomes
culture industry, and so on.”42 Foster’s text, possible to imagine that surrealism was a
therefore, is part of an effort to fulfill “the need deconstructive rather than a utopian project.46
for new genealogies of the avant-garde that Indeed, to say that the surrealists were staging a
complicate its past and support its future.”43 His site of protest, from which they could construct
project is thus one of imagining new possibili- a platform resisting collusion with conservative
ties by redefining the avant-garde, rather than ideology is not the same as saying that they gen-
by seeking an alternative to it. Other attempts to uinely believed that they would come to be rec-
rethink the concept of the avant-garde have sim- ognized as the absolute saviors of humanity. It
ilarly been articulated by numerous scholars, is to attribute to them a subversion of a deeper
but for the most part such other possibilities, level: it is to say that they recognized that all
though already present within the discourse of culture is artifice—that all culture is discourse.
the avant-garde, have tended to remain dis- Again, the first manifesto is particularly
placed by the weight of conventional definitions interesting in this regard, specifically the seg-
of the avant-garde, and the problems burdening ment titled “Secrets of the Magical Surrealist
them, as described above. Without explicitly Art.” While it begins with instructions for
46 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

automatic writing, which seem, based upon surrealism, and even the opening of a surrealist
what we know of the practice, to be quite ear- bureau of research, all of which might be appre-
nest, other directions, including “How not to be ciated as discursive strategies. Gregory Ulmer
bored any longer when with others,” “To write has written that “The error of the avant-
false novels,” “How to catch the eye of a garde . . . is to imagine that the system has an
woman you pass in the street,” and “Against ‘outside.’”48 But perhaps the “error” has been
death,” seem rather patently ironic. The texts made by those who have defined the construct
undermine the very authority that they appear to of the avant-garde as such, as an essentialized
assume in seeming to present themselves within “anti,” always trying to exist “outside” the “sys-
the trappings of a master discourse. (The effect tem.” When refracted through the prism of
is not unlike that of reading a list of Jenny political culture, however, it becomes possible
Holzer’s “truisms.”) Particularly pertinent, to suggest that perhaps for such groups, dis-
however, is the segment, “To make speeches”: course was not a means to the end of a utopia of
anti-ism, but a deconstructive end in itself. In
Just prior to the elections, in the first country which other words, such groups might be theorized in
deems it worthwhile to proceed in this kind of public terms of discursive difference rather than the
expression of opinion, have yourself put on the utopian nihilism of the anti.
ballot. Each of us has within himself the potential of Indeed, as this discussion has suggested, the
an orator: multicolored loin cloths, glass trinkets of “goals” of a political culture might be under-
words. Through Surrealism he will take despair stood as quite different from those of an avant-
unawares in its poverty. . . . He will promise so much that garde. We have already seen that theories of the
any promises he keeps will be a source of wonder and avant-garde occasionally evoke aspects of the
dismay. In answer to the claims of an entire people he political culture model only to repress them.
will give a partial and ludicrous vote. He will make Bürger’s Theory of the Avant-Garde might be
the bitterest enemies partake of a secret desire which cited as another example, and one that further-
will blow up the countries. And in this he will suc- more can be used to illustrate the distinct goals
ceed simply by allowing himself to be moved by the of the two concepts. While he devotes the bulk
immense word which dissolves into pity and revolves of the text to the notion that the (utopian) goal
in hate. . . . He will be truly elected, and women will of avant-garde groups was to “reintegrate art
love him with an all-consuming passion.47 into the praxis of life,”49 in a brief remark in his
introduction, Bürger states that “The category
Thus, one finds in both the manifesto and the of art as institution . . . only became recognizable
performative content of this text that politics, after the avant-garde movements had criticized
culture, discourse, and so on, have been the autonomous status of art in developed bour-
exposed as “glass trinkets of words,” as artifice. geois society.”50 I wish to suggest that in con-
In using the concept of political culture, how- trast to Bürger’s stated definition of the goals of
ever, one is also afforded an opportunity to the avant-garde, the goals of a political culture
reevaluate the subtleties of the “avant-garde’s” might be defined by the implications of the lat-
relationship to mainstream culture. While ter quote, by the exposing of quasi-autonomous
clearly, in the case of the surrealists, the project institutional structures, and by the complication
may be defined as one of radical subversive- of a cultural discourse that might otherwise
ness, surrealist tactics may also be understood appear hegemonic. Here, again, I would quote
in terms of the construction of a relatively point 5 of the 1925 declaration: “We do not pre-
coherent subculture (subdiscourse), which was tend to change the mores of men, but we intend
constructed specifically through the use of to show the fragility of their thought and on
established culture (discourse)-making strate- what shifting foundations, what caverns, they
gies. As previously discussed, these strategies have built their trembling houses.”
would include history-writing and journal pub- In another passage, Bürger states that “The
lication; they would also include manifestoes, historical avant-garde movements were unable
inflammatory rhetoric, galleries and exhibi- to destroy art as an institution; but they did
tions, poetry and (tromp l’oeil) painting, destroy the possibility that a given school can
dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of present itself with the claim to universal
Strom “Avant-Garde of What?”: Surrealism Reconceived as Political Culture 47

validity.”51 Envisioning the surrealist group as more pragmatic, aspects of the model of poli-
an avant-garde is to define its goals as the tical culture should also be considered. The first
destruction of art as an institution; envisioning is that it does not inherently imply a movement
it rather as a political culture is to define its with artistic intent or ambitions. Indeed, this
goals as the destruction of the possibility of construct might easily describe groups that
claims to universal validity. This would indeed would not only include the surrealists, but also
become the stated aim of Luis Buñuel who, late the reactionary fringe group Action Française
in his life, would declare: and even mainstream political parties. In this
way it may be a less specific model than that of
In any society, the artist has a responsibility. His the avant-garde, and perhaps one inadequate to
effectiveness is certainly limited and a writer or discussions that wish to foreground the role of
painter cannot change the world. But they can keep (anti-)art. As previously suggested, however, I
an essential margin of nonconformity alive. Thanks would argue that one of the dangers of the
to them, the powerful can never affirm that everyone avant-garde construct is that its specificity can
agrees with their acts. That small difference is very become homogenizing. Groups ranging from
important. When power feels itself totally justified the Italian futurists to the surrealists, to the
and approved, it immediately destroys whatever German expressionists have their considerable
freedoms we have left, and that is fascism. My ideas differences effaced as they are lumped under a
have not changed since I was 20. Basically, I agree conceptual model, which includes them prima-
with Engels: An artist describes real social relation- rily because they created experimental art. In
ships with the purpose of destroying the conventional being general enough to avoid the homogeniza-
ideas about those relationships, undermining bour- tion of such different projects, however, the
geois optimism and forcing the public to doubt the model of political culture does not become so
tenets of the established order.52 general as to be meaningless. Indeed its speci-
ficity lies not in what the groups produced (art,
I would argue, furthermore, that this was the discourse, and so on), nor in where they posi-
performative aim of a number of surrealist doc- tioned themselves within the political spec-
uments and practices. Publishing, for example, trum.54 It lies rather in the term’s ability to
a (very unartistic) photograph of Benjamin investigate culture-making strategies: the how,
Péret insulting a priest in La Révolution Sur- rather than the what, of the project.
réaliste entered into circulation within the dis- I would also propose that political culture has
course the falsity of the myth that all of France the additional advantage of being a more prag-
was contentedly Catholic. Their public champion- matic, and thus a more neutral, term. Avant-
ings of “hysteria” and the irrationality of the garde, by contrast, is a word that has become
unconscious mind functioned to subvert the quite loaded. It clearly originated as a term of
authority of dominant positivist constructs of heroism implying admiration, yet since the dec-
reason, while their celebration of l’amour fou laration of the fall of modernism, in particular,
and liberated sexuality worked to protest the it has taken on overtones of derision, being
apparent hegemony of bourgeois family values. guilty by association of totalizing utopian ambi-
Their glorification of chance functioned to tions and ultimately failure. Political culture,
undermine the notion of a teleological model of however, implies and necessitates no judgment,
history as progress, and so on. Indeed, through neither that of romantic ideals, nor that of a
such practices, the surrealists could, to adapt the skepticism of modernist presumptions.
words of Janet Lyon, “challenge the ostensible Furthermore, it is a more interdisciplinary
universalism that underpins modern democratic model, allowing surrealism, for one, to be
cultural formations.”53 As I have indicated, viewed as a project whose end does not have to
however, one must be willing to give serious be art—or utopianism. Indeed, as I have argued,
consideration to nonartistic aspects of surrealist a more interdisciplinary model may lead to a
production to arrive at, accept, or even entertain greater appreciation of the interdisciplinary and
this conclusion. seemingly “ancillary” aspects of such projects,
While discursivity is the issue with the broad- those facets, such as publicity and daily activity,
est potential implications, two additional, and which expressed and defined the project’s
48 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

ideology but without conforming to the struc- ally that they did not. It is rather to question the
tures of institutional disciplines, segregating, state of discourse by which we can so easily
for example, art from literature, literature from take for granted that they did. I have argued,
history, history from psychology, psychology then, that the surrealists proposed alternatives to
from politics, and so on. Indeed, while exposing undermine the appearance of a hegemonic dis-
the artificiality of institutional disciplines, such course. It is my hope that this paper has done
practices problematize Habermas’s assertion the same.
that surrealism “[provided] access to just one of
the specialized knowledge complexes”: fine art.
KIRSTEN STROM
Lastly, the introduction of such a model Grand Valley State University
might also enable us to see beyond, or to pro- Department of Art History
pose the artificiality of, the apparent rupture Allendale, Michigan 49401–9403
separating the early twentieth century from our
own era. The potential advantage of such a pos-
sibility is that it may enable a greater historic- INTERNET: [email protected]
ization of recent strategies of resistance, as
embodied by Foucault and others, including 1. Renato Poggioli, The Theory of the Avant-Garde
those visual artists whom Foster has described (Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 13.
2. See Paul Mann, The Theory-Death of the Avant-Garde
as “neo-avant-garde.” Yet, what might be the (Indiana University Press, 1991), pp. 33–38, for an over-
most far-reaching—and ultimately challeng- view of such obituaries and their ideological implications.
ing—of the potential implications of political 3. Rosalind Krauss, The Originality of the Avant-Garde
culture is that it might require a rethinking of and Other Modernist Myths (MIT Press), p. 170.
4. Ibid.
Krauss’s rift, the “historical divide” separating 5. Poggioli, The Theory of the Avant-Garde, pp. 131 and
us from the age of modernism and the avant- 226.
garde. In other words, what is at stake is the 6. Quoted in Matei Calinescu, Five Faces of Modernity
very vantage point from which Krauss could (Duke University Press, 1987), pp. 97–98.
frame herself as all the wiser, having learned 7. Calinescu, Five Faces of Modernity, p. 101.
8. Quoted in Linda Nochlin, “The Invention of the
the lessons of the errors of modernism and the Avant-Garde: France, 1830–1880,” in The Avant-Garde, ed.
avant-garde, from which she consequently dis- Thomas B. Hess and John Ashbery (New York: Macmillan,
tanced herself so emphatically. When such 1968), pp. 11–12.
movements are reconsidered through the con- 9. Calinescu, Five Faces of Modernity, p. 121.
10. Ibid.
cept of political culture, however, new possibil- 11. Poggioli, The Theory of the Avant-Garde, pp. 70–71.
ities emerge, and ultimately, it may become 12. Sally Everett, Introduction to Art Theory and Criti-
more difficult to maintain that a rift divides us cism: An Anthology of Formalist, Avant-Garde, Contextu-
decisively from the age of modernism. salist and Post-Modern Thought (Jefferson, NC: McFarland
In conclusion, however, I would like to reit- & Company, 1991), p. x.
13. Quoted in Calinescu, Five Faces of Modernity, pp.
erate that in advocating the model of political 110–111.
culture, I am by no means calling for an end to 14. Jürgen Habermas, “Modernity—An Incomplete
the historiographic concept of the avant-garde, Project,” in The Anti-Aesthetic, ed. Hal Foster (Seattle: Bay
nor do I believe that the alternative I have Press, 1983), p. 5.
15. Hans Magnus Enzensberger, “The Aporias of the
described here will or even should become uni- Avant-Garde,” in The Consciousness Industry: On Litera-
versally adopted or hegemonic. I do wish quite ture, Politics and the Media (New York: Seabury Press,
emphatically, however, to suggest that indeed 1974), p. 39. Note that Clement Greenberg, however, would
we need to rethink the fact that for so long the write in defining the avant-garde in formalist terms in 1939,
construct of the avant-garde has seemed like our “From the point of view of this formulation, Surrealism in
plastic art is a reactionary tendency which is attempting to
only option. More specifically, I would propose restore ‘outside’ subject matter” (“Avant-Garde and Kitsch,” in
that we have too readily accepted and assumed Art Theory and Criticism: An Anthology of Formalist, Avant-
that groups like the surrealists made the fatal Garde, Contextualist and Post-Modern Thought, ed. Sally
“error,” articulated by Ulmer, of “[imagining] Everett (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1991), p. 29.
16. Quoted in André Breton, What is Surrealism? (New
that culture has an outside.” Perhaps, in the end, York: Monad Press, 1978), p. 317.
it may well be that they did make this very 17. Breton did write in his 1946 preface to the Second
error. My purpose here is not to argue dogmatic- Manifesto that “A human association such as the one which
Strom “Avant-Garde of What?”: Surrealism Reconceived as Political Culture 49

enabled Surrealism to be built—an association such as had 35. William S. Rubin, Dada and Surrealist Art (New
not been seen, as far as its goals and its enthusiasm were York: Harry N. Abrams, 1968), p. 7.
concerned, at least since Saint-Simonism—cannot help but 36. Daniel Herwitz, Making Theory/Constructing Art:
obey certain laws of fluctuation about which it is probably On the Authority of the Avant-Garde (Stanford University
all too human not to be able to know how, from within, to Press, 1993), p. 33.
make up one’s mind,” André Breton, Manifestoes of Surre- 37. John D. Ericson, “The Cultural Politics of Dada,” in
alism (University of Michigan Press, 1969), p. 114. Thus Crisis and the Arts, Vol. I, ed. Stephen C. Foster (New
surrealism’s early “goals and its enthusiasm” were here ret- York: G. K. Hall, 1995), p. 11.
rospectively likened to those of the Saint-Simonians, though 38. Breton, Manifestoes, p. 12 (emphasis added, except-
this indeed seems to be an isolated reference, and one that ing surreality).
furthermore suggests that the surrealists were not ignorant 39. Breton, Manifestoes, p. 121.
of the concept of the avant-garde. 40. Hal Foster, The Return of the Real: The Avant-Garde
18. Calinescu, Five Faces of Modernity, p. 110. at the End of the Century (MIT Press, 1996), p. 16.
19. Calinescu, Five Faces of Modernity, pp. 114–115. 41. Breton, Manifestoes, p. 125.
20. Poggioli, The Theory of the Avant-Garde, p. 11. 42. Foster, The Return of the Real: The Avant-Garde at
21. By this time, Desnos had been expelled from the for- the End of the Century, p. 5.
mal surrealist group, but his praise in the same text for 43. Ibid.
Buñuel and Dalí’s Un Chien andalou suggests that at least 44. Mann, The Theory-Death of the Avant-Garde, p. 8.
on some level he remained sympathetic to the tenets of the 45. Mann, The Theory-Death of the Avant-Garde, p. 7.
surrealist project. 46. Michael Stone-Richards has even argued that surre-
22. Robert Desnos, “Avant-Garde Cinema,” in French alism absolutely was not a utopian movement, on the
Film Theory and Criticism, Vol. I: 1907–1929, ed. Richard grounds that the surrealists privileged desire over pleasure,
Abel (Princeton University Press, 1988), pp. 429–432. thereby invoking a temporality of displacement, in which
23. Keith Michael Baker, Inventing the French Revolution the satiation of desire is never achieved and indeed is
(Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 4. recognized as unachievable (Stone Richards, Introductory
24. Robert Gildea, The Past in French History (Yale remarks to the panel “The Political Positions of Surreal-
University Press, 1992), p. 9. ism,” Rethinking the Avant-Garde: Between Politics and
25. Kirsten Strom, Making History: Surrealism and the Aesthetics, Notre Dame University, April 14–15, 2000).
Invention of a Political Culture (Lanham, MD: University 47. Breton, Manifestoes, pp. 30–31.
Press of America, 2002). 48. Quoted in Mann, The Theory-Death of the Avant-
26. Breton, Manifestoes, pp. 226–227. Garde, p. 13.
27. See Gildea, The Past in French History, pp. 154–165. 49. Peter Bürger, Theory of the Avant-Garde (University
28. See Gildea, The Past in French History, pp. 62–111. of Minnesota Press, 1985), p. 22.
29. Poggioli, The Theory of the Avant-Garde, p. 70 50. Bürger, Theory of the Avant-Garde, p. liii.
(emphasis added). 51. Bürger, Theory of the Avant-Garde, p. 87.
30. Janet Lyon, Manifestoes: Provocations of the 52. Quoted in Carlos Fuentes, “The Discreet Charm of
Modern (Cornell University Press, 1999), p. 1. Luis Buñuel,” in Joan Mellen, ed., The World of Luis
31. Habermas, Modernity—An Incomplete Project, pp. Buñuel: Essays in Criticism (New York: Oxford University
13 and 6. Press, 1978), p. 71.
32. Habermas, Modernity—An Incomplete Project, p. 11. 53. Lyon, Manifestoes: Provocations of the Modern, p. 2.
33. Poggioli, The Theory of the Avant-Garde, p. 231. 54. See Andrew Hewett, Fascist Modernism: Aesthetics,
34. Janet Lyon, in fact, provides a model in Manifestoes: Politics, and the Avant-Garde (Stanford University Press,
Provocations of the Modern, in which she discusses (artistic) 1993) on the difficulties of assimilating the fascists of
avant-garde manifestoes in relation to manifestoes of Italian futurism into conventional theories of the avant-
suffragist and other (nonartistic) projects. garde.