avangarde postmodernism

8/8/2019 Avangarde Postmodernism

1/19

The Search for Tradition: Avant-Garde and Postmodernism in the 1970sAuthor(s): Andreas HuyssenSource: New German Critique, No. 22, Special Issue on Modernism (Winter, 1981), pp. 23-40Published by: New German CritiqueStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/487862

Accessed: 06/09/2010 10:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toNew German

Critique.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ngchttp://www.jstor.org/stable/487862?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/487862?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ngc


2/19

The Searchfor Tradition:Avant-Gardeand Postmodernism n the 1970s*by Andreas Huyssen

Imagine Walter Benjamin in Berlin, the city of his childhood, walkingthrough the international avant-garde exhibit Tendenzen der zwanzigerJahre, on display in 1977 in the new Nationalgalerie built by Bauhaus ar-chitect Mies van der Rohe in the 1960s. Imagine Walter Benjamin as aflaneur in the city of boulevards and arcades he so admirably described,happening upon the Centre Georges Pompidou and its multi-media showParis-Berlin 1900-1933, which was a major cultural event in 1978. Orimagine the theorist of media and image reproduction in 1981 in front of atelevision set watching Robert Hughes' BBC-produced eight-part series onavant-garde art "The Shock of the New."' Would this major critic andaesthetician of the avant-garde have rejoiced in its success - manifesteven in the architecture of the museums housing the exhibits - or wouldshadows of melancholy have clouded his eyes? Would he, perhaps, havebeen shocked by "The Shock of the New" or would he have felt called uponto revise the theory of post-auratic art? Or would he simply have arguedthat the administered culture of late capitalism had finally succeeded inimposing the phony spell of commodity fetishism even on that art whichmore than any other had challenged the values and traditions of bourgeoisculture? Maybe after another penetrating gaze at that architectural monu-ment to wholesale technological progress in the heart of Paris, Benjaminwould have quoted himself: "In every era the attempt must be made towrest tradition away from a conformism that is about to overpower it."2Thus might he acknowledge not only that the avant-garde - embodiment* An earlierversion of this essay was presentedat the Symposium n Innovation/Ren-novation:CurrentTrendsandReconceptionsn WesternCulturewhichwas held nWiirzburgand Munich n June 1980.1. Catalogues: Tendenzen der ZwanzigerJahre: 15. Europiiische Kunstausstellung(Berlin,1977); Wem gehoirtdie Welt: Kunst und Gesellschaft in der WeimarerRepublik, Neue Gesell-schaft iirbildendeKunst Berlin,1977);Paris Berlin1900-1933,CentreGeorgesPompidou(Paris, 1978).RobertHughes'televisionseries has alsobeenpublishedn book formas TheShock of the New (New York, 1981). See also Paris - Moscow 1900-1930, Centre GeorgesPompidou(Paris, 1979).2. WalterBenjamin,"Theseson thePhilosophy f History," nIlluminations,d. HannahArendt (New York, 1969).

23


3/19

24 Huyssenof anti-tradition - has itself become tradition, but, moreover, that itsinventions and its imagination have become integral even to Westernculture's most official manifestations.

Of course, there is nothing new in such observations. Already in theearly 1960s Hans Magnus Enzensberger had analyzed the aporias of theavant-garde3 and Max Frisch had attributed to Brecht "the striking inef-fectualness of a classic."4 The use of visual montage, one of the majorinventions of the avant-garde, already had become standard procedure incommercial advertising, and reminders of literary modernism popped upin Volkswagen's beetle ads: "Und liuft und liuft und lauft." In fact,obituaries on modernism and the avant-garde abounded in the 1960s, bothin Western Europe and the United States.Avant-garde and modernism had not only been accepted as majorcultural expressions of the 20th century. They were fast becoming history.This then raised questions about the status of that art and literature whichwas produced after World War II, after the exhaustion of surrealism andabstraction, after the death of Musil and Thomas Mann, Valdry and Gide,Joyce and T. S. Eliot. One of the first critics to theorize about a shift frommodernism to postmodernism was Irving Howe in his 1959 essay "MassSociety and Postmodern Fiction."s And only a year later, Harry Levinused the same concept of the postmodern to designate what he saw as an"anti-intellectual undercurrent" which threatened the humanism and en-lightenment so characteristic of the culture of modernism.6Writers such asEnzensberger and Frisch clearly continued in the tradition of modernism(and this is true for Enzensberger's poetry of the early 1960s as well as forFrisch's plays and novels), and critics such as Howe and Levin sided withmodernism against the newer developments, which they could only see assymptoms of decline. But postmodernism7took off with a vengeance in the

3. Hans Magnus Enzensberger, "Die Aporien der Avantgarde," in Einzelheiten: Poesieund Politik (Frankfurt am Main, 1962). In this essay Enzensberger analyzes the contradictionsin the temporal sensibility of avant-gardism, the relationship of artistic and political avant-gardes, and certain post-1945 avant-garde phenomena such as art informel, action painting,and the literature of the beat generation. His major thesis is that the historical avant-garde isdead and that the revival of avant-gardism after 1945 is fraudulent and regressive.4. Max Frisch, "Der Autor und das Theater" (1964), in Gesammelte Werke in zeitlicherFolge, vol 5:2 (Frankfurt am Main, 1976), p. 342.

5. Partisan Review, 26 (1959), 420-436. Reprinted in Irving Howe, The Decline of theNew (New York, 1970), pp. 190-207.6. Harry Levin, "What Was Modernism?" (1960), in Refractions(New York, 1966),p. 271.7. It is not my purpose in this essay to define and delimit the term "postmodernism"conceptually. Since the 1960s the term has accumulated several layers of meaning whichshould not be forced into the straight-jacket of a systematic definition. In this essay the term"postmodernism" will variously refer to American art movements from pop to performance,to recent experimentalism in dance, theatre and fiction, and to certain avant-gardisttrends inliterary criticism from the work of Leslie Fiedler and Susan Sontag in the 1960s to the morerecent appropriation of French cultural theory by American critics who may or may not call


4/19

Avant-garde nd Postmodernism 25early to mid-1960s, most visibly in Pop art, in experimental fiction, and inthe criticism of Leslie Fiedler and Susan Sontag. Since then the notion ofpostmodernism has become key to almost any attempt to capture thespecific and unique qualities of contemporary activities in art and architec-ture, in dance and music, in literature and theory. Debates in the late1960s and early 1970s in the United States were increasingly oblivious tomodernism and to the historical avant-garde. Postmodernism reigned su-preme, and a sense of novelty and cultural change was pervasive.How then do we explain the striking fascination of the late 1970s withthe avant-garde of the first three to four decades of this century? What isthe meaning of this energetic come-back, in the age of postmodernism, ofDada, constructivism, futurism, surrealism, and the New Objectivity ofthe Weimar Republic? Exhibits of the classical avant-garde in France,Germany, England and the United States turned into major culturalevents. Substantial studies of the avant-garde were published in the UnitedStates and in West Germany initiating lively debates.8 Conferences wereheld on various aspects of modernism and the avant-garde.9All of this hashappened at a time when there seems to be little doubt that the classicalavant-garde has exhausted its creative potential and when the waning ofthe avant-garde is widely acknowledged as a fait accompli. Is this a case,then, of Hegel's owl of Minerva beginning its flight after the shades ofnight have fallen? Or are we dealing with a nostalgia for the "good years"of 20th-century culture? And if nostalgia it is, does it point to the exhaus-tion of culturalresourcesandcreativitynour owntimeor does it holdthepromise of a revitalization in contemporary culture? What, after all, is theplace of postmodernism in all this? Can we perhaps compare this phenom-enon with that other obnoxious nostalgia of the 1970s, the nostalgia foregyptian mummies (Tut exhibit in U.S.), medieval emperors (Staufferexhibit in Stuttgart), or, most recently, Vikings (Minneapolis)? A searchthemselvespostmodernists. ome usefuldiscussions f postmodernisman be found nMateiCalinescu, Faces of Modernity: Avant-Garde, Decadence, Kitsch (Bloomington and London,1977), especiallypp. 132-143; in a specialissue on postmodernism f Amerikastudien,(1977);this issue also containsa substantive ibliographyn postmodernism,bid.,pp.40-46.For a criticaltreatmentof the appropriationf Frenchcultural heoryby American iterarycriticssee FrankLentricchia,Afterthe New CriticismChicago,1980).On recenttrends nAmericanculture see Salmagundi, 0-51 (Fall 1980-Winter1981),a specialissue on Artand Intellectin America.8. Calinescu see footnote7); PeterBiirger,Theorie erAvantgardeFrankfurtmMain,1974); 'Theorie der Avantgarde': Antworten auf Peter Biirgers Bestimmung von Kunst undbirgerlicherGesellschaft,d. W. MartinLiidke FrankfurtmMain,1976);Biirger's eply ohis critics is contained in the introduction to his Vermittlung- Rezeption - Funktion(Frankfurt mMain, 1979); pecial ssue on Montage/Avantgardef theBerlin ournalAlter-native, 122/123(1978). See also the essays by JiurgenHabermas,Hans Platscheck nd KarlHeinz Bohrer in Stichworte zur 'Geistigen Situation der Zeit,' 2 vols., ed. Jiirgen Habermas(Frankfurt m Main, 1979).9. E.g., the 1979conferenceon fascismand the avant-garden Madison,Wisconsin.


5/19

26 Huyssenfor traditions seems to be involved in all these instances. Is this search fortradition perhaps just another sign of the conservatism of the 1970s, thecultural equivalent, as it were, of the political backlash or the so-calledTendenzwende? Or, alternatively, can we interpret the museum and tvrevival of the classical avant-garde as a defense against the neo-conserva-tive attacks on the culture of modernism and avant-gardism, attacks whichhave intensified in these last years in Germany, France and the UnitedStates?

In order to answer some of these questions it may be useful to comparethe status of art, literature and criticism in the late 1970s with that of the1960s. Paradoxically, the 1960s, for all their attacks on modernism and theavant-garde, still stand closer to the traditional notion of the avant-gardethan the archeology of modernity so characteristic of the late 1970s. Muchconfusion could have been avoided if critics had paid closer attention todistinctions that need to be made between avant-garde and modernism aswell as to the different relationship of each one to mass culture in theUnited States and Europe respectively. American critics especially tendedto use the terms avantgarde and modernism interchangeably. To give justtwo examples, Renato Poggioli's Theory of the Avant-Garde, translatedfrom the Italian in 1968, was reviewed in the United States as if it were abook about modernism'0 and John Weightman's The Concept of theAvant-Garde of 1973 is subtitled Explorations in Modernism." Both avant-garde and modernism may legitimately be understood as representingartistic emanations from the sensibility of modernity, but from a Europeanperspective it makes little sense to lump Thomas Mann together withDada, Proust with Andre Breton, or Rilke with Russian constructivism.While there are areas of overlap between the tradition of the avant-gardeand that of modernism (e.g., vorticism and Ezra Pound, radical languageexperimentation and James Joyce, expressionism and Gottfried Benn) theoverall aesthetic and political differences are too pervasive to be ignored.Thus Matei Calinescu makes the following point: "In France, Italy, Spainand other European countries the avant-garde, despite its various andoften contradictory claims, tends to be regarded as the most extreme formof artistic negativism - art itself being the first victim. As for modernism,whatever its specific meaning in different languages and for differentauthors, it never conveys that sense of universal and hysterical negation socharacteristic of the avant-garde. The anti-traditionalism of modernism isoften subtly traditional."'2 As to the political differences, the historicalavant-garde tended predominantly to the left, the major exception beingItalian futurism, while the right could claim a surprising number of mod-

10. References in Calinescu, Faces of Modernity, p. 140 and p. 287, fn. 40.11. John Weightman, The Concept of the Avant-Garde (La Salle, Ill., 1973).12. Calinescu, Faces of Modernity, p. 140.


6/19

Avant-garde and Postmodernism 27

ernists among its supporters, Ezra Pound, Knut Hamsun, Gottfried Bennamong others.Whereas Calinescu makes much of the negativistic, anti-aesthetic andself-destructive aspects of the avant-garde as opposed to the reconstructiveart of the modernists, the aesthetic and political project of the avant-gardemight be approached in more positive terms. In modernism art and litera-ture retained their traditional 19th-century autonomy from everyday life,an autonomy which had first been articulated by Kant and Schiller in thelate 18th century; the "institution art" (Peter Biurger'3),i.e., the tradition-tional way in which art and literature were produced, disseminated, andreceived, is never challenged by modernism but maintained intact. Mod-ernists such as T. S. Eliot and Ortega y Gasset emphasized time and againthat it was their mission to salvage the purity of high art from the encroach-ments of urbanization, massification, technological modernization, inshort, of modern mass culture. The avant-garde of the first three decadesof this century, however, attempted to subvert art's autonomy, its artificialseparation from life, and its institutionalization as "high art" which wasperceived to feed right into the legitimation needs of the 19th-centuryforms of bourgeois society. The avant-garde posited the reintegration ofart and life as its major project at a time when that traditional society,especially in Italy, Russia and Germany, was undergoing a major transfor-mation toward a qualitatively new stage of modernity. Social and politicalferment of the 1910s and 1920s was the breeding ground for avant-garderadicalism in art and literature as well as in politics. '4 When Enzensbergerwrote about the aporias of the avant-garde several decades later, he didnot just have the cooption of the avant-garde by the culture industry inmind as is sometimes surmised; he fully understood the political dimensionof the problem and pointed out how the historical avant-garde had failedto deliver what it had always promised: to sever political, social andaesthetic chains, explode cultural reifications, throw off traditional formsof domination, liberate repressed energies."5If with these distinctions in mind we look at United States culture of the1960s it becomes clear that the 1960s can be regarded as the closing chapterin the traditionof avant-gardism.Like all avant-gardes ince Saint Simonand the utopian socialists and anarchists up through Dada, surrealism, and

13. PeterBiirger'sTheorie erAvantgarde,nwhich he notionof the "institutionrt"playsa centralrole, willbe published n Englishnextyearby the Universityof MinnesotaPress ntheir new series "Theoryandthe Historyof Literature."14. On the politicalaspectsof the left avant-garde,ee DavidBathrick,"Affirmative ndNegativeCulture:Technologyand the LeftAvant-Garde,"n TheTechnologicalmagination,eds. Teresade Lauretis,AndreasHuyssen,andKathleenWoodwardMadison,Wis., 1980),pp. 107-122, andmy essay"TheHiddenDialectic:The Avant-Garde Technology MassCulture," n TheMythsof Information:Technology nd Post-Industrialulture, d. KathleenWoodward(Madison,Wis., 1980),pp. 151-164.15. See Enzensberger,"Aporien,"p. 66f.


7/19

28 Huyssenthe post-revolutionary art of Soviet Russia in the early 1920s, the 1960sfought tradition, and this revolt took place at a time of political and socialturmoil. The promise of unlimited abundance, political stability and newtechnological frontiers of the Kennedy years was shattered fast, and socialconflict emerged dominant in the civil rights movement, in the urban riots,and in the anti-war movement. It certainly is more than coincidental thatthe protest culture of the period adopted the label 'counter-culture,' thusprojecting an image of an avant-garde leading the way to an alternativekind of society. In the field of art, Pop revolted against abstract expres-sionism and sparked off a series of art movements from Op to Fluxus,Concept, and Minimalism which made the art scene of the 1960s as livelyand vibrating as it was commercially profitable and fashionable.'6 PeterBrook and the Living Theatre exploded the endless entrapments of ab-surdism and created a new style of theatrical performance. The theatreattempted to bridge the gap between stage and audience and experimentedwith new forms of immediacy and spontaneity in performance. There wasa participatory ethos in the theatre and in the arts which can easily belinked to the teach-ins and sit-ins of the protest movement. Exponents of anew sensibility rebelled against the complexities and ambiguities of mod-ernism embracing camp and pop culture instead, and literary critics re-jected the congealed canon and interpretive practices of New Criticismclaiming for their own writing the creativity, autonomy and presence oforiginal creation.When Leslie Fiedler declared the "Death of Avant-Garde Literature"in 1964,17he was really attacking modernism, and he himself embodied theethos of the classical avant-garde, American style. I say "American style"because Fiedler's major concern was not to democratize "high art"; hisgoal was rather to validate popular culture and to challenge the increasinginstitutionalization of high art. Thus when a few years later he wanted to"Cross the Border - Close the Gap" (1968)18 between high culture andpopular culture he reaffirmed precisely the classical avant-garde's projectto reunite these artificially separated realms of culture. For a moment inthe 1960s it seemed the Phoenix avant-garde had risen from the ashesfancying a flight toward the new frontier of the post-modern. Or wasAmerican postmodernism rather a Baudelairean albatros trying in vain tolift off the deck of the culture industry?Was postmodernism plagued fromits very inception by the same aporias Enzensberger had already analyzedso eloquently in 1962?It seems that even in the United States the uncriticalembracing of Western and camp, porno and rock, pop and counter-cultureas genuine popular culture points to an amnesia which may have been the

16. On Pop Art see my article "The Cultural Politics of Pop," New German Critique, 4(Winter 1975), 77-98.17. Leslie Fiedler, The Collected Essays of Leslie Fiedler, vol. II (New York, 1971), pp.454-461.18. Reprinted in Leslie Fiedler, A Fiedler Reader (New York, 1977), pp. 270-294.


8/19

Avant-garde and Postmrnodernismrn29

result of cold warpoliticsas much as of the postmodernists'elentless ightagainst tradition.Americananalysesof mass culturedid have a criticaledge in the late 1940sand 1950s'9whichwentallbutunacknowlegednthe1960suncriticalenthusiasm or camp, pop, and the media.A majordifferencebetweenthe United StatesandEuropein the 1960sis that Europeanwriters, artists,and intellectuals hen were much moreaware of the increasingcooption of all modernistand avant-garde rt bythe cultureindustry.Enzensberger fter allhadnot onlywrittenabouttheaporiasof the avant-garde,but about the pervasiveness f the "conscious-ness industry"as well.20 Since the traditionof the avant-garden Europedid not seem to offer what, for historicalreasons,it couldstilloffer in theUnited States, one politicallyfeasibleway to reactto the classicalavant-gardeand to cultural radition n generalwas to declarethe deathof all artand literatureand to call for culturalrevolution.But even this rhetoricalgesture, articulatedmostemphaticallynEnzensberger'sKursbuchn 1968and in the Parisiangraffitiof May '68, was part of the traditionalanti-aesthetic, anti-elitist, and anti-bourgeoisstrategiesof the avant-garde.And by no meansall writersandartistsheededthe call. PeterHandke,forinstance, denouncedas infantile the attackon all high art and literatureand he continuedto writeexperimentalplays,poetryandprose.And theculturalleft in West Germany,whichagreedwithEnzensberger'suneralfor art and literatureas long as it buried"bourgeois"artonly, undertookthe task of unearthingan alternativecultural radition,especiallythat ofthe leftavant-gardes f theWeimarRepublic.But thereappropriationf theleft traditionof theWeimarRepublicdid not revitalize ontemporaryrtandliterature n Germany hewaythe undercurrentf Dada had revitalizedheAmericanart sceneof the 1960s.Important xceptions o thisgeneralobser-vationcanbe foundin theworkof KlausStaeck,GiinterWallraff ndAlex-anderKluge, but they remain solatedcases.It soon became clear, that the Europeanattemptto escape from the"ghetto"of art and to breakthe bondageof the culture ndustryalso hadended in failure and frustration.Whetherin the Germanprotestmove-ment or in May '68 in France, the illusionthat culturalrevolutionwasimminentfounderedon the hardrealitiesof the statusquo. Art was notreintegratedinto everydaylife. The imaginationdid not come to power.The Centre Georges Pompidouwas built instead,and the SPD came topower in West Germany.The vanguard hrustof groupmovementsdevel-oping and assertingthe newest style seemed to be broken after 1968. InEurope, 1968marksnot the breakthroughhenhoped for, but rather hereplayed end of the traditionalavant-garde.Symptomaticof the 1970s

19.Cf. many essays in the anthologyMass Culture:The PopularArts in America,eds.BernardRosenbergand DavidManningWhite(NewYork, 1957).20. HansMagnusEnzensberger,Einzelheiten:BewusstseinsindustrieFrankfurtmMain,1962).


9/19

30 Huyssenwere loners like Peter Handke, whose work defies the notion of a unitarystyle; cult figures like Joseph Beuys who conjures up an archaic past; orfilm makers like Herzog, Wenders and Fa/3binderwhose films - despitetheir critique of contemporary Germany - lack one of the basic prerequi-sites of avant-garde art, a sense of the future.In the United States, however, the sense of the future, which hadasserted itself so powerfully in the 1960s, is still alive today in the postmod-ernist scene, even though its breathing space is shrinking fast as a result ofrecent economic and political changes (e.g., the cutting of the NEAbudget). There also seems to be a major shift of postmodernist interestfrom the earlier two-pronged concern with popular culture and with ex-perimental art and literature, to a new focus on cultural theory, a shiftwhich certainly reflects the academic institutionalization of postmodernism,but is not fully explained by it. More on this later. What concerns me hereis the temporal imagination of postmodernism, the unshaken confidence ofbeing at the edge of history which characterizes the whole trajectory ofAmerican postmodernism since the 1960s and of which the notion of apost-histoire is only one of the sillier manifestations. A possible explana-tion of this resilience to the shifting mood of the culture at large, whichcertainly since the mid-1970s has all but lost its confidence in the future,may lie precisely in the subterranean proximity of postmodernism to thosemovements, figures and intentions of the classical European avant-gardewhich were hardly ever acknowledged by the Anglo-Saxon notion ofmodernism. Despite the importance of Man Ray and the activities ofPicabia and Duchamp in New York, New York Dada remained at best amarginal phenomenon in American culture, and neither Dada nor sur-realism ever met with much public success in the United States. Preciselythis fact made Pop, happenings, Concept, experimental music, surfictionand performance art of the 1960s and 1970s look more novel than theyreally were. The audience's expectation horizon in the United States wasfundamentally different from what it was in Europe. Where Europeansmight react with a sense of deji vu, Americans could legitimately sustain asense of novelty, excitement, and breakthrough.A second major factor comes into play here. If we want to understandfully the power the Dadaist subcurrent assumed in the United States in the1960s, the absence of an American Dada or surrealist movement in theearlier 20th century also needs to be explained. As Peter Biirger hasargued, the major goal of the European avant-gardes was to undermine,attack, and transform the bourgeois "institution art." Such an iconoclasticattack on cultural institutions and traditional modes of representation,narrative structure, perspective, and poetic sensibility only made sense incountries where "high art" had an essential role to play in legitimizingbourgeois political and social domination, e.g., in the museum and salonculture, in the theatres, concert halls and opera houses and in the socializa-tion and education process in general. The cultural politics of 20th-century


10/19


avant-gardismwould have been meaningless (if not regressive)in theUnited States where "high art" was still strugglinghard to gain widerlegitimacyand to be takenseriouslyby the public.Thus it is not surprisingthat major American writers since Henry James, such as T. S. Eliot,Faulkner andHemingway,PoundandStevens,felt drawn o the construc-tive sensibilityof modernism,which insistedon the dignityandautonomyof literature,ratherthanto the iconoclasticand anti-aesthetic thos of theEuropean avant-gardewhichattemptedto break the politicalbondageofhigh culturethrougha fusionwithpopularcultureand to integrateartintolife.I would suggest that it was not only the absenceof an indigenousUS-avant-garde n the classicalEuropeansense, say in the 1920s,which,fortyyears later,benefittedthepostmodernists' laimto novelty n theirstruggleagainst the entrenched traditionsof modernism,abstractexpressionismand New Criticism.There is more to it than that.A European-style vant-gardistrevoltagainsttraditionmadeeminentsense in the United States ata time when high art had become institutionalized n the burgeoningmuseum, concert and paperbackculture of the 1950s,when modernismitself had entered the mainstreamvia the culture industry,and later,duringthe Kennedy years,whenhighculturebeganto take on functionsofpolitical representation(Robert Frost and Pablo Casals at the WhiteHouse).All of this, then, is not at all to say that postmodernisms merelyapastiche of an earlier continentalavant-garde. t ratherservesto pointtothe similarityand continuitybetween Americanpostmodernism nd cer-tainsegmentsof an earlierEuropeanavant-garde, similarity n the levelsof formal experimentationand of a critiqueof the "institutionart."Thiscontinuity was alreadymarginallyacknowledged n some postmodernistcriticism,e.g., by Fiedlerand IhabHassan,z'but it emerged n fullclaritywith the recent retrospectivesof and writingson the classicalEuropeanavant-garde.From the perspectiveof today, US art of the 1960s pre-cisely because of its successfulattack on abstractexpressionism shinesas the colorful death mask of a classicalavant-gardewhich in Europealreadyhad been liquidatedculturallyandpoliticallyby Stalinand Hitler.Despite its radical and legitimatecritiqueof the gospel of modernism,postmodernism,whichin its artisticpracticesand its theorywas a productof the 1960s,must be seen as the endgameof the avant-garde ndnot asthe radicalbreakthrought often claimedto be.22At the same time it goes withoutsayingthat the postmodernist evolt21. IhabHassan,Paracriticisms:evenSpeculationsf theTimes Urbana,Chicago,London,1975).See also IhabHassan,TheRightPromethean ire:Imagination, cienceandCulturalChange(Urbana,Ill., 1980).22. For an incisivecritiqueof postmodernismroma largelyconservativepositionseeGerald Graff, "The Myth of the PostmodernistBreakthrough,"TriQuarterly,6 (1973),


11/19

32 Huyssenagainst the institution art in the United States was up against bigger oddsthan futurism, dadaism, or surrealism were in their time. The earlieravant-garde was confronted with the culture industry in its stage of incep-tion while postmodernism had to face a technologically and economicallyfully developed media culture which had mastered the high art of integrat-ing, diffusing, and marketing even the most serious challenges. This factor,combined with the altered constitution of audiences, accounts for the factthat, compared with the earlier 20th century, the shock of the new wasmuch harder, perhaps even impossible, to sustain. Furthermore, whenDada erupted in 1916 in the placid 19th-century culture of bourgeoisZurich, there were no ancestors to contend with. Even the formally muchless radical avant-gardes of the 19th century had not yet had a measurableimpact on Swiss culture at large. The happenings at the Caf6 Voltairecould not but scandalize the public. When Rauschenberg, Jasper Johnsand the Madison Avenue pop artists began their assault on abstract ex-pressionism, drawing their inspiration as they did from the everyday life ofAmerican consumerism, they soon had to face serious competition: thework of Dadaist father figure Marcel Duchamp was presented to the Amer-ican public in major museum and gallery retrospectives, e.g., in Pasadena(1963) and New York (1965). The ghost of the father was not only out ofthe closet of art history, but Duchamp himself was always already there inflesh and blood saying, like the hedgehog to the hare: "Ich bin schon da."All of this goes to show that the mammoth avant-garde spectacles ofthe late 1970s can be interpreted as the flip side of post-modernism, whichnow appears much more traditional than it did in the 1960s. Not only dothe avant-garde shows of the late 1970s in Paris and Berlin, London, NewYork and Chicago help us come to terms with the tradition of the earlier20th century, but postmodernism itself can now be described as a searchfor a viable modern tradition apart from, say, the Proust-Joyce-Manntriad and outside the canon of classical modernism. The search for tradi-tion combined with an attempt at recuperation seems more basic to post-modernism than innovation and breakthrough. The culturalparadox of the1970s is not so much the side-by-side co-existence of a future-happypostmodernism with avant-garde museum retrospectives. Nor is it theinherent contradiction of the postmodernist avant-garde itself, i.e., theparadox of an art that simultaneously wants to be art and anti-art and of acriticism that pretends to be criticism and anti-criticism. The paracdox ofthe 1970s is rather that the postmodernist search for cultural tradition andcontinuity, which underlies all the radical rhetoric of rupture, discontinuityand epistemological breaks, has turned to that tradition which fundament-ally and on principle despised and denied all traditions.Seeing the avant-garde exhibits of the 1970s in the light of postmodern-383-417. The essay also appeared in Graff, Literature Against Itself: Literary Ideas onModernSociety(Chicago, 1979),pp. 31-62.


12/19


ism may also help focus attentionon some importantdifferencesbetweenAmerican postmodernismand the historicalavant-garde. n post-WorldWar II America, the historicalrealities of massivetechnological,social,and political change, which had given the myth of avant-gardism ndinnovation its power, persuasiveness,andutopiandrivein the earlier20thcentury, had all but vanished.Duringthe 1940sand 1950sAmericanartand intellectual ife hadgone througha periodof depoliticizationn whichavant-gardismand modernismactuallyhad been realignedwith the con-servative liberalismof the times.23 Whilepostmodernism ebelledagainstthe cultureandpoliticsof the 1950s, t nevertheless ackeda radicalvisionof social and politicaltransformationwhichhad been so essentialto thehistorical avant-garde.Time and again the future was incanted rhetori-cally, but it never became clear how and in what formspostmodernismwould help implementthat alternativecultureof the comingage. Despitethis ostentatious orientationtowardthe future,postmodernismmay wellhave been an expressionof the contemporary risisof culturerather hanthe promised transcendencetoward culturalrejuvenation.Much morethan the historicalavant-garde,whichwassurreptitiouslyonnected o thedominant modernizingand anti-traditionalistrends of 19th and 20th-century Westerncivilization,postmodernismwas in dangerof becomingaffirmative culturerightfrom the start. Most of the gestureswhich hadsustainedthe shockvalue of the historicalavant-gardewereno longerandcould no longerbe effective.The historicalavant-garde's ppropriationftechnologyfor highart (e.g., film,photography,montageprinciple) ouldproduceshocksince it brokewiththe aestheticism nd the doctrineof art'sautonomyfrom "real" life which were dominant n the late 19thcentury.The postmodernistespousalof spaceage technologyand electronicmediain the wake of McLuhan,however,couldscarcely hockan audiencewhichhad been inculturated o modernismvia the very same media. Nor didLeslie Fiedler'sdive into popularculturecauseoutrage n a countrywherethe pleasuresof popularculturealwayshave been acknowledged exceptperhaps n academia)with more ease and lesssecrecy han nEurope.Andmost postmodernistexperiments n visualperspective,narrative tructureand temporal logic, which all attackedthe dogmaof mimeticreferential-ity, were alreadyknown from the modernist radition.The problemwascompoundedby the fact that experimental trategiesandpopularculturewere no longerconnected na criticalaestheticandpoliticalprojectas theyhad been in the historicalavant-garde. Popularculture was accepteduncritically(Leslie Fiedler) and postmodernistexperimentationhad lostthe avant-gardist onsciousness hatsocialchangeandthe transformationof everyday life were at stake in every artisticexperiment.Ratherthan23. See SergeGuilbaut,"TheNewAdventures f theAvant-GardenAmerica,"October,15(Winter, 1980),61-78. Cf. also EvaCockroft,"AbstractExpressionism:Weaponof theCold War,"Artforum,XII (June 1974).


13/19

34 Huyssen

aiming at a mediation between art and life, postmodernist experimentssoon came to be valued for typically modernist features such as self-reflexivity, immanence, and indeterminacy (Ihab Hassan). The Americanpostmodernist avant-garde, therefore, is not only the endgame of avant-gardism. It also represents the fragmentation and the decline of the avant-garde as a genuinely critical and adversary culture.My hypothesis that postmodernism always has been in search of tradi-tion while pretending to innovation also is borne out by the recent shifttoward cultural theory which distinguishes the postmodernism of the 1970sfrom that of the 1960s. On one level, of course, the American appropria-tion of structuralist and especially poststructuralist theory from Francereflects the extent to which postmodernism itself has been academicizedsince it won its battle against modernism and New Criticism.z4 It is alsotempting to speculate that the shift toward theory actually points to thefalling rate of artistic and literary creativity in the 1970s, a propositionwhich would help explain the resurgence of historical retrospectives in themuseums. To put it simply, if the contemporary art scene does not gen-erate enough movements, figures, and trends to sustain the ethos of avant-gardism, then museum directors have to turn to the past to satisfy thedemand for cultural events. However, the artistic and literary superiorityof the 1960s over the 1970s should not be taken for granted and quantity isno appropriate criterion anyway. Perhaps the culture of the 1970s is justmore amorphous and diffuse, richer in difference and variation than thatof the 1960s when trends and movements evolved in a more or less"orderly" sequence. Beneath the surface of continuously changing trends,there was indeed a unifying drive behind the culture of the 1960swhich wasinherited precisely from the tradition of avant-gardism. Since the culturaldiversity of the 1970s no longer sustained this sense of unity - even if itwas the unity of experimentation, fragmentation, Verfremdungand inde-terminacy - postmodernism withdrew into a kind of theory which, withits key notions of decentering and deconstruction, seemed to guarantee thelost center of avant-gardism. Suspicion is in order that the postmodernistcritics' shift to continental theory is the last desperate attempt of the post-modernist avant-garde to hold on to a notion of avant-gardism whichalready had been refuted by certain cultural practices of the 1970s. Theirony is that in this peculiarly American appropriation of recent Frenchtheory the postmodernist search for tradition comes full circle; for severalmajor exponents of French post-structuralism such as Foucault, Deleuze/Guattari, and Derrida are more concerned with the archeology of moder-

24. I am not identifying poststructuralismwith postmodernism, even though the concept ofpostmodernism has recently been incorporated into French poststructuralist writing in thework of Jean Frangois Lyotard. All I am saying is that there are definite links between theethos of postmodernism and the American appropriation of poststructuralism, especiallyDerrida.


14/19


nity than with breakthroughand innovation,with historyand the pastmore than with the year2001.Two concludingquestionscan be posedat thisjuncture.Whywas therethis intense search for viable traditions n the 1970sandwhat, if anything,is historically pecificabout it? And, secondly,whatcan the identificationwith the classicalavant-garde ontribute o our sense of cultural dentity,and to what extent is such an identificationdesirable?The Western ndus-trializedcountriesare currentlyexperiencinga fundamental ulturalandpolitical identitycrisis.The 1970s'search for roots, for historyand tradi-tions, was an inevitable and in many ways productiveoff-shoot of thiscrisis; apart from the nostalgiafor mummiesand emperors,we are con-fronted with a multi-facetedand diverse searchfor the past (often for analternativepast) which, in manyof its more radicalmanifestations,ques-tions the fundamentalorientation of Western societies toward futuregrowth and toward unlimitedprogress.This questioningof historyandtradition,as it informs or instance he feminist nterest nwomen'shistoryand the ecological search for alternatives n our relationshipwithnature,should not be confused with the simple mindedrearguardassertion oftraditional norms and values, although both phenomena reflect, withdiametricallyopposed political intentions, the same dispositiontowardtraditionand history.The problemwithpostmodernisms thatit relegateshistory to the dustbin of an obsolete epist6mb,arguing gleefully thathistorydoes not exist exceptas text, i.e., as historiography.25f course,ifthe "referent" of historiography, hat which historianswrite about, iseliminated, then history s indeedupfor grabsor, to put it in moretrendywords, up for "strongmisreadings."When HaydenWhite lamentedthe"burdenof history" n 1966andsuggested,perfectly n line with the earlyphase of postmodernism, hat we acceptour lot of discontinuity,disrup-tion, and chaos,26he replayedthe Nietzscheanimpetusof the classicalavant-garde,but his suggestion s less thanhelpfulindealingwiththe newcultural constellations of the 1970s. Culturalpracticesof the 1970s--postmodernisttheory notwithstanding actuallypoint to the vital neednot to abandonhistoryandthe past to tradition-mongeringeo-conserva-tives bent on reestablishing he norms of an earlier industrial apitalism:discipline, authority,the work ethic and the traditional amily.There isindeed an alternative earchfor traditionandhistorygoingon todaywhichmanifests itself in the concernwithcultural ormationsnot dominatedbylogocentric and technocraticthought, in the decenteringof traditionalnotions of identity, in the search for women'shistory,in the rejectionof

25. For a sustained critique of the denial of history in contemporary American literarycriticism see Fredric Jameson, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act(Ithaca, N.Y., 1981), especially chapter 1.26. Hayden White, "The Burden of History," reprinted in Tropics of Discourse: Essays inCultural Criticism (Baltimore, London, 1978), pp. 27-50.


15/19

36 Huyssencentralisms, mainstreams and melting pots of all kinds, and in the greatvalue put on difference and otherness. This search for history is of coursealso a search for cultural identities today, and as such it clearly points tothe exhaustion of the tradition of the avant-garde, including postmodern-ism. The search for tradition, to be sure, is not peculiar to the 1970s alone.Ever since Western civilization entered the throes of modernization, thenostalgic lament for a lost past has accompanied it like a shadow that heldthe promise of a better future. but in all the battles between ancients andmoderns since the 17th and 18th centuries, from Herder and Schlegel toBenjamin and the American postmodernists, the moderns tended to em-brace modernity, convinced that they had to pass through it before the lostunity of life and art could be reconstructed on a higher level. This convic-tion was the basis for avant-gardism. Today, when modernism looks in-creasingly like a dead end, it is this foundation itself which is being chal-lenged. The universalizing drive inherent in the tradition of modernity nolonger holds that promesse de bonheur as it used to.Which brings me to the second question whether an identification withthe historical avant-garde - and by extension with postmodernism - cancontribute to our sense of cultural identity in the 1980s. I do not want togive a definitive answer, but I suggest that an attitude of skepticism iscalled for. In traditional bourgeois culture the avant-garde was successfulin sustaining difference. Within the project of modernity it launched asuccessful assault on 19th-centuryaestheticism, which insisted on the abso-lute autonomy of art, and on traditional realism, which remained lockedinto the dogma of mimetic representation and referentiality. Postmodern-ism has lost that capacity to gain shock value from difference, exceptperhaps in relation to forms of a very traditional aesthetic conservatism.The counter-measures the historical avant-garde proposed to break thegrip of bourgeois institutionalized culture are no longer effective. Thereasons that avant-gardismis no longer viable today can be located not onlyin the culture industry's capacity to coopt, reproduce and commodify, but,more interestingly, in the avant-garde itself. Despite the power and integ-rity of its attacks against traditional bourgeois culture and against thedeprivations of capitalism, there are moments in the historical avant-gardewhich show how deeply avant-gardism itself is implicated in the Westerntradition of growth and progress. The futurist and constructivist confi-dence in technology and modernization, the relentless assaults on the pastand on tradition which went hand in hand with a quasi-metaphysical glori-fication of a present on the edge of the future, the universalizing, totalizingand centralizing impetus inherent in the very concept of avant-garde (notto speak of its metaphoric militarism), the elevation to dogma of aninitially legitimate critique of traditional artistic forms rooted in mimesisand representation, the unmitigated media and computer enthusiasm ofthe 1960s - all these phenomena reveal the secret bond between avant-garde and official culture in advanced industrial societies. Certainly the


16/19

Avant-garde ndPostmodernism 37

avant-gadists' use of technology was mostly verfremdendand critical ratherthan affirmative. And yet, from today's perspective the classical avant-garde's belief in technological solutions for culture appears more a symp-tom of the desease than a cure. Similarly one might ask whether theuncompromising attack on tradition, narration, and memory which charac-terizes large segments of the historical avant-garde, is not just the otherside of Henry Ford's notorious statement that "history is bunk." Perhapsboth are expressions of the same spirit of cultural modernity in capitalism,a dismantling of story and perspective indeed parallelling, even if onlysubterraneously, the destruction of history.At the same time, the tradition of avant-gardism, if stripped of its uni-versalizing and normative claims, leaves us with a precious heritage ofartistic and literary materials, practices, and intentions which still informmany of today's most interesting writers and artists. Preserving elements ofthe avant-gardist tradition is not at all incompatible with the recuperationand reconstitution of history and of story which we have witnessed in the1970s. Good examples of this kind of coexistence of seemingly oppositeliterary strategies can be found in the post-experimental prose works ofPeter Handke from The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick through ShortLetter, Long Farewell and A Sorrow Beyond Dreams to The Left-HandedWoman or, quite differently, in the work of women writers such as ChristaWolf from The Quest for Christa T. through Self-Experiment to Kein Ort.Nirgends. The recuperation of history and the reemergence of story in the1970s are not part of a leap back into a pre-modern, pre-avant-garde past,as some postmodernists seem to suggest. They can be better described asattempts to shift into reverse in order to get out of a dead-end street wherethe vehicles of avant-gardism and postmodernism have come to a stand-still. At the same time, the contemporary concern for history will keep usfrom lapsing back into the avant-gardist gesture of totally rejecting thepast - this time the avant-garde itself. Especially in the face of recentwholesale neo-conservative attacks on the culture of modernism, avant-gardism and postmodernism, it remains politically important to defend thistradition against neo-conservative insinuations that modernist and post-modernist culture is to be held responsible for the current crisis of capi-talism. Emphasizing the subterranean links between avant-gardism andthe development of capitalism in the 20th century can effectively counter-act propositions which separate an "adversary culture" (Daniel Bell) fromthe realm of social norms in order to blame the former for the disintegrationof the latter.

In Reply to Jiirgen HabermasIn my view, however, the problem in contemporary culture is not somuch the struggle between modernity and postmodernity, between avant-


17/19

38 Huyssen

gardism and conservatism, as JiurgenHabermas argues in his Adorno-prizespeech which is included in this issue. Of course, the old conservatives,who reject the culture of modernism and the avant-garde, and the neo-conservatives, who advocate the immanence of art and its separatenessfrom the Lebenswelt, must be fought and refuted. In that debate, es-pecially, the cultural practices of avant-gardism have not yet lost theirvigor. But this struggle may well turn out to be a rearguard skirmishbetween two dated modes of thought, two cultural dispositions whichrelate to each other like the two sides of one coin: the universalists oftradition pitted against the universalists of a modernist enlightenment.While I stand with Habermas against old conservatives and neo-conserva-tives, I find his call for the completion of the project of modernity, which isthe political core of his argument, deeply problematic. As I hope to haveshown in my discussion of avant-garde and postmodernism, too manyaspects of the trajectory of modernity have become suspect and unviabletoday. Even the aesthetically and politically most fascinating component ofmodernity, the historical avant-garde, no longer offers solutions for majorsectors of contemporary culture, which would reject the avant-garde'suniversalizing and totalizing gesture as much as its ambiguous espousal oftechnology and modernization. what Habermas as a theoretician shareswith the aesthetic tradition of avant-gardism is precisely this universalizinggesture, which is rooted in the bourgeois enlightenment, pervades Marx-ism, and ultimately aims at a wholistic notion of modernity. Significantly,the original title of Habermas' text, as it was printed in DIE ZEIT inSeptember 1980, was "Modernity - an Incomplete Project." The titlepoints to the problem - the teleological unfolding of a history of modern-ity - and it raises a question: to what extent is the assumption of a telos ofhistory compatible with "histories." And this question is legitimate. Fornot only does Habermas smooth over contradictions and discontinuities inthe trajectory of modernity itself, as Peter Buirgerpoints out poignantly inthis issue. Habermas ignores the fact that the very idea of a wholisticmodernity and of a totalizing view of history has become anathema in the1970s, and precisely not on the conservative right. The critical deconstruc-tion of enlightenment rationalism and logocentrism by theoreticians ofculture, the decentering of traditional notions of identity, the fight ofwomen and gays for a legitimate social and sexual identity outside of theparameters of male, heterosexual vision, the search for alternatives in ourrelationship with nature, including the nature of our own bodies - allthese phenomena, which are key to the culture of the 1970s, make Haber-mas' proposition to complete the project of modernity questionable, if notundesirable.

Given Habermas' indebtedness to the tradition of critical enlighten-ment, which in German political history - and this should be mentionedin Habermas' defense - always was the adversary and underdog currentrather than the mainstream, it comes as no surprise that Bataille, Foucault,


18/19

Avant-garde nd Postmodernism 39and Derrida are lumped with the conservatives in the camp of postmo-dernity. There is no doubt in my mind that much of the postmodernistappropriation of Foucault and especially Derrida in the United States isindeed politically conservative, but that, after all, is only one line ofreception and response. Habermas himself could be accused of construct-ing a manichean dualism in his essay where he pits the dark forces of anti-modern conservatism against the enlightened and enlightening forces ofmodernity. This manichean view manifests itself again in the way Haber-mas tends to reduce the project of modernity to its rational enlightenmentcomponents and to dismiss other, equally important parts of modernity asmistakes. Just as Bataille, Foucault, and Derrida are said to have steppedoutside the modern world by removing the imagination, emotionality, andself-experience into the sphere of the archaic (a proposition which is itselfdebatable), surrealism is described by Habermas as modernity goneastray. Relying on Adorno's critique of surrealism, Habermas reproachesthe surrealist avant-garde for having advocated a false sublation (Aufheb-ung) of the art/life dichotomy. While I agree with Habermas that a totalsublation of art is indeed a false project fraught with contradictions, Iwould defend surrealism on three counts. More than any other avant-garde movement, surrealism dismantled false notions of identity and artis-tic creativity; it attempted to explode the reifications of rationality incapitalist culture and, by focusing on psychic processes, it exposed thevulnerability of all rationality, not only that of instrumental rationality;and, finally, it included the concrete human subject and his/her desires inits artistic practices and in its notion that the reception of art shouldsystematically disrupt perception and senses.27Although Habermas, in the section entitled "Alternatives," seems toretain the surrealist gesture when he speculates about the possibility ofrelinking art and literature with everyday life, everyday life itself - con-trary to surrealism - is defined in exclusively rational, cognitive andnormative, terms. Significantly, Habermas' example about an alternativereception of art in which the experts' culture is reappropriated from thestandpoint of the Lebenswelt, involves young male workers, "politicallymotivated" and "knowledge hungry"; the time is 1937, Berlin; the artwork reappropriated by the workers is the Pergamon altar, symbol ofclassicism, power, and rationality; and the status of this reappropriation isfiction, a passage in Peter Weiss' novel Die Asthetik des Widerstands.Theone concrete example Habermas gives is several times removed from theLebenswelt of the 1970s and its cultural practices, which, in such majormanifestations as the women's movement, the gay movement, and theecology movement, seem to point beyond the culture of modernity, be-yond avant-garde and postmodernism, and most certainly beyond neo-conservatism.

27. See Peter Biirger, Derfranzdsische Surrealismus (Frankfurt am Main, 1971).


19/19

40 Huyssen

Habermas is right in arguing that a relinking of modern culture witheveryday praxis can only be successful if the Lebenswelt is able "to developinstitutions out of itself which set limits to the internal dynamics and to theinperatives of an almost autonomous economic system and its administra-tive complements." As a result of the conservative backlash the chancesfor this may indeed not be very good at the present time. But to suggest,as Habermas implicitly does, that there are as yet no such attempts to steermodernity in different and alternative directions, is a view which resultsfrom the blind spot of the European enlightenment, its inability to recog-nize heterogeneity, otherness, and difference.P.S.: Some time ago avant-garde/postmodernist artistChristo planned towrap the Berlin Reichstag, an event which, according to Berlinmayor Stobbe, could have led to a stimulating political discussion.Conservative BundestagspraisidentKarl Carstens, however, fearedspectacle and scandal, so instead Stobbe suggested the organizationof a major historical exhibition about Prussia. When the greatPreu/3en-Ausstellung will open in Berlin in August 1981, the avant-

garde will truly be dead. Time for Heiner Miuller'sGermaniaDeathin Berlin.

THE CINSUrGENT OCIOLOGISTC/o Departmentof Sociology, Universityof Oregon, Eugene,OR 97403.CurrentSpecial issue: Race and Class in TwentiethCenturyCapitalist Development,Fall 1980.Bonacich: Class Approachesto RaceR.C.Hill:U.S. MetropolitanEnclaveKaplan:South AfricanStatePfeffer:MexicanWorkersn CaliforniaRolston: Northern relandTradeUnionsWenger:Afro-AmericanRebellionForthcomingSpecial issues: RadicalCriminology1981);LaborProcess (1981);Socialist Transition1982);Sex andClass (1982).Subscriptions(fourissues peryear):1 year:Sustaining$25;Regular$121 year:LowIncome$8; Institutional$202 years:Sustaining$50;Regular$23Back Issues: $4.00

avangarde postmodernism

Documents