The avant-garde is defined as “new and unusual or experimental ideas, especially in the arts.”
A lot of people don’t enjoy avant-garde art because it is weird. This is to be expected. The avant-garde doesn’t exist to be widely appealing. That’s not the point.
So, who needs it?
I can hear that question forming in the minds of some of my readers.
Why should art that few enjoy even exist? And, more so, why should it be funded?
This essay is an answer to that question.
The “avant-garde” is, essentially, made up of artists who are the “inventors” of the art world.
Inventors are strange people, always tinkering away at stuff in their garages, or laboratories, or computers. We don’t know that they are doing, we don’t understand it. We might think that the end results are useless, unnecessary, or just straight-up bizarre.
The difference between inventors and avant-garde artists is that most inventors end up with a final product that “works” before demonstrating it to the public. But in the art world, especially in the performing arts, the invention – the art – cannot be tested until it is brought before an audience.
Avant-garde art is an exploration, an innovation of a new way of making art discovered by the artists while they are at work in their studios.
Like many inventions, the avant-garde is quickly embraced by those who are fascinated by newness. It may not gather enough fans to be sustainable and become a movement. However, like some inventions that become normal household items, some avant-garde may catch on as the broader public warms up to it.
Again, like many inventions, it might not be the first iteration that engages the public. It may be that improvements made upon it are what make it more appealing.
Even today, many people may not know that most modern film scores incorporate aspects of what was once avant-garde music, from highly dissonant music to the use of electronics. That is just one example of how avant-garde art (specifically, music) has garnered wide enthusiasm.
I do not consider myself an avant-garde composer, but I use material that has been mined by avant-garde composers who have come before me or work concurrently in the present day.
I use that word “mined” purposefully. In my mind, the avant-garde composers have gone spelunking and have discovered unusual things long hidden, which no one has ever seen before now.
I, though, am claustrophobic and will not go spelunking. That’s not my role.
But I appreciate seeing what they have brought out and how they can be used, then having the privilege of choosing which discoveries I wish to incorporate into my own music.
I have pet names for the type of avant-garde music that is, essentially, 100% extended techniques. You may recognize the music by these nicknames: Plink-Plonk, Scratch-and-Dent, and Quack and Cluck. Don’t take these terms as disparaging. I love my Siamese cat, Paulie, but I also affectionately call him a weirdo. It’s not the word so much as the tone.
I use some of these extended techniques in my music. Not a lot, not every single kind of extended technique. I have my personal favorites. I usually write music inspired by extra-musical ideas, and I judiciously choose extended techniques based on what I believe will best bring out the idea behind the music I’m writing. Sometimes I use no extended techniques at all. Some of my music is very traditional.
I like having the freedom to choose.
Freedom is very important.
And that is the second – and I believe even more essential purpose – of the avant garde.
The avant-garde is a canary in the coal mine of freedom.
It is an indicator of the health of democracy and the freedom of the individual.
In fact, during the mid-20th century, the political right in the United States and Europe supported avant-garde art as a statement against totalitarianism and the perceived threat of communism.
As I said above, avant-garde art needs an audience in order to be tested.
It’s OK if it is not liked. It’s OK if it is not popular. It’s OK if people complain about it and criticize it and call it bad.
That’s not the point.
The point is to be heard.
If avant-garde music is blocked because people in power determine it is too ugly or too freakish for public consumption, then freedom is diminished. Not only the freedom of the artist to speak and express themselves, but the freedom of individual members of the public to decide what art they wish to partake of.
Totalitarian regimes control art, and they usually tend to promote art that is more “widely appealing.” Art that is populistic. It is simpler. It harkens back to folk and historic art to promote an approved, nationalistic style.
In contrast, avant-garde art is often criticized for being “academic” or “intellectual.” There is some truth to that, but it is still needed because the muzzling of the avant-garde is a signal that individual freedoms are threatened.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with art that “appeals to the masses” as long as there is room for all voices.
You don’t have to like avant-garde art but it is wrong to dismiss it because it is “ugly” or because it doesn’t align with your definition of beauty. Holding to such an opinion is only an attempt at control. Instead, understand its purpose. Engage with the conversation. Let both your voice – and the voice of avant-garde artists – be heard.
Let the future tell us what stands the test of time.