What is avant-garde?

Here is a provocative - albeit not entirely valid - article by Dushko Petrovich about the need for a "practical avant-garde" in the art world. Petrovich is the artist at residence at London's Royal Academy, and this article is a condensed version of his remarks at a panel discussion on the avant-garde.

I agree that the term avant-garde is used rather liberally when pertaining to the arts. Art is a often a matter of taste and choice. Some people like traditional art, some people like modern art, and others like both or none of the above. Therefore, what one person may regard as avant-garde in art may be seen by another person as lacking style or character.

Petrovich prefers to use the late painter/critic Fairfield Porter's definition - avant-garde refers to the people with the most energy.

What does that mean, exactly? It could refer to passion, vibrancy of colours, use of mediums and materials, or changing an art style to your specifications. From a modern perspective, this could refer to the work of Picasso, Dali, Warhol and so on. Again, a lot of depends on what you perceive as being avant-garde. Or whether you perceive anything as being avant-garde, I guess.

Hence, Petrovich believes there is a need for a practical avant-garde in art. He defines it in the following way:

A practical avant-garde is post-careerist. It seeks out low rent and private time, and it concentrates on powerful objects.

A practical avant-garde experiments, but is honest about the results, displaying only the work that is full-fledged and generous. It surveys past achievements with similar honesty, looking at past experiments with an eye for what was truly strong. It knows that images are ubiquitous and coercive, while real pictures are rare.

All of this means that the practical avant-garde has a lot of work to do. It knows that manifesto is the weakest genre and that promises are irrelevant, so it will use words but not hide behind them.

Finally, the practical avant-garde is grateful to the impractical avant-garde, but we will not defer to it.

I don't really agree with this position at all. Practical avant-garde is "post-careerist?" I know that artists are not attracted to wealth and luxury, but I doubt that all of them would look at a career in said fashion. And experimentation with colours and styles is very personal. One painter's honesty is another painter's dishonesty. For example, a painter may honestly believe that grass is purple and will paint it that colour, but it's a dishonest perception since grass is understood to be green. So, is the painter regarded as being practical avant-garde for painting the grass as he perceives it to be, or a fraud because his perception of grass isn't realistic?

These are just basic examples, of course. But what these examples prove is that Petrovich's definition of practical avant-garde is very questionable. Provocative, but questionable.

But Petrovich is right about one thing, "the practical avant-garde has a lot of work to do." Especially when it comes to selling the general public about this definition.