the process of social modernization.^148
This analogy forms the crux of Tafuri’s
thesis. Having in his view located the
essence of the dialectics of the avant-
garde, he goes on to state that “doing
nothing other than interpreting some-
thing necessary and universal, the
avant-garde could accept temporary
unpopularity, well knowing that their
break with the past was the funda-
mental condition for their value as
models of action.”^149
The break with the past is ma-
terialized in the “destruction of the
values” that forms the precondition
for further development. The destruc-
tion of values is elevated by the avant-
garde to the status of the only new
value. This profanation is essential to
the further development of the capi-
talist system: “The destruction and
the rendering ridiculous of the entire
historic heritage of the Western bour-
geoisie were conditions for the liberation of the potential, but inhibited, energies of
that bourgeoisie itself.”^150 The avant-garde sees “destruction” and “negativity” as
vital moments in capitalist evolution. The fact that they experiment with just these
elements, rendering them, as it were, plausible for individual experience also has im-
plications for the dissemination of the process of social modernization.
The avant-garde gives a form to the negative: “For the avant-garde move-
ments the destruction of values offered a wholly new type of rationality, which was
capable of coming face to face with the negative, in order to make the negative itself
the release valve of an unlimited potential for development.”^151 The particular part
played by negativity, however, has never been the subject of an explicit discussion
within the avant-garde itself. What the movement did discuss was the question of
whether artistic-intellectual labor has a political character. Tafuri states that there
were two different but complementary views within the avant-garde movement on
this subject, the reverberations of which have continued to make themselves felt.
On the one hand there were those who conceived of intellectual work as au-
tonomous, as work on the language of art—a thesis defended by formalism as rep-
resented by Viktor Shklovsky—and on the other hand there were the advocates of a
“committed” art, who posited artistic work quite simply as a political intervention.
Tafuri cites Breton and the surrealist movement as a prime example of this position.
3
Reflections in a MirrorEdvard Munch,
The Scream, 1893.
66