The Enigma of Avant-Gardes

Abstract

If in Husserl phenomena imply the facts as observed and interpreted by a cognizant subject, and if we agree with Ortega’s theory about the ordinary man versus the uncommon egregious man, as analyzed in La deshumanización del arte,¹ then it is necessarily the case that avantgarde art is incomprehensible to the majority of its receivers, who are just not able to understand its function, or rather, not able to give it any meaning. This is all the more true if one takes into account the fact that many avant-garde movements take literature and painting as a starting-point but later depart from language and figuration, and then are no longer codifiable (e.g., trash art). Is it then necessary to state that avant-garde art means the death of art? Or that avant-garde art leads to non-language, and non-communication?