The Theory-Death
of the Avant-Garde by Paul Mann 1991
Rod Smith, in “A Tract,” writes:
“& so Paul Mann is wrong, the dialectic quite clearly exists, it is between
history & not-history. Its syntheses is poetry.”
The plurality of Smith’s synthesis
is just one possible nod towards (an adaptation deriving from) Mann’s
book. My recognition of myself not as a victim of the late capitalist system nor as a means
of extending that system but rather as a holographic miniature of that system
is perhaps another small nod.
In Mann’s postmodern novel
masquerading as a critical essay I find myself identifying not with the Avant-Garde Artist or with the Critic, those bumbling
anti-heroes, but with Late Capitalism, the dynamic antagonist.
Perhaps then my texts are the
miniature Andy Warhols & I am the concurrently
enthralling & revolting culture-at-large.
To quote Mann: “Warhol cannot be
rejected on the basis of his personal banality or venality: what must be
comprehended is the banality and venality of the culture he transparently
represents. Any posture of superiority
to the spectacle of recuperation would only have interfered with his
theater. A pure symptom: that is all he
constitutes. Perhaps not so small an
accomplishment, for his work thereby reflects the fact that no public art can
ever be anything more than a symptom”.
The reactions produced by my texts
(emotion, indifference, interest, awe) then are the repetitive, eminently
collectible canvases of my little Warhols.
Reaction is always in
circulation.
I have recently been circulating
the story of how Jack Spicer insisted that Open Space remain a magazine
that was only shared between the contributors.
I’ve enjoyed the reactions & prestige resulting from my knowing of
this story.
Self-preservation arises as a
vital commodity in my reading of Mann : the economies
in which we circulate are so fixed & indeterminate, so settled &
schizophrenic. “Without exception art
that calls itself art, that is registered as art, that
circulates within art contexts,” Mann writes, “can never again pose as
anything but systems-maintenance.” In
his text, assimilation or recuperation into the culture-at-large is assumed,
especially as one engages the culture in discourse.
Of course non-engagement is a form
of discourse & so another means of being recuperated.
I could write a book about Laura
Riding Jackson refusing to allow her work into anthologies.
In Syncopations, Jed Rasula discusses Mann’s book at some length
: “This book is finally a critique of criticism, of discourse, of
theory’s stage management of a chimera, ‘the avant-garde,’ as a
‘theory-death.’” My reading differs
somewhat from Rasula’s; Mann prescribes disappearance
as one course of action. He leaves the final
chapter blank. Our assumption is that
Mann means one must first be recognized as present to eventually disappear
& therefore create an energy or present a possible
path through this disappearance.
Like the crew of the Pequod disappearing into a milky annihilation.
There indeed is a sublime &
terrifying paleness to Mann’s late “white economy.”
Did Marinetti
have a wooden leg?
Mann’s pose is that of one
floating downstream in a casket.
In “A Tract” Rod Smith states “The
dialectic is just nonsense. However, we
cannot escape nonsense, so we must pay attention to it.”
But mere attention to a predator
will not protect you from me.
If self-preservation is the goal
the best method for fighting fire is becoming fire.
A symptom
of fire.
Self-preservation then appears to
be an impossibility & we are symptoms of this
impossibility.
TT