Architecture and Modernity : A Critique

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 avantgarde,
he goes on to state that “doing
nothing other than interpreting something
necessary and universal, the
avant-garde could accept temporary
unpopularity, well knowing that their
break with the past was the fundamental
condition for their value as
models of action.” 149
The break with the past is materialized
in the “destruction of the
values” that forms the precondition
for further development. The destruction
of values is elevated by the avantgarde
to the status of the only new
value. This profanation is essential to
the further development of the capitalist
system: “The destruction and
the rendering ridiculous of the entire
historic heritage of the Western bourgeoisie
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 implications
for the dissemination of the process of social modernization.
The avant-garde gives a form to the negative: “For the avant-garde movements
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 Edvard Munch,
The Scream, 1893.
66
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 autonomous,
as work on the language of art—a thesis defended by formalism as represented
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 Mirror