Mike Sell argues against defining the avant-garde because strict labels limit understanding its varied nature. He argues for a flexible view that includes diverse cultural expressions and focuses on avant-garde’s relational and resistant qualities.
Sers and Eburne compare the revolutionary ambitions of the early avant-garde, which aimed for political change, with the more institutionalized nature of the contemporary avant-garde. They argue that the contemporary avant-garde is still committed to boundary-pushing and social critique, even while it works within institutional frameworks.