比格尔另辟蹊径，借“艺术体制”范畴考察资本主义艺术史，堪称二十世纪七十年代艺术和美学研究领域的一朵奇葩。本文试图以《先锋派理论》一书为中心，辅以比格尔的其它散论，例如《现代主义的衰落》、《文学社会学中的“艺术”体制范畴》、《在波伊斯的影子里》和《先锋派对当代美学的意义》，结合国内外研究成果，力求具体深入地探析比格尔的先锋派理论。本文由三部分组成，共十一小节。“批判理论的历史化”一章主要探讨比格尔的理论与时代的关系，梳理它的理论资源和整体理论架构，进而指明理论的批判性和历史性特征；“历史先锋派的内在矛盾”一章重点关注先锋派的内在悖论，分析比格尔对“艺术体制”和“艺术自律”的看法，厘清先锋派的定义及其囊括的范围，指明先锋派内蕴的反抗能量，同时也将对比格尔理论所存在的盲点尝试着作必要的补充和修正；“先锋派：失败抑或暂时失败”一章主要论证的是先锋派“融艺术于生活”这一尝试落空之后的问题：先锋派失败了吗？先锋姿态何去何从呢？比格尔的理论对当今艺术研究和美学研究有什么意义？资本主义社会的艺术发展到唯美主义，接下来就是先锋派，它以艺术自我批判的姿态示人，站在了自律艺术的敌对面，企图将艺术和日常生活实践融于一体。照比格尔看来，这一愿望最终落空了。实质上，从唯美主义到先锋派，这一转折造成了资本主义艺术发展史的“断裂”，但这一裂缝中蕴藏着促发艺术“新生”的力量。波伊斯在这裂缝中自由奔走，意味着先锋派的能量并未耗尽。在笔者看来，比格尔从波伊斯身上找到了理论的突破口，或着说新的可能性。在某种意义上，先锋派依然担着日常生活批判的重任。

Being different from others, Bürger study the history of capitalist art with the category of “Art Institution,” which is a miracle in studies of art and aesthetics in the 1970s. This study will focus on Bürger’s book Theory of Avant-garde and some other papers, such as The Decline of the Modernism, The Institution of ‘art’ as a Category in the Sociology of Literature, In the Shadow of Joseph Beuys and The Significance of the Avant-garde for Contemporary Aesthetic, and lead to an in-depth research about Bürger’s theory of Avant-garde on the base of some existed researches in and out.This study is made up of three chapters. The first part is “Historicization of Critical Theory” which studies on the relationship between the times and Bürger’s theory, and combs theory resources and the whole frame of Bürger’s theory, then show the characteristic of criticalness and historicalness about Bürger’s theory clearly. The second part “Inner Contradictions of History Avant-garde” will analyze Bürger’s perspectives on “Art Institution” and “Art Autonomy,” and defined the “Avant-garde,” and discuss the spirit of the revolt of Avant-garde, after that, I will attempt to revise and replenish some blind spots of Bürger’s theory. Finally, “Avant-garde: Be failed or Be failed temporarily” demonstrates chiefly problems after the failure of the Avant-garde’s attempt of melting art and life. Is Avant-garde failed? How will the posture of Avant-garde evolve? What is the significance of the Avant-garde for contemporary aesthetics?In the late of 19th century, capitalist art developed to Aestheticism, then to Avant-garde which criticized Art Institution, revolted Art Autonomy and was attempt to melt art and life. Seeing from Bürger’s claims, the attempt comes to nothing. Effectively, from Aestheticism to Avant-garde, this turn arouses the break of history of capitalist art. In the fracture, there are some energy hided to stimulate a new life of art. Joseph Beuys was active in the fracture, which meant that the energy of revolt of Avant-garde had not exhausted. In my opinion, Bürger discovered the sally port of his theory. In a sense, Avant-garde still bears the burden of critique of daily life.