Summary The new avant-garde, experimental and interdisciplinary subculture, which later became a sort of parallel culture, presented its perspective potential already in the early 1970s. It went beyond the canonized and largely conformed literary and artistic languages and worked out the practice of a systematic compenetrability of literary and artistic languages in general. In the late 1970s and in the 80s this artistic productivity became stronger and more coherent in quality. Because of the radical reinterpretation of language and, consequently, thinking and radical speaking about society and art this new current came into conflict with political power yet standing on an ideological basis. On the other hand and because of the same reason, it arrived at an opposition with cultural institutions and informal power groups and persons inside them. These institutions and power groups had developed a kind of modus vivendi with political power, so they could secure the limits of canonized languages and ways of communication in the cultural sphere. Thus, the new avant-garde and experimental trends came into conflict with the settled value-systems after all. The common denominator of those who were interested in preserving existing political power and the aesthetic status quo against the new avant-garde experimentalism, was the “protection' of the national and linguistic identity. This possibility was severely denied to the other part. This typically Hungarian and typically East-Central-European triangle (which, in reality, meant one aesthetic opposition) formed a characteristically Hungarian and characteristically East-Central-European mutant of the new avant-garde experimentalism, which proved to be highly productive. By reason of several linguistic and poetical characteristics this mutant can be distinguished from “western' avant-garde and experimental waves and trends, which, at the same time, often meant a starting point and a background of creative energies for it. For lack of minimal recognition and perspective canonicity at least, the intellectual survival and development, furthermore the aesthetically credible canonization of this parallel culture were made possible by two factors. One of these factors was the not overwhelmingly numerous, but coherent public of this scene. The other one appeared in its more and more organic work-contacts developed with western new-avant-garde-experimental trends. Simplifying a little: the characteristically Hungarian new-avant-garde, after having been cut off from national cultural canon, could function being embedded in the international avant-garde scene. This process, even if in a different way, ran its course at the same time in the Central-East-European countries. Back to back, knowing little about each other, they kept their eyes on the “West'. That's how they formed their own supranational and, at the same time, specifically regional artistic practice, poetics and languages. Even their meeting points took shape within the various institutions of West-European avant-garde culture. Some stable points of regional organization appeared only in the 90s. All these, at times contradictory processes and events of the afore characterized part of cultural history should be analysed in the dimensions of the provincial, the regional and the universal.