Niether Fish Nor Foul

Re-visit Banes's discussion of “Scorpio Rising” and Greenberg's distinction between avant-garde and kitsch (p. 104-105). Why does she argue that the film is "neither fish nor fowl," meaning somewhere in-between avant-garde and kitsch?

First it is important to make note of what exactly Greenburg says the difference between avant-garde and kitsch actually is.
According to Greenburg Avant-garde is the elitist high art of the educated person. To Greenburg only the avant-garde can serve as a means for moving culture forward. It is the living testament to the expression "art for art's sake."
Kitsch, which literally means garbage, is the art of the people. The art that everyone can understand, but does nothing for society, except promote a "culture of consumption." To Greenburg kitsch is the dark hole sucking out the souls of the avant-grade artist, while posing, like Beelzebub himself, in disguise as high art.
However, Banes argues, citing Kenneth Anger's "Scorpio Rising” that kitsch and avant-garde can happily coexist. While "Scorpio Rising" is full of iconic images of pop culture, these images help to create a truly avant-grade statement about rebellion and many other issues. By saying that "Scorpio Rising" is neither "fish nor foul" Banes is saying that the film can not be as clearly defined as Greenburg would argue.
Banes further mentions that the film has no linear form, yet at same time utilizes many pop culture songs. And even though the images themselves represent the masses, the abstraction (specifically the difficulty in understanding) highly valued by the avant-garde artist, is still present