Anarchy Week – Tour of the Art Gallery
meet at the spider at 5pm.
What is “Anarchist” Art?
Located in the heart of the Capital of the Canadian state, the National
Gallery holds a large collection of artist works created by society’s
archetype of political deviancy, the anarchist. These artist/activists
have had lengthy political and social involvement with groups and
organisations established along the anarchist principles of voluntary
association, egalitarianism, mutual aid, and the refusal of authority.
Inside the Gallery, the fascinating political lives these individuals
pursued is not mentioned. Likewise, there is no word of the
well-documented philosophical currents that informed and influenced their
work. As is often the case when examining appropriated histories we can
observe that powerful institutions (particularly the state and/or
corporations) tend to shape historical narratives in ways that inform and
sustain prevailing social values and attitudes.
The Power of Context
In the case of artwork produced by self-identifying anarchists, we can
easily observe that the biographical and technical (mis)information
forming the dominant discourse around specific artists is devoid of the
social, political, and philosophic context(s) from which it came. This
de-contextualisation allows institutions, like the Gallery, to focus on
trivialities instead of the more difficult and informative task of
presenting a coherent explanation of an artist’s origins or that of
her/his work. Such de-contextualised ‘knowledge environments’ provide a
quick and disposable presentation of “ART!” that can be consumed with
convenience while stripped of the principles, ethics and politics from
which it emerged.
We should not, in fact, expect the National Gallery to inform its
“citizens” of the explicitly anti-authoritarian and egalitarian tendencies
of the works it currently owns. No more should a critical mind expect
history books to detail the ongoing genocide on this continent, or expect
a war museum to catalog the crimes of war (our crimes that is – we can
expect an exemplary and voluminous account of the others’ crimes). In
taking ownership of these works, the Gallery (like so many other
“cultural” centres operated by institutions of power and/or wealth)
appropriates the most effective method of presenting the works history
i.e. the work itself.
The Danger
Perhaps that irony speaks to a major challenge facing artists, past and
present. The powers of commerce and wealth are prepared to hastily
appropriate cultural creations. Some of these artists lived a life of
poverty only to be “discovered” and highly capitalised upon – after
their deaths. Others were conscience of the commercialisation of their
work, were deeply resentful towards it, and made efforts to avoid the
advances of art “authorities” and other commercial entrepreneurs.
Many artists are acutely familiar with conflict between individual desire
for expression and the consumptive, abrasive, and transformative
tendencies of our capitalist society. There will always be a risk of
co-option when producing expressive material. But what can be discovered
is the motivation that drives these particular artists: A desire for
radical social change. Through their work they are challenging powerful
institutions (the academy, the church, the state, dominant culture) and do
so in a way that promotes anarchist principles. The National Gallery – and
for that matter all institutional culture milieu’s – hold out Art as an
avenue for fame, wealth, or recognition. Without context, that might be
an acceptable premise: how would you know otherwise?
Resistance in Art
By providing a context we are offered a glimpse back to the political
milieus of several prolific anarchists. Of particular relevance to local
influence are the activities of an anarchist group from Québec called Les
Automatistes. Their revolutionary manifesto, Refus Global, is credited by
many accounts as an integral component in bringing about the radical
changes that are commonly referred to as the Quiet Revolution. The Gallery
makes no mention of their name, but notes that members of this group went
on to “successful” careers. Nor is there mention of the political
persecution directed towards some of the members. Again, the dominant
historical narrative omits the detailed and complex anarchist networks
that influenced Les Automatistes and their work.
The individuals involved were philosophically, socially and politically
active. Put otherwise, they constituted a threat to the established social
order. In many cases, attempts were made by the art establishment and by
state forces to silence their critical voices. But even today, the work of
these anarchists symbolise resistance against all authority. Their
creations stand as anti-monuments, dissident guffaws towards the
ceremonial monuments of state and church. They express a complex set of
anti-oppressive values that should be appreciated as a contribution to
building a movement; one that will, someday, replace our current culture
that is premised on the violent and rapacious consumption of people and
nature – with a non-destructive and non-hierarchical social order.
– Bones
( from ‘What is “Anarchist” Art’ in the ‘zine Unleashing the Imagination:
An Anarchist Tour of the National Gallery of Canada; abridged and edited
by anarchy marc)