Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: capitalism
-
Art & Anarchy
This blog investigates art & anarchy: what anarchy means to me as an artist, its philosophical underpinnings, and its use in political protests. It wraps up by looking at proposed solutions for the global ills that anarchy would seek to heal.
Anarchy & the Artist
As an artist, I’ve been interested in the attraction of anarchy to some, especially younger people. There is a deep undercurrent of unfocused anger in a portion of the population that can be easily unleashed. This happened during the Stanley Cup riot in Vancouver and this has happened to my own artworks on display in the public realm. Sculptures that I have spent months or even a year fabricating, and that have been enjoyed by the whole community have been trashed by this irrational rage. Vandals have even brought tools for the express purpose of wrecking my artwork. My sculptures feel like a part of me, like my children, and I abandon them to their fate on the streets with trepidation. When they are attacked, I feel assaulted.
As an artist, the best way to deal with this is through my art practice, so a mini-series in the Running Man theme explored the phenomenon of vandalism and the public realm. The piece shown below, called War of All, was an attempt to understand the anger and capture its energy. It was also an opportunity to muse on the idea of anarchy. The opposite of anarchy is governance, and the title of this piece refers to “the war of all against all,” the description that Thomas Hobbes gives to human existence in the state of nature, or life without government.
The Philosophy of Anarchy

War of All, Spray paint, acrylic paint, wood & chain, 48″ h x 36″ w There seems to be a general misunderstanding about the philosophy of anarchy, certainly among those who fear any challenge to the status quo. But many self-styled anarchists may not have investigated the background to this philosophy and its many conflicting beliefs.
Wikipedia describes Anarchism as “generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be immoral or, alternatively, as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations…. Anarchists advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations.”
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the French philosopher who declared that “property is theft” is often called the founder of modern anarchist theory. Proudhon favoured workers’ associations or co-operatives, and considered that social revolution could be achieved in a peaceful manner. Though Proudhon’s arguments against entitlement to land and capital make sense, his anti-state position may not be as relevant today when corporations are more powerful than governments.
At the other end of the anarchy spectrum is the the egoist form of individualist anarchism, which supports the individual doing exactly what he pleases – taking no notice of God, state, or moral rules. Max Stirner was a German philosopher, who ranks as one of the literary fathers of nihilism, existentialism, post-modernism and individualist anarchism. Some adherents to this school of thought have found self-expression in crime and violence. Individualist anarchists also gave rise to the modern movement of anarcho-capitalism with absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state.
Illegalism is another outgrowth of individualist anarchism. Illegalists usually do not seek a moral basis for their actions, recognizing only the reality of “might” rather than “right”. For the most part, illegal acts are done simply to satisfy personal desires, not for some greater ideal. This seems to be the philosophical home of many self-defined anarchists. Framed as personal direct action against exploiters & the system, this is the rationale for spray-painting graffiti on public buildings & destroying installations in the public realm, from bus shelters & public toilets to my sculptures. Though there is a huge differences between creating guerrilla art and destroying public art, the motivation is similar and the line between the two is blurred.
I have used layers of graffiti as a background for War of All, shown above, because the issue of graffiti sums up so many social contradictions. Graffiti artists and groups excluded from the political mainstream argue that they use graffiti as a tool to spread their point of view. They point out that they do not have the money – or sometimes the desire – to buy advertising to get their message across, and that the ruling class or establishment control the mainstream press and other avenues of expression, systematically excluding radical/alternative points of view.
While graffiti on public or private property can be looked at as a political act or an expression of creativity, most of it is garbage – the equivalent of dumping McDonald’s wrappers on the sidewalk. And the co-opting of graffiti by commercial culture is a widespread message that using the public realm to express your individual ego (whether a creative or destructive urge) is very cool & cutting edge. So the five drunk guys who come across one of my sculptures downtown in the wee hours think it is hip to break it apart. Do they figure that because my piece was accepted by the municipality for the site, this makes the artwork part of the system and therefore fair game? Probably they don’t think at all.
Another work from the Running Man series on the sub-theme of anarchy & graffiti is called Do Not Go Quietly.

Do Not Go Quietly, 2000, wood, board, lacquer, oil and acrylic paints, 36” x 48” The title references the Dylan Thomas poem, with the line, “Rage, rage against the dying of the light,” and hints at resisting arrest. It again tries to capture the anger & rebelliousness that expresses itself most often in tagging & other vandalism. The wooden figures are absences in that they act under cover of darkness and have no recognizable goals or objectives.
I’m all in favour of goals & objectives. I don’t buy the party line that art should not address political or moral issues and artists shouldn’t flog ideas. Having opinions or otherwise expressing values is didactic and not hip. We must eschew meta-narratives and accept the flotsam & jetsam of cultural tides. The contemporary artist should be a blank canvas on which the viewer projects their own ideas, and points of view are outdated.

But no matter how unfashionable, I like to express ideas in my work. To the right is a piece called Conversion about the transformation of ecological into economic wealth, in this case the logging of trees to be transformed into investment portfolios. I’ve used graffiti as a background to indicate that the destruction of forests (habitat for many species) for the economic benefit of the human species is also vandalism.
The level of logging carried out in the province of British Columbia where I live is ecologically, socially & economically unsustainable. Trees are a vital part of watershed ecosystems and if too many are removed the system breaks down. Trees are being cut faster than they can grow so inevitably large numbers of loggers will be out of work & logging towns abandoned. The logging companies will take out as many trees as they can before they are all gone, then simply re-invest elsewhere, leaving BC economically depressed.
Another indicator species of unsustainable human activity are fish. In Fishery, I have again used the graffiti motif, except this time, the tags are those of corporate logos.

Fishery, 2001, wood, board, chain, acrylic and lacquer paints , 4’ h x 6 ‘ w Big business gets to splash its tags in multi-million dollar advertisements in all media while the less powerful use graffiti. All economic wealth originates from the earth and its bounty of water, air, plants, animals and minerals. real wealth is in the health of these resources, not in the consumer items that the destruction of these resources buys.
Anarchy and Protest
Some believe that the real problem is restrictions on our freedom and that without them society would be a better place. For instance, at the Occupy Vancouver rally & march there were speakers, such as the raw milk lobby (a surprisingly vocal and well organized group) who argued that “no one should be able to tell me what I can put into my body”. This is the voice of freedom from authority, one aspect of the anarchist persuasion, which presents itself as an alternative to the current system.
Like everyone else, I’m fascinated by the Occupy Vancouver movement and the many similar protests happening around the globe. The stated goals of Occupy Vancouver on its website are:
“to transform the unequal, unfair, and growing disparity in the distribution of power and wealth in our city and around the globe. We challenge corporate greed, corruption, and the collusion between corporate power and government. We oppose systemic inequality, militarization, environmental destruction, and the erosion of civil liberties and human rights. We seek economic security, genuine equality, and the protection of the environment for all.“
There is much discussion in the media on the fact that Occupy Vancouver, like all the other protests, is leaderless and does not provide a plan for achieving their stated goals. The corporate media calls the protesters spoiled children who do not appreciate how good they have it, in other words, how well the capitalist system has served them in Vancouver. But the system has not served the protesters well. Vancouver is considered one of the most expensive cities in North America, ranking ahead of some of the largest cities in the United States. A Chapman University report found that Vancouver is one of the most unaffordable cities in the world, with median house prices more than nine times the median household income. A study by Demographia, which examines international housing affordability, has deemed Vancouver as “impossibly unaffordable.”

Vancouver, Photo by Francis Georgian Steeped as they are in the philosophy of self-interest, ruling elites have little concern for those living in poverty and despair in Vancouver and most other North American cities. The occupiers and their sympathizers understand that in the win/lose world of unrestricted free-enterprise, the creation of poverty is a necessary component of the system. Wealth is systematically removed from less aggressive or advantaged groups, regions and nations in order to concentrate in the hands of a few.
The success of Occupy Vancouver in bringing about change will be hampered by individualistis anarchists who want their personal issues addressed and are not willing to go through the difficult process of aggregating interests and reaching consensus. On marches we chant “The people, united, will never be defeated”, and the challenge is to find union. The 1% and their facilitators are united behind the goal of maintaining the status quo so that they can continue to acquire wealth. They differ only on who gets how much. The 99% not only want their fair share of the pie, they want to prevent & reverse the growing gap between rich & poor, climate change, mass species extinction, pollution of water soil & air, homelessness, inequality, militarization, tyranny, corruption, moral decay, the breakdown of communities and a host of other ills.
Proposed Solutions
The common denominator in all these ills is capitalism and the global economy. In a study titled “Survival of the Richest,” Oxfam International reported that in 2020 and 2021, the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population accumulated nearly two-thirds of all new wealth. In the previous decade, 2010-20, the richest 1% had amassed around half of all new wealth. While billionaires get richer, global poverty and income inequality are increasing, meaning more hunger, starvation, homelessness and declining access to education, health care and other social support systems. The United Nations Development Program reports that human development is decreasing in over 90% of countries.
Oxfam’s suggested solution to this terrible crisis is to raise taxes on the super-rich and big corporations in order to reduce inequality. But as the Workers World site points out, “…simply raising taxes fails to target the root cause of this growing inequality: the exploitation of workers around the world, who produce all the wealth, while the capitalist class gobbles up an ever larger proportion of the wealth that workers create. …The billionaires did not earn this money through their own labor — they stole it through the exploitation of the labor of billions of workers around the globe.” The site goes on to explain that the root cause, “Workers are never compensated for the full value of what they produce…The difference between the value workers add to a product and the lower wages they are paid becomes the profits that make up most of the billionaires’ accumulated wealth.” And capitalists can move factories anywhere in the world, to wherever taxes and wages are lowest and workers most compliant. While offering a succinct critique of capitalism and its deleterious impacts, Workers World does not offer a solution.
According to Wikipedia, “social anarchism envisions the overthrow of capitalism and the state in a social revolution, which would establish a federal society of voluntary associations and local communities, based on a network of mutual aid.”
Certainly it is important to protest against injustice, inequality, ecological degradation and all the other ills that capitalism has produced. The other part of the anarchist agenda is non-participation in the destructive economic system by self-managing our lives through community action and non-hierarchical cooperatives and collectives. Simply opting out of the global consumer culture as much as possible is a low-end anarchist solution. Here are some ways:
- reduce, re-use recycle
- buy second-hand
- trade, barter, swap
- buy nothing but absolute necessities
- buy local – nothing shipped more than 100 miles
- wear no brand logos
- buy from co-ops
- start co-ops
- grow your own
- bike, walk, take transit – don’t buy gas
- to travel don’t fly, take the bus or train
- vacation locally
- bank at a credit union
The anarchists’ vision of a federal society of voluntary associations and local communities may or may not ever become a reality. Meanwhile, we still have a somewhat democratic system in place here in Canada and we must all educate ourselves about political issues and involved ourselves politically if it is to continue.The system isn’t working and most people’s needs are not addressed because the corporate media convince voters not to vote in their own interests, or not to vote at all. Successful political parties are indebted to donors with deep pockets and act to benefit them. But we can still vote for candidates that recognize & oppose the subversion of democracy through corporate power. We can get involved in political parties that represent the 99% & push for strong platforms that limit the power of the 1%.
Conclusion
This post about art & anarchy has described: work I have done on an anarchist theme; the often pointless anarchy in my home town of Vancouver; and some of anarchy’s higher goals. It has suggested, in a limited way, how these might be applied. But it must be accepted that, short of overthrowing capitalism in a revolution, we are not going to seriously impede the onward march of capitalism. For those of us reluctant to engage in the crap shoot of total upheaval, we can only hope that, as Marx predicted, capitalism would bring itself down through its own contradictions.
-
Even more on Painting
This and other posts that discuss painting, more on painting and even more on painting, are an effort to understand how painting has become a suspect art form. How had it become assumed, among the cognoscenti, that painting has an irredeemable connection to everything that was wrong with art and society before the post-modern revolution? These blogs also explore the role of painting in the wider Western socio-political realm outside the arts. Modernist painting (and less so sculpture) has been singled out as representing the cultural sins of the current epoch and its repudiation was to be an expiation. However, radical changes in painting, how painting is defined and ways paintings are evaluated, have made no improvements to Western society. It could even be said that the current place of painting and other arts, is worse than at any time in history. This is because, in the last half-century, the culture of getting and spending has come to dominate most areas of life including painting and the arts. The commodification of the visual arts is such that it is now the second most lucrative area for investment after real estate and this has had a deleterious effect on Western culture.
The question is whether painting is relevant and can have an impact on the wider society, or whether it is an art form that is only about the painters’ connection to the painting and the viewer’s personal connection to the painting. Is it a passive art form or can it make the leap from canvas to galvanizing political action?
Paintings in History
In many periods of history, painting has played a powerful role as political propaganda. Earlier civilizations such as the Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks and Romans used murals, bas-reliefs and sculptures to celebrate political triumphs and the power of the elites. This tradition continued through the 20th century with the commissioning of paintings and sculptures commemorating battles won and their victorious winners. As the last centuries’ winners have been outed as ruthless and immoral by any standards, there has been demands for removal of these sculptures and paintings from the public realm. So in that sense, paintings depicting the triumphs of ruthless men have had a strong political impact even in the present day.

Napoleon Crossing the Alps, oil on canvas, Jacques-Louis David, 1801. There have been powerful paintings that generated controversy and influenced public attitudes and even political outcomes that were not sanctioned by ruling elites. For example, the painting below, Raft of the Medusa, had scandalous political implications in France; the incompetent captain, who had gained the position because of connections to the Bourbon Restoration government, fought to save himself and senior officers while leaving the lower ranks to die, so Géricault’s picture of the raft and its inhabitants was greeted with hostility by the government. As Jake Hirsch-Allen says in his analysis, “the power of The Raft as a political tool of propaganda was immediately apparent and has been its most enduring historical facet. As the story of the Medusa became a cause célebré, embroiled in the complexities of
Bourbon-restoration politics and tensions between the Liberal and Royalist factions…and, as
events progressed, with the highly emotive subject of the slave trade, the Raft of the Medusa
itself became a symbol these debates.”Though Géricault’s painting was still part of in the heroic “history painting” style, this muscular work was transformative in re-defining the scope of painting’s subjects and impacts.

Raft of the Medusa, 1818–19, Théodore Géricault, oil on canvas, 4.91 x 7.16m The Impressionists
While Impressonists such as Claude Monet and Edouard Manet are not usually associated with shaping political attitudes, their work had influence. As art historian Nancy Locke said in transcripts of her talk to students at Penn State University, “By painting the homeless, for example, Manet depicted the social implications of poverty. Similarly, by painting scenes which blurred class lines (like many subjects of the Impressionist canvas), artists influenced shifts in society.”

The Ragpicker,1865-1870, Eduard Manet In his paper on Intersections of Art and Politics, John Kim Munholland, argues that Monet also communicated a strong political message, “The Rue Montorgueil, Celebration of June 30,1878 and its twin The Rue Saint-Denis, Celebration of June 30, 1878, in which the words “Vive la République” appear on a flag…blurred class differences with their patriotic, republican messages. Set in the streets of a popular quarter of Paris, they reminded viewers that the Commune uprising also had been an expression of outraged and frustrated nationalism among the people of Paris, who had held out against the Prussians during the siege, but had been forced to capitulate by the Versailles government.”

Rue Saint Denis, Fête du 30 Juin, 1878, Claude Monet Early-Modernism
The “history painters” and Impressionists sought to influence the direction of their societies through content, or depiction of their subjects. The modernists scorned content and expressed themselves only through form. For instance, Piet Mondrian, working during the appalling upheavals in Europe during the 1930’s & 40’s, believed that his work was a “plastic vision” that would help to set up ” …a new type of society composed of balanced relationships”.

According to the online Encyclopedia Britannica, Mondrian’s artistic direction was “Rooted in a strict puritan tradition of Dutch Calvinism and inspired by his theosophical beliefs, he continually strove for purity during his long career, a purity best explained by the double meaning of the Dutch word schoon, which means both “clean” and “beautiful.” Mondrian chose the strict and rigid language of straight line and pure colour to produce first of all an extreme purity, and on another level, a Utopia of superb clarity and force. When, in 1920, Mondrian dedicated Le Néo-plasticisme to “future men,” his dedication implied that art can be a guide to humanity, that it can move beyond depicting the casual, arbitrary facts of everyday appearance and substitute in its place a new, harmonious view of life. This kind of magical thinking is like a poignant glimmer of a previous era’s optimism about art and the human imagination. Mondrian’s philosophy could be thought of as self-indulgent navel-gazing, except for the fact that it produced these astounding works of art and revolutionized thinking about painting.
Modernism
From a twenty-first century perspective, the conviction that rigidly controlled lines and blocks of colour could contribute to world peace seemed laughable. Modernists, like the Minimalists who came after Mondrian, did not share his belief in the power of art to transform society. Like Frank Stella they had a reductionist approach to art, wanting only to demonstrate that every painting is “a flat surface with paint on it—nothing more”, and rejected the idea art as a means of expressing emotion. He summarized his apolitical and anti-social approach by saying, “My painting is based on the fact that only what can be seen there is there. It really is an object… All I want anyone to get out of my paintings, and all I ever get out of them, is the fact that you can see the whole idea without any confusion…. What you see is what you see.“
So with Modernism, painting became what in another blog is described as “self-reflexive”, or concerned only about itself. This could be considered to be a political statement as it is in keeping with the growing individualism of the second half of the twentieth century. Ties to community were weakening and western governments pressured their citizens to become individualistic consumers to bolster the economy.
The drive for purity by Modernists like Frank Stella, Ellsworth Kelly, and Kenneth Noland influenced, and was strongly influenced by, the thinking of the American art critic, Clement Greenberg. His theories could be said to have built on the ideas about purity that inspired Mondrian, but lacked the painter’s Calvinist & Theosophical zeal.

Frank Stella – The Marriage of Reason and Squalor, II, 1959, Enamel paint on canvas, 91 x 133 in. Greenberg believed in progressively purifying painting of all representation and illusion and promoted the hard-edged and colour-field abstractions of his favourite artists. Mondrian believed that his painting would contribute to a more harmonious and peaceful world. The only rationale provided by the Modernists for cleansing away any spatial depth or sculptural qualities in painting, was that it is ridiculous to try to create spatial illusions on a flat surface. Modernists did not feel that art should play a role in the larger world, but believed in “art for art’s sake”. The rise of a consumer culture and the commodification of art during this period was not a concern.
Post-Modernism
The Postmodernists were more aware of consumerism and the emerging role of the art market but the movement tried to neutralize it by absorbing it. Postmodernists reversed the Modernist contempt for popular culture, the mass media and mass consumerism and looked for inspiration in the everyday. In his blog The Postmodern Revolution, David Adams comments that this approach “…seemed much more vital than modernist art. (See for example fig. 7, which also suggests the revival of painting that took place).”

Adams goes on to say, “…postmodernism refers to the end of an epistemologically centered philosophy based on the efforts of a knowing subject to know truth by achieving a true mental representation of objective reality (the Cartesian subject-object dualism). It argues (among many other things) that there is no temporally invariant truth since human understanding is always historically-based (or “contingent”).
Post-modern relativism, which has been discussed in other blogs, was a direct outgrowth of the individualist and anti-social introspection of the Modernist era. In this approach, not only does painting have no relation to anything outside itself, it assumes that there is nothing outside itself that is true – only what a particular individual might happen to believe. This brings us to the present day where relativism is widely held and could be called the dominant paradigm. Part of this paradigm is that there can be no possibility of an authoritative assessment of artistic worth or quality as everything is only relative. Anyone’s taste in art is equal to anyone else’s as there are no absolute or even conventionally accepted criteria. Into this moral and authoritative vacuum, the market has taken on the role that used to be held by what used to be called experts on art.
The Market Monster
In a culture of getting and spending where there are no other standards for gauging excellence in art, the marketplace is the logical arbiter. A painting is worthwhile if it can obtain a high price. A previous post, On Theories of Art, suggested that objective assessments of art are difficult to attain because art is about feelings rather than reason, but feels the need to be justified by some form of reason other than marketability. As in all aspects of life in a capitalist society, the market has skewed relations between artists and their work and between artists and viewers.Though written in 1975, Harold Rosenberg’s Art on the Edge, contains many ideas that remain highly relevant. Rosenberg calls the influence of the marketplace on the direction of contemporary art “…a process of transformation whose end is not in sight” (p.8) and over 40 years later, this transformation continues to mutate. For an artist, alternatives to the market are either art-as-criticism, (parody, irony, subversion) or making art for oneself. The irony is that ironic, subversive, parodies of art have been absorbed by the establishment so that they happily sponsor shows that are opposed to them. “To create the illusion of an adversary force, everything that has been overthrown must be overthrown again and again”. (p.90)
This relates to a discussion in the previous post describing the current epoch as not a changing culture but a culture of change. The ideology of constant change has, like the end of history, eliminated real change. It will not be possible to rescue art from the market’s perverse influences through renunciation of artistic sins that went before. And it is naive to believe that one art form or another can have an effect on a pervasive economic system that manipulates every aspect of life.
The Contemporary Era
As I am an artist not a scholar, this is a necessarily brief and sketchy overview of the social and political influence of the visual arts, especially painting, over the last 100 years. I have divided art history into three major art movements: Pre-Modernism, Modernism and Post Modernism. These divisions are only visible from historical perspective and the current era is made up of many disparate schools such as Post-Post-Modernism, Anti-Art, Conceptual Art, Site Specific Art, Installation Art, etc. Their commonality is the assumption that easel painting is dead, or at least irrelevant. But as I have argued here, jettisoning easel painting and conventional concepts of aesthetics, has done nothing to bring greater harmony or halt the commodification of art. Western societies teeter on the brink of instability and the art market continues to go from strength to strength. As I update this blog in April of 2024, I include the latest figures for the art market in 2023 from Artsy:
“The art market experienced a down year in 2023. Total sales in the art market fell by 4% year over year to $65 billion. The figure represents the lowest since the COVID-blighted year of 2020, but is still higher than pre-pandemic levels when sales were $64.4 billion”.
However, their good news for art market was:
“Most dealers and auction houses expect stable or improving sales in 2024, and those predicting lower sales were in the minority both for their own businesses and with their peers.“
This is not the Utopian, harmonious culture that Mondrian hoped to bring about through an extreme purity, superb clarity and force in painting. The modernists and post-modernist that followed, and the elimination of aesthetics and painterly painting they endorsed, have been happily absorbed by the market. So where does this leave contemporary art and artists? This is a topic for future blogs about even more on painting.