The Panman says JOIN THE WORD STRIKE
Don't Say "Art" Unless You Mean "Money"
January 1, 1991-December 31, 1993*
GIVE THE ART WORD TO THE ART WORLD

We must give the word art to the art world. Businessmen can become artists now, its what they've always wanted. Artists can become businessmen now, it's what they have always wanted. Instead of just saying everyone is an artist, let's make it true. Let's change the meaning of the word art to mean businessmen dealing in contemporary culture. And since everything has become entertainment thanks to tv, everything is culture, so everyone who buys and sells is buying and selling culture. We are all artists when we deal with money. Meanwhile there are the stupid few who insist on not being artists. What would those people do? What would their activities consist of? They couldn't hide behind a grandiose term like art anymore so they'd have to use more specific names for what they do like paintings, dances, songs, brain-teasers, books, poetry, plays, stories, drawings, sculptures, etc. And if not for money why would these people do these things? Probably the reason would be difficult to explain. Maybe it's better not to explain. Not to give it a name, just to do it.

If we give the art word to the art world that will leave a void and the things people fill that void with can be clear and honest and fresh and come from a place inside each of us that exists before the words to describe it do. Yeah words are just symbols and pictures are just symbols but what are they symbols of? Concepts? Things? Whatever it is those symbols represent, let's use that to understand what the symbols do and how they work and look at what they've created for us thus far. Yeah, we can let the void be filled with the same old stuff we filled it with when it was called art or we can give that stuff to the art world as a gift. The art word, the history, the museums, the galleries, of course the artists, the masterpieces, the stereotypes, the jealousies, the judgements.

We can give all that to the art world and instead try filling the void with something we all want: the understanding of what history is and what words are, the understanding of what is really happening to us when we are moved to call something a masterpiece, the understanding of the reasons we use stereotypes, and discovering the reality behind the myths, (of course reality is a problematic word, too), the understanding of jealousies and the abandonment of the fear that causes them, the understanding of our judgements and the criteria we use to judge things, and where that comes from. Yeah, if we fill the void with these things and that same time try to keep it fresh and honest and flexible enough not to get bogged down by new words and dogmas perhaps it would be an experiment worth trying. So I say give the art words to the art world , let it denote only cultural activities involving money and let your attention drift effortlessly to the void created by its absense. So don't say art, don't say anything . During your free time, feel free to send a clear message to the Word Strike Action Committee PO Box 1500 New York NY 10009 USA.

WHY WORD STRIKE?: Separating Money and Art by Combining Them Forever by Mark Bloch

After reading Tony Lowes' self-published A Wittgenstein Primer from 1984, I was impressed by Wittgenstein's writings. Some examples: "(1) The problems are solved not by giving new information, but by arrangiong what we have always known. (2) Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intellignece by means of language. (9) It is very difficult to describe paths of thought where there are already many lines of thought laid down and not get into one of the grooves. (13) To imagine a language means to imagine a form of life. (18) Philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday. (36) One thinks that one is tracing the thing's nature over and over again when one is merely tracing round the frame through which we look. (37) It is like a pair of eyeglasses on our nose through which we see whatever we look at. It nevers occurs to us to take them off. (41) The clarity we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. This means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear. (57) While I am looking at an object I cannot imagine it. (94) The concept of a living being has the same indeterminacy as that of a language. (136) A child has much to learn before it can pretend.... "

what is the real solution? What tactic can we who call ourseves artists use that would be more than just a mere pose and could actually work? I see the biggest problem with art being the way it is treated as a commodity. Wittgenstein made me realize that the words were the problem. The first goal of a "word strike" would be to separate "art-as-commodity" from all other "art" by changing the meaning of a single word. In the future words like "art" can continue to be redefined until they have meaning once again. "Love" and "God" are other words that could use some attention. "Nation" and/or "country" might need to be re-examined some day. But for now let's focus on a relatively simple sphere: "art."

Some call "artists" "cultural workers". Does this accomplish anything? It is an attempt to put artists in the same category as construction workers or butchers, etc. and I just don't buy it, not given the current output of artists. Perhaps I could if they were serving a useful function in the society. (Plus it implies that a construction worker is not a cultural worker.) That being an artist is somehow a job. That could be true but it is not in our current society. It would be better if artists had a role to play in the tribe that was essential to the other tribespeople. But we have something else: Artists making work for other artists and the public is left out of it. Art has become an elitist activity, divorced from the people. In our current society, the only artists who touch the people are the myth makers- the ad men, the people who create TV programs and films. Those are the people who create myths that touch the public psyche. Not the Schnabels or even the Jenny Holzers or Barbara Krugers. These people are making art for other artists. Joseph Beuys attempted to break out of the elitist realm of theart world and touch regular people where they live. I believe that was Ray Johnson's original intention with his New York Correspondence School- to bypass the overly-sophisticated "Art World" and reach people directly. Today, (and only when it is at its best) the Eternal Network or Global Network is a myth that can be useful to all the people of our society, a tool for all of us to use to reach out to other individuals, not just a chosen few. This reaching out to all the people is what I call the ancient healing function of art. Meanwhile the makers of the commercials and the TV programs and the slasher films and the Star Wars movies are the people who are weaving the dominant contemporary myths. We need to weave our own. This is the key: we need to enter the public consciousness as the Big Boys have. Read Joseph Campbell. He addresses the importance of myths in all societies. If you are lazy catch him on public television on Bill Moyers' The Power Of Myth.

Ancient cycles and rituals must be kept alive through the creation of new myths. Our old myths are dead or irrelevant. We need updated myths for our new vision, our new experience. To create a new society we need new myths. The artist's function is to keep alive mankind's inherent interest in a good story. It is through myths that the sophisticated language of the artist/philosopher/shaman is translated to the people. Through the mythologization of our life, we create a poignant tale out of the mundane. Perhaps artists do have a unique experience, a connection with the subconscious that the other tribespeople don't have. This does not deprive anyone of their "equal gift of vision." It simply acknowledges that everyone has their own unique contribution to make in the society. So the shoe makers make their shoes and the artist/shaman/healers create "art" from their mystical experiences with their own subconscious. But the "art" must be translated for all the people. Because just as they need shoes, they need myths. They are equally important, art not more or less. The perception of the art as a more valuable commodity is what deprives others of their equal gift of vision. Everyone is free to make their own shoes and their own myths. But one way for an artist to have a valuable function in the tribe, just as a shoemaker or a cook or a farmer does, is to tap into his subconscious and create a myth that the whole tribe can relate to. People who are so proud of their materialistic perspective will try to convince me that the pursuit of the subconscious is a waste of time. But it was Joseph Campbell who said something like "intellectuality and systems will eat you alive if you don't use them for human purposes. Listen to your heart. The brain is a secondary organ." Isn't it a "harsh materialistic perspective" which got us into this mess in the first place? It was only a matter of time before The Age of Reason turned into Chernobyl.

I say join the Word Strike and don't put your money where your mouth is. I say yeah, keep doing what your doing, but change what you call it to protect those of us who have integrity. If you are creating, no matter who you are, to make money you are an artist. If you are creating for any other reason your activity needn't have a name. Either activity is acceptable, but know what the consequences are of your choices. Declaring yourself to be an artist means you are entering into a world where money is the top priority. Quality and conviction matter less.

That brings up the question of whether a little social consciousness is better than none at all. Is there room for compromise? Does one have to make money off their creativity? Do we cease to create for "oppressive and exploitative" forces at all and use our energy to raise consciousness against such forces? Is sitting around feelingholier than thou because nothing has changed better than working "within the system"? Is it possible to completely leave "the system"? Are we "the system"?I think that if you are gonna sell out and get involved in the Spectacle, continue to try and fight the powers that be. Fight the parts of ourselves that are oppressive and exploitative. Three films I've seen recently which do this are Do The Right Thing by Spike Lee, Roger and Me by Michael Moore and How To Get Ahead in Advertising by Bruce Robinson. I had problems with them but I think they are a step in the right direction. Spike Lee's brilliant film about racism and violence in New York City had a nebulous ending but maybe that's good just to make people think. Is that enough? Spikes ambiguity was used to that end. Bravo. Unfortunately it runs parallel to ambiguity I sense in the work of current art stars of Post-Structuralist fiddle faddle. Understandably so. The way has been paved for it. Duchamp pulled off "deconstructing" the art world, selling Brancusi's and setting up art collections for collectorswhile he blasted the pedestal "art" had become. But Duchamp's brilliance was later combined with 70s 80s Warholism, and conviction has been replaced by an empty deconstruction of everyhting all the way to the bank. So in today's spirit-starved climate, we all have to take a stand on the issue of art for money and money for art and how it's used. Should artists propose a solution to the "system" they operate within? Take a stand? Or is ambiguity enough.

As for Roger and Me I thought it was a bit manuipulative. It made Roger Smith, the chariman of General Motors into The Bad Guy and I'm not sure that's healthy. It's a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Critiques of both these films are rampant in the underground and mainstream press. And yeah, they are just another part of what Situationist Guy Debord called the Spectacle. How to Get Ahead In Advertising was probably covered in the media, too, but I managed to miss the media hoopla and watched it recently on video without any expectations. It is a most wonderful film! Not only is it hilarious and surreal, but it is also a direct attack on the Spectacle in general and in particular personifies the advertising game as a boil on an adman's neck! Like the advertising it parodies, it cost millions of dollars to make, dollars that could've been used to feed starving children. Nevertheless, all three of these filmmakers are using their creativity to make people think. Sure they also entertain. But had they withdrawn their creative energy the public would simply have three less choices, three less alternatives to the ubiquitous Hollywood bullshit that seems to go out of its way to keep people from thinking about anything but stereotypes.

So what do we do- get out there and sell peace? Sell the idea of art-as-a-commodity as a commodity? Could a word strike go the route of Acid House and Macy's? Within a couple of weeks after the trend hit they were selling Acid House clothes. Co-opted by the consumer culture before it was even hep. Now the public- including 13 year old girls and boys with their insatiable appetite for newness is obsessed by trends. They are trying so desperately to be hip. I say we have a hemisphere without culture- any worthwhile culture- because it is all created for money. But the key is rising above this hunger for grooviness and getting on with fighting real hunger. The way to do that is to use the same techniques governaments and Wall Street and Madison Avenue use but to do it for something less vacuuous than the pursuit of money.

Meanwhile there's the underground retreating into nonsense. But didn't the Dadas and Schwitters play that one out seventy five years ago? Didn't Raymond Roussel devote a lifetime to it? Why does Structuralism and its retarded children and precursors sell so well in university bookstores? Is it because words inherently have no meaning or is it just as result of thousands of years of abuse? How do we re-infuse words with meaning?

Many people have retreated into interesting "artistic" niches. They like to do things like tear apart "visual poetry" letter by letter. Is that the answer? Wasn't visual poetry supposed to tear apart conventional literature? Does that sort of hyper-analytic activity do anything to achieve the original aims of what visual poetry was about or did we somehow get off the track? I think the avant garde, just like the rest of our culture, is spiritually bankrupt. The "vanguard" started out questioning the road itself but led us on its own road to nowhere. It was interesting while it lasted but let's not get hooked on either road. We need to put a new road together- fast- and walk on it. Both "Pop Culture" and the "Avant Garde" have left us standing in a rut where nothing has meaning. I say the way to achieve a shift away from what ails us is to cease to worship the emptiness of certain values, often personified by a few priviledged individuals. Both Pop Culture (which includes the Church and everything else once held sacred) and the Avant Garde have their empty agendas. Pop Culture often draws its superstars from the Avant Garde. The superstars change (about every fifteen minutes according to the great and powerful Privilidged Prophet of Profit Mr. Warhol) to fit the current fashion. We value the Pop Star of the Week because we are told to. That leaves us feeling empty. Don't we simply value the wrong things, the wrong individuals? It's as simple as that. Nothing seems to have value because certain words and concepts have no meaning. Our superstars have nothing of value to say. So the thing to do is to re-order our agenda to fit our priorities. We supposedly value "art" but we don't know what it means. So let's change the definition of art, not stick our heads in the sand.

What is new today will be tame tomorrow. Whether we do it for money or not, there is much work to be done.We can try to oppose the system but even rock'n'roll ended up in museum. Most artistsI know do our work more or less underground. We make our money other ways, not from those activities that give us our sense of passion or commitment. Many of us are living "normal" lives, far away from the myth of the "starving artist" who is "sacrificing" himself for his "ideals"; the "misunderstood" "weirdo" who is "outside of society ." Those myths have done nothing good for our society, only isolated people and escalated the price of irises and water lilies. We need to stop that myth. We need to destroy the myth of the artist who creaties artifice and instead promote the myth of the creative person who takes responsiblility for the horrible reality that we've all created on our planet. We are people who can do what we want without the public's expectations of us being starving oddballs. People who can simply do their best work.

So that when people come around and start asking questions we can tell them that we know what we're doing and we want them to help us to do it.

CREATIVE PEOPLE MUST LEAD STOP THE BEAN COUNTERS Planet Earth is not for sale

*NOTE: The Word Strike lasted until the late 1990s. It's exact end date is yet to be determined.

Copyright © Mark Bloch - markb@echonyc.com