[Blake_Stimson,_Gregory_Sholette]_Collectivism_aft(z-lib
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

[Blake_Stimson,_Gregory_Sholette]_Collectivism_aft(z-lib

dragan.tabakovic
from dragan.tabakovic More from this publisher
15.08.2023 Views

After the “Descent to the Everyday” 69“collaborative collectivism” reveals no tidy linear progression. This is particularlytrue with the pioneers. Gutai played a central role in devisinginnovative exhibition formats in its early phase, yet it reverted to more conventionalexhibition practices after 1958. Among a few sporadic exceptionswas “International Sky Festival” in 1960, in which paintings were Xown inthe sky, hanging from ad balloons. For Neo Dada, the important protagonistin early Anti-Art, its exhibitions were a manifestation of the camaraderieits members and associates cultivated at their often boisterous gatherings atthe “Artists’ White House”—member Yoshimura Masunobu’s residence designedby the young architect Isozaki Arata—and its street demonstrationswere a further extension of these action-packed evenings. In the case of HiRed Center, which launched “collaborative collectivism,” collaboration precededexhibition. Its “ofWcial chronology” 66 includes two collaborative projectsin 1962 as integral elements of the group’s history, although not all threeprimary members were involved in them: Dinner Commemorating the Defeatin the War (Akasegawa et al.) and Yamanote Line Incident, staged by Takamatsuand Nakanishi, among others, on Tokyo’s commuter railroad-loop. Thesetwo projects were followed by a panel discussion among Akasegawa, Takamatsu,and Nakanishi, on the topic of Yamanote Line Incident, organized forthe art magazine Keisho (Form) by its editor Imaizumi Yoshihiko, who wasinstrumental in uniting Akasegawa and the other two. 67 These activities culminatedin HRC’s Wrst exhibition in 1963, “The Fifth Mixer Plan,” whichformally announced the group.It is tempting to see a source of post-1945 collectivism in the persistentJapanese social mores of “group orientation,” which dates back toPrince Shotoku of the seventh century, who famously proclaimed that harmonywas of foremost importance. However, the often short-lived existencesof such small vanguard collectives as Neo Dada and HRC points to a freespirited“collectivity without conformity.” There was no need to prolong thelife of a group for the sake of prolonging it. This decidedly separates the smallvanguard collectives from the established model of the art organization(which was exploited by the wartime regime in the name of nationalism),or Gutai’s exceptional case (which ended with the powerful leader-mentor’sdeath). In a sense, their collectivism constituted an individualism in theguise of groups.Why, then, did these artists pursue collectivity? One reason wasthe power of multitude, which has always informed collectivism. There wereparticular twists in the 1960s, however, when artists took their projects to thepublic sphere and interrogated the modern institutions of art. Zero Dimension,which routinely gathered about thirty people or more for each of itsrituals, exploited the number to create a substantial presence in the urban

70 Reiko Tomiicrowd, and generated, by extension, publicity. HRC’s cleaning was unquestionedbecause the presence created by a group of people normalized theirpeculiar activity; one person’s cleaning—with a toothbrush or a handy rag—would have been more conspicuous. With Group “I,” the collective context ofits works made the issues of individual authorship, originality, and anonymityall the more explicit and consequential. Hikosaka Naoyoshi of Bikyototheorized the meaning of collectivity in relation to Bikyoto Revolution Committee’ssolo exhibition series in 1971:The museum emerges wherever one conducts an act of art-making. However, it is meaninglessif one artist holds an exhibition outside the museum/gallery. Our starting point is:several people encounter and discover the museum manifesting itself within the act ofart-making, of which we as individuals have been previously unaware.Through our activities, we have aimed to concretely possess this “internal museum”as our commonality. 68Hikosaka’s words saliently speak for the post-HRC collectivism, throughwhich these artists endeavored to seek out a new horizon of practices.Given the volatile social situation in the 1960s, it goes withoutsaying that the explicit and implicit activism that pervaded Japanese collectivismcannot be understood without reference to the two anti-Anpostruggles and the student revolt. Still, the need for artists to band togetherin creating their own platform was not new, nor was the artists’ ingenuityof inventing something new to meet, or preWgure, the changing historical,social, and cultural context. Even the seemingly apolitical projects of ThePlay have a profound implication of things to come. In fact, with The Play,collaborative and interventional collectivism came a long way from HRC,anticipating yet another type of collectivism that would emerge in the late1990s: “grass-roots collectivism.” This concerns the locally based collaborationsbetween artists and area residents that have generated works of bothartistic and social signiWcance.For example, the nonproWt collective Command N, led by NakamuraMasato, produced Akihabara TV (1999, 2000, and 2002) in Tokyo’sfamous electronics district Akihabara: it played dozens of international videoworks on television monitors displayed for sale at participating electronicsstores. To execute this simple but clever plan, Command N closely workedwith a local community for a great success. 69 Area rejuvenation was also thegoal of Echigo-Tsumari Art Triennial (2000, 2003, and 2006), which was heldin the mountainous Niigata Prefecture in central Japan. The project was acollaboration between the area’s local governments and Art Front Galleryin Tokyo, which has functioned as not so much a commercial gallery as analternative gallery since its foundation in 1976. In 2003, among more than150 practitioners from twenty-three countries, a good number of artists and

70 Reiko Tomii

crowd, and generated, by extension, publicity. HRC’s cleaning was unquestioned

because the presence created by a group of people normalized their

peculiar activity; one person’s cleaning—with a toothbrush or a handy rag—

would have been more conspicuous. With Group “I,” the collective context of

its works made the issues of individual authorship, originality, and anonymity

all the more explicit and consequential. Hikosaka Naoyoshi of Bikyoto

theorized the meaning of collectivity in relation to Bikyoto Revolution Committee’s

solo exhibition series in 1971:

The museum emerges wherever one conducts an act of art-making. However, it is meaningless

if one artist holds an exhibition outside the museum/gallery. Our starting point is:

several people encounter and discover the museum manifesting itself within the act of

art-making, of which we as individuals have been previously unaware.

Through our activities, we have aimed to concretely possess this “internal museum”

as our commonality. 68

Hikosaka’s words saliently speak for the post-HRC collectivism, through

which these artists endeavored to seek out a new horizon of practices.

Given the volatile social situation in the 1960s, it goes without

saying that the explicit and implicit activism that pervaded Japanese collectivism

cannot be understood without reference to the two anti-Anpo

struggles and the student revolt. Still, the need for artists to band together

in creating their own platform was not new, nor was the artists’ ingenuity

of inventing something new to meet, or preWgure, the changing historical,

social, and cultural context. Even the seemingly apolitical projects of The

Play have a profound implication of things to come. In fact, with The Play,

collaborative and interventional collectivism came a long way from HRC,

anticipating yet another type of collectivism that would emerge in the late

1990s: “grass-roots collectivism.” This concerns the locally based collaborations

between artists and area residents that have generated works of both

artistic and social signiWcance.

For example, the nonproWt collective Command N, led by Nakamura

Masato, produced Akihabara TV (1999, 2000, and 2002) in Tokyo’s

famous electronics district Akihabara: it played dozens of international video

works on television monitors displayed for sale at participating electronics

stores. To execute this simple but clever plan, Command N closely worked

with a local community for a great success. 69 Area rejuvenation was also the

goal of Echigo-Tsumari Art Triennial (2000, 2003, and 2006), which was held

in the mountainous Niigata Prefecture in central Japan. The project was a

collaboration between the area’s local governments and Art Front Gallery

in Tokyo, which has functioned as not so much a commercial gallery as an

alternative gallery since its foundation in 1976. In 2003, among more than

150 practitioners from twenty-three countries, a good number of artists and

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!