* *

Written during the 5th International Festival of Plagiarism, Glasgow, August 1989

The Art Strike can only be propagated on the basis of a limited idea of what art is. If art is everything, according to the definition of Dada and Fluxus, an Art Strike would be death.

The propagators of the Art Strike agree that it is intended to break the barrier between so-called 'low' and so-called 'high' culture. But if these persons would not think and work themselves into those categories, they could neither demand nor do the Art Strike.

If art is everything and I cannot reduce my definition of 'art' to a more restricted one the word has no meaning at all. Therefore I propose to give up the word 'art'.

If there is no art, you do not need an Art Strike.

Perhaps the desire for the Art Strike is more interesting than the idea itself. Some possible reasons:

In a world where creativity is split up and cannot be described by definitions or names ('Neoism' and 'Plagiarism' are desperate attempts), unity shall be gained by non-action, if it is impossible by action. This is obvious in the concept of the exhibition ('Reversal of Slogans/Slogans of Reversal') . A slogan is always demanding unity, and slogans are the essence of Neoism and Plagiarism.

Art Strike and death: the information sheet about the Festival includes the (simplifying) sentence 'Plagiarism is for life, Post-modernism is for death.

Since Duchamp, originality ('anti-plagiarism') seems to be possible only by self-destruction, mainly of the body (Vienna Actionism, Chris Burden, etc). In fact, the Art Strike idea results from the wish to do something original and it is self-destructive as well (see second statement). Perhaps there is a subconscious desire for death, which led to the idea of an Art Strike, although strictly denied by its propaganda.

(Thoughts not finished).

Florian Cramer, first published in PhotoStatic 38, Iowa, Autumn 89

Art Strike Start

Next (Stewart Home interviewed)

Previous (art no more)

Art Strike Papers cover