Art as a category must be distinguished from music, painting, writing, etc. Current usage of the term art treats it as a sub-category of these disciplines; one which differentiates between parts of them on the basis of perceived values. Thus the music of John Cage is considered art, while that of Madonna is not. Therefore when we use the term art, we're invoking a distinction between different musics, paintings, works of fiction, etc., one which ranks the items to be found within these categories into a hierarchy.
Given the diversity of objects, texts, compositions, etc., which are said to be art, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is no common denominator among these art works which can be used as a criterion for deciding what should or should not be considered art. What distinguishes the art object is the particular set of social and institutional relationships which are to be found around it. Put another way, art is whatever those in a position of cultural power say is art.
One of the purposes of the Art Strike is to draw attention to the process by which works of art are legitimated. Those artists and administrators who are in the privileged position of deciding what is and what is not art constitute a specific faction of the ruling class. They promote art as a superior form of knowledge and simultaneously use it as a means of celebrating the objective superiority of their own way of life on the basis that they are committed to art. Appreciation of art is generally used as a mark of distinction, privilege and taste.
"...the abolition of art can really occur in the actual time and space of a pre-revolutionary situation like that of May 1968. It is essential that the minority advocate the necessity of going on an active art strike using the machines of the culture industry so that we can more effectively set it in total contradiction to itself. The intention is not to end the rule of production, but to change the most adventurous part of `artistic' production into the production of revolutionary ideas, forms and techniques."
The problem with this proposal is that without ending the rule of production, avant-garde artists would simply swap one privileged role for another. Instead of providing entertainment for a privileged audience, artists are to form themselves into a vanguard providing ideas, forms and techniques for the masses. While such a role may be attractive to artist, it does nothing to alter the oppressive domination of a so-called creative elite over the rest of society.
The New York Art Strike Against War, Repression and Racism was a coalition of artists, dealers, museum officials and other members of the art community. Among other things, it called for a one-day closure of galleries and museums on 5/22/70, with optional continuance for two weeks. On that day the Whitney, the Jewish Museum and a number of galleries closed, while the museum of Modern Art and the Guggenheim suspended their admission charges. While some of the aims of the New York Art Strike were laudable (such as protesting against the war in Vietnam), its supporters also used it as a vehicle for strengthening the privileged position artists occupy within contemporary society. However, the New York Art Strikers soon broke into dissenting factions and their movement was moribund before the end of 1970. The next proposal for an Art Strike came from Gustav Metzger. Writing in the catalogue accompanying the exhibition "Art Into Society/Society Into Art" (ICA, London 1974) he called upon artists to support a three-year Art Strike which would run between 1977 and 1980. The idea was to attack the way in which the art world was organized rather than to question the status of art. However, metzger was unable to rally support for his plan, presumably because most artists lack any sense of the mutual self-interest which would enable them to act in solidarity with others.
In February 1979 Goran Dordevic mailed a circular asking a variety of Yugoslavian and English-speaking artists if they would take part in an International Art Strike to protest against repression and the fact that artists were alienated from the fruits of their labor. Dordevic [continued received forty replies, the majority of which expressed doubts about the possibility of putting the International Art Strike into practice. Because so few artists were prepared to pledge their support, Dordevic abandoned his plan for an International Art Strike.
In Eastern Europe, where cultural work is totally professionalized, there have been successful strike actions by artists. During martial law in Poland artists refused to exhibit work in state galleries, leaving the ruling class without an official culture. More recently in Prague, 500 actors, theatre managers and stage directors were among those who announced a week-long strike to protest against state violence. Instead of giving performances, actors proposed to lead audiences in discussions of the situation (see "New Protest in Prague Follows Beating Death," New York times 11/19/89). However, the fact that artists are sometimes prepared to use their privileged position for what many would view as laudable ends does not place them above criticism.
The Art Strike virus spread as John, Tony and I energetically promoted the concept. And so, by the end of 1988, the idea has caused something of a stir in Mail Art and other circles, but we were still lacking an organizational form with which to implement the strike. At this point, Steve Perkins, Scott MacLeod, Aaron Noble and others decided to form an Art Strike Action Committee (ASAC) in San Francisco. Fired by the initiative of these activists I formed a UK ASAC with Mark Pawson and James Mannox. Other ASACs soon sprang up in Baltimore, Eire, and Latin America.
January 1989 saw the California ASAC organize an Art Strike Mobilization Week in San Francisco. The UK and USA East Coast ASACs then attempted saturation leafleting of art institutions and artists' housing in London and Baltimore. This tactic worked very effectively in Baltimore and led to the formation of an anti-Art Strike group. The larger and more confident art community in London was not so easily intimidated-provocative actions, such as leafleting a party to mark the closure of a gallery, led to earnest discussion rather than howls of outrage.
The year continued with propaganda posters made during the San Francisco Art Strike Mobilization Week being exhibited at two community art venues in London and then during the Fifth International Festival Of Plagiarism in Glasgow. Lectures and debates were held in various art schools and institutes both in the UK and the US. All this activity caught the attention of the media and ASAC representatives made appearances on national radio in both Britain and Eire. There was also a brief Art Strike feature on a London TV station. Written coverage of the Art Strike was more extensive with features and news stories being carried in everything from underground magazines to the New York Village Voice.
[Stewart Home, 12/27/89