Collectivism after Modernism - autonomous learning - Blogs

(mumei-sei), to borrow Akasegawa’s term, making HRC the last in the line
of Anti-Art collectivism. 33
POST-HRC COLLECTIVES
After the “Descent to the Everyday” 57
The end of Anti-Art was signaled by the termination of the “Yomiuri Independent
Exhibition”—the hotbed of Anti-Art—which was announced in
early 1964. In retrospect, as more artists and collectives sought to “descend
to everyday life” and explore “action” (koi) in their work, the “Yomiuri Independent”
was perhaps beginning to lose its importance, if not its relevance,
altogether. Conversely, its demise likely accelerated the departure from the
institutional conWnes. Thereafter the idea of action and collaboration more
explicitly informed collectivism in various manners.
Akasegawa Genpei after HRC
Theoretically, Model 1,000-Yen Note Incident (1963–74) hammered the last
nail in the cofWn of Anti-Art, with the artists themselves declaring that
Anti-Art was indeed Art. From the birth of a “nameless” existence that was
the facsimile 1,000-yen note fabricated for Akasegawa Genpei in 1963 to the
criminal investigation and trial of the artist for currency fraud to its aftermath,
the entire course of events unexpectedly became a gigantic collective
project. The artist’s money work followed a curious path of fate. Outside his
intention or control, the facsimile money accidentally attracted the attention
of the police, who were investigating a genuine and thorny counterfeit
problem. Once inserted in the real-life space, his money work—in one theory—fell
victim to the state’s mid-decade preparation for the coming Anpo
’70 struggle, and its creator was brought to the court of law as a “thought
pervert” (shiso-teki henshitsusha), a contemporary law-enforcement label reminiscent
of the wartime “thought criminal.” In a country where the interest
of public welfare and social trust must always and unequivocally override
constitutional rights, Akasegawa was found guilty in 1967, with his verdict
upheld by the Supreme Court in 1970. 34
In the investigation phase, when Asahi Newspaper, a national daily,
erroneously linked Akasegawa to the major ongoing counterfeit case in 1964,
HRC published the satirical Eyedrop Special Bulletin and took other “direct
actions” against the newspaper company. When he was indicted in 1965, his
colleagues gathered to form the 1,000-Yen-Note Incident Discussion Group
(Sen-en-satsu Jiken Kondankai), or Senkon in short, which became an important
agent of the Incident. In support of Akasegawa’s legal battle, Senkon
was responsible for aiding in his defense, publishing newsletters, and holding
public meetings and fund-raising events. SigniWcantly, the credit should