Collectivism after Modernism - autonomous learning - Blogs

After the “Descent to the Everyday” 69
“collaborative collectivism” reveals no tidy linear progression. This is particularly
true with the pioneers. Gutai played a central role in devising
innovative exhibition formats in its early phase, yet it reverted to more conventional
exhibition practices after 1958. Among a few sporadic exceptions
was “International Sky Festival” in 1960, in which paintings were Xown in
the sky, hanging from ad balloons. For Neo Dada, the important protagonist
in early Anti-Art, its exhibitions were a manifestation of the camaraderie
its members and associates cultivated at their often boisterous gatherings at
the “Artists’ White House”—member Yoshimura Masunobu’s residence designed
by the young architect Isozaki Arata—and its street demonstrations
were a further extension of these action-packed evenings. In the case of Hi
Red Center, which launched “collaborative collectivism,” collaboration preceded
exhibition. Its “ofWcial chronology” 66 includes two collaborative projects
in 1962 as integral elements of the group’s history, although not all three
primary members were involved in them: Dinner Commemorating the Defeat
in the War (Akasegawa et al.) and Yamanote Line Incident, staged by Takamatsu
and Nakanishi, among others, on Tokyo’s commuter railroad-loop. These
two projects were followed by a panel discussion among Akasegawa, Takamatsu,
and Nakanishi, on the topic of Yamanote Line Incident, organized for
the art magazine Keisho (Form) by its editor Imaizumi Yoshihiko, who was
instrumental in uniting Akasegawa and the other two. 67 These activities culminated
in HRC’s Wrst exhibition in 1963, “The Fifth Mixer Plan,” which
formally announced the group.
It is tempting to see a source of post-1945 collectivism in the persistent
Japanese social mores of “group orientation,” which dates back to
Prince Shotoku of the seventh century, who famously proclaimed that harmony
was of foremost importance. However, the often short-lived existences
of such small vanguard collectives as Neo Dada and HRC points to a freespirited
“collectivity without conformity.” There was no need to prolong the
life of a group for the sake of prolonging it. This decidedly separates the small
vanguard 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’s
death). In a sense, their collectivism constituted an individualism in the
guise of groups.
Why, then, did these artists pursue collectivity? One reason was
the power of multitude, which has always informed collectivism. There were
particular twists in the 1960s, however, when artists took their projects to the
public sphere and interrogated the modern institutions of art. Zero Dimension,
which routinely gathered about thirty people or more for each of its
rituals, exploited the number to create a substantial presence in the urban