About us
 
Origins of the project (scroll down)

'The New Regionalism 'project' is dedicated to spreading an awareness of the correlation between free expression in the arts, and open, democratic society. Since the time of the Industrial Revolution, Regional art movements have emerged every few generations in response to social and economic injustice, environmental concerns and the failure of political systems to effectively address the most pressing issues of the day.
Historically, when artists have engaged with the world – bringing to bear new ideas and creative new approaches – a way forward has been imagined. By recalling the untold history of Regionalism in art, a new generation of artists aims to 'reboot' this long-lived and influential independent movement, in the belief that art – independent art, that is – will reveal new ways of seeing the world and, perhaps, an alternate path.'

 
“Many art world insiders have written critically of the direction contemporary art has taken in recent years, suggesting that somehow, somewhere, art lost its way. The question to ask today is, who does art serve? Independent artists are once again re-defining and re-inventing their role in society, and a new, outspoken, socially conscious art is emerging. Artists are the eyes of society, and when engaged with the world – as they are occasionally moved to be – it has been artists that have traditionally seen the way forward. We seek to tell this story, and through this award, draw attention to those who follow in this long tradition.”

Eyes Of Society

This project spun out of the 2016 'ReEncounter' expedition to Haida Gwaii which is documented in the short film by Braid Films, Eyes Of Society. The objective of this project, which included artists from all across Canada, had originally been to 'ReEncounter' a previously undocumented totem pole. An early synopsis explains the rest:

 
The 2016 ReEncounter expedition in Haida Gwaii – which set out in search of an undocumented totem pole - took an unexpected turn when the object of this Quest was 'ReEncountered' almost immediately, on the very first day of the journey. What now?

The real treasure, the group discovered, was not so much this long lost artifact – the elusive Killer Whale/Thunderbird Memorial pole – but a living culture and an indomitable, independent, creative spirit. The 'Watchmen', in particular, inspired a rethinking of the team's experience in this place, and a reassessment of the role of artists everywhere – the eyes of our society.

READ more about the Background of this documentary >>>


The video poses this key question: what the role of the artist in society? The answer given is clear from the title of the piece, and it is in line with a definition once given by Norman Bethune:


'The function of the artists is to disturb. His duty is to arouse the sleepers,
to shake the complacent pillars of the world.'

Before the artists can 'disturb', of course, he or she must observe, and understand something of the objective reality. This idea is in direct conflict with the subjective philosophy of our times, which mandates a relativistic world view. In the postmodern world, artists 'disturb' the viewer with 'shock art', which is something else entirely. We will look at these two very different world views – the objective vs the subjective – later, and also examine the psychological effects of art.

For insight on postmodernism from, Jean Baudrillard, see the 'Free Expressionism' page and an overview of his 2005 work, The Conspiracy Of Art, and an essential idea from that most influential of all postmodern commentaries, Simulacra and Simulation.


To suggest that artists are the 'eyes of society' often provokes the following question:
"So what is it then, you artists see?"
Those who ask this, always seem to want specifics, and we will present a few examples in the next update. The short answer however, is that artists see the 'invisible environment'. This is a reference, of course, to Marshall McLuhan's comments in his commentary on postmodern culture, The Medium Is The Massage:

  'Environments are not passive wrapping, but are, rather, active processes which are invisible. The groundrules, pervasive structures, and over-all patterns of environments elude easy perception. Anti-environments, or countersituations, made by artists provide means of direct attention and enable it to see and understand more clearly.'

Just as fish don't see the medium in which they are immersed, McLuhan reminds us, we do not see our environment - the culture in which we are immersed. Culture, however, is the artist's stock in trade.

The term 'unseen environment' was used by another influential social theorist, Walter Lippmann. In his work Public Opinion, anticipating postmodernism, he describes the surface appearance of the world around us (our culture) as a 'pseudo-environment'. It was in this book that he coined the infamous phrase 'manufactured consent' - since the public could not be expected to see the world for what it really is, opinions must be shaped, he (and many others) believe, by means of cultural means. Adorno explains this process in great detail in 'Culture and Administration' for his work, The Culture Industry.

Speaking of the economy, John Maynard Keyes states that only one in a million is capable of seeing and understand the 'hidden forces' that work behind the scenes to shape our perceptions of the world – what is true for economics is equally valid when it comes to culture. Returning to McLuhan, we find a slightly less bleak assessment. Referring to that analogy of the Emperor with no cloths, he concludes that most people can see, rather, they chose to disregard what they see. One of the works of social commentator, artists, Shepard Fairy, sums up this idea in a menacing graphic work featuring that ubiquitous all-seeing eye. Beneath the word 'OBEY', rendered in bold red text, this satirical propaganda piece instructs viewers not to believe what they see, but rather, what they are told.

Artists are more likely to see (or chose to see) for the simple reason that it is artists who shape and refine the cultural edifice; and it is is artists who are hired to flesh out whatever propaganda is deemed necessary. Artist are not the architects, but they are retained, some of them (wittingly or unwittingly) to illustrate and accentuate 'useful' ideas. Some of these artists may have truly divined the prevailing zeitgeist, often they are simply jumping on the latest trendy bandwagon, occasionally they are hired directly, to create such work. However their creations comes into being, these 'selected' artists paint the backdrops and set the stage, as it were, of our culture experience.

To peer behind the curtains, to use that popular Wizard of Oz metaphor, reveals only the stage, where the show that has been prepared for us will be presented; this is the artist's domain. But the artists has a better idea of what's going on, and frequently gets to glimpse what's behind the stage. Artists may not be privy to the really back room proceedings – they may not understand the nature of this apparatus, or it's purpose – but they know they are on a stage, and they know something is going on, hidden from sight, beneath the stage floor and behind the walls; they recognize a set painting when they see it.

All artists, whether the work for the theatre or not, understand, by nature, not all that meets the eye might is quite as it appears. This is due largely to their right-brain disposition, rather than direct experience; they see beyond the walls of the theatre, and beyond the parameters of that metaphorical box (to use the hackneyed, cliche language of the left-brain), and understand the show is just that – a show. Because of their artistic temperaments and rebellious nature - those not retained to further the interests of the theatre that is - draw attentions to inconsistencies, refuse to suspend their disbelief, and suggest alternate endings; possibilities the theatre owners would prefer we not draw attention to.

Thinking outside the box – the paradox of our times (in a left-brain world).

It is artists, therefore, with their right-brain view of things, who often first notice when something is not as it should be, and begin asking questions; thus, artists and writers are always the first one silenced (in one way or another) when an authoritarian regime takes power – or, as we have seen, simply 'retained' in order to communicate the official message. The understanding of right-brain vs left-brain thinking, and the characteristics of each, has progressed significantly in the last twenty-years due to advances in cognitive theory and technological developments. Despite a new understanding of the architecture and inner workings of the brain, the arts are increasingly disregarded, underfunded and, in many cases, removed entirely, from schools. This phenomenon is symptomatic of the societal shift to left-brain thinking in all areas, even, paradoxically, in the world of 'high art'.

Perhaps the biggest paradox of all, in the highly-structured corporate environment of our day, is that worn-out cliche 'Think outside the box', for the simple reason, the left brain cannot (or does not) think outside that metaphorical box. The reason for this is that the left-brain understands the world by conceptualizing, abstracting and systematizing. The left-brain's way of coping with the world is to reduce it to a system of processes. The parameters of this system define the outer limits of the box. Things must be categorized, and fit neatly into this system, or they will be made to fit, ignored, rationalized away and, in some cases, simply seen. We will look at this fascinating phenomenon in much greater detail in future updates. In the meantime, perhaps the best explanations of this may be found Iain McGilchrist's 2009 book, The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World.


Canary in the Coal Mine.

The essential idea of free expression (and of Regionalism in art) is the necessity of independence in art. For the artists to be able to listen to his or her own Muse and create as accordingly, without restrictions imposed from a system designed to regulate the arts, is freeing, not just for the artist, but for society as a whole.

Bertand Russell warned artists of the dangers of systematization specifically in his 1952 book, The Impact Of Science on Society:

 
'Such activities, therefore, must not be systematized or controlled. Some part of life – perhaps the most important part – must be left to the spontaneous action of individual impulse, for where all is system there will be mental and spiritual death.'

Artists are notorious for following their individual impulses, of course, but the rest of this little-known work explains (in shocking detail) precisely why society as a whole most resist systematization with the same resolve. As it stands, it is artists who demand this sort of freedom long before anyone else, and for this reason they are Canaries in the proverbial Coal mine; bellwether indicators as to the degree of freedom permissible and, therefore, the health of free and democratic society. To be truly democratic, a society must first be free; a society without independent artists (to put it quite bluntly) is authoritarian state, even if the population as a whole hasn't yet realized it.

It may seem, much of the time, that artists are not doing anything particularly important, but this is the point; the degree to which artists are free to pursue their own interests, and expression themselves as they wish, is a reflection of the freedom which exists for all individuals. A benevolent government may support it's artists (through grants and programs) but here the risk of creeping censorship poses a real problem. If a government changes, and becomes something less than benevolent (this has happened many times, throughout history) artists who depend on the largesse of this administration, will not dare (or simply not be allowed) to challenge the ideas of this administration. For art to be free, it must be supported directly by the people. The people's ability to support its artists, in itself, as an indicator of the well-being of society.

The 'constituency' of the independent artist is the middle-class – those with the education, sophistication and (until recently) the financial well-being to support the artists who speak to the interests of the people – and not, as Clement Greenberg suggested in his famous essay, 'Avant-Garde And Kitsch', the interests of the 'Ruling Class'.

Currently the middle-class is shrinking (in Toronto, statistics reveal, reduced from 2/3s of the population to 1/3, in just twenty years), and, as mentioned, this constituency is also becoming less affluent. The new middle-class simply cannot afford original art. Putting aside the obvious retort (taste changes and fashions come and go), the role of art in society is not widely understood today, and the question could asked: why is the middle-class getting smaller and less-affluent? What this says for the future of our democratic system – which depends on a large and engaged middle-class – is of interests to social scientists of course, but it is of great concern to artists too, who not only see limitations being placed on their rights of free expression, but on their ability to earn a living compromised. We will examine this subject in greater detail in future updates, exploring many of the topics discussed in recent months at Ryerson's Centre for Free Expression, here in Toronto.

Free Expression (ism)

Society has long been of two minds when it comes to artists. That ages-old stereotype of the artist as hedonistic, egocentric, self-important, morally-challenged, non-conformist, persists; as does the image of artist as a heroic figure, the clever, sometimes genius, rugged-individual; the tortured soul who is martre to his work and servant of the people. As in days past, these 'heroic' figures may be reward, very selectively, with fame and fortune, but today, this process is mediated by a culture industry, as Theodor Adorno describes it. Just as Warhol predicted, to be an artist, increasingly, one must be a celebrity first; and 'celebrity', of course, is the culture industry's most important product. The term 'artist' has also undergone a make over, as Hal Foster describes is Design and Crime. With the 'democratization' of art (as outlined by Fluxus in the 'Fluxamusement Manifesto'), everyone is now an artist (and the less-skill demonstrated the better), Foster explains how every young intern at MTV now claims to be an 'artist'. In an era of 'de-skilling' (See: Curationism) the word, clearly, has still not lost its mystique; but is no longer skill or vision that defines the artist (as Warhol told us) but celebrity itself. The corollary of this, of course, is that, if you not a celebrity, you cannot really be an artists (according to the new fuzy definition of the word) or at least not an artist worth listening to. As Baudrillard stated, presciently, in a 1997 essay included in his book, The Conspiracy Of Art, in our relativistic, hyper-subjective, age of the internet, no one will really listen to anyone else anymore – unless, of course (in this celebrity culture) they have the official stamp of approval.

Art as entertainment.

Inseparable from the idea of celebrity, is the notion of entertainment. Again, we must refer to the 'Fluxamusement Manifesto'. The idea of entertainment, in itself, is entirely benign (although the word amuse, carries the disturbing suggestion that we are being removed, in the process, from our Muse). As you'll see below, in my own commentary from Haida Gwaii, the thought of art becoming entertainment is highly disturbing, due, not so much to the nature of entertainment, but to the figures who suggest this will be, or should be, the case; names familiar to us now: Clement Greenberg, Walter Lippmann and, of course, Andy Warhol. The watershed moment, perhaps, might be said to have come when the Game Of Life (a family favourite board game, enjoyed for generations) dropped the artist card (a career option at one time) in favour of 'Entertainer'. Who needs artists in a culture of entertainment? (Echoes of Neil Postman's 1984 work: Amusing Ourselves To Death).

This examination of art as entertainment will be continued in future updates.

Background to Eyes Of Society.

Sitting around the campfire in the heart of Haida Gwaii, the group spent many long hours discussing art in a changing world. The core group included two Gallerists and four professional artists, two of which have observed the changes over three decades. These ideas, extracted from various interviews over the course of the journey, explain the parallel that we observed, between the Watchmen of Haida Nation, and artists in society at large.

The Watchmen of Haida Gwaii are charged with the responsibility of looking out for their people's best interests. Traditionally, as the Watchmen Mission Statement explains, 'Haida watchmen were posted at strategic positions around a village to raise the alarm in advance of an approaching enemy.'

It occurred to us that in the outside world, there was no parallel today; certainly, there was a general consensus of opinion that those we expect to look out for the best interest of the people - politician, economists, social theorists - have been, at best, staggeringly ineffective.

In light of this, we concluded that a practical parallel might be drawn between the Watchmen of Haida Gwaii and the artists of society as a whole who observe the world around them and – when able – draw attention to the things that should be addressed, and remind their communities of what is of value.

COMMENTARY FROM EYES OF SOCIETY:

 
I found an interesting parallel here in the Watchmen who are sort of the eyes of this society; but artists, in a sense, for a long, long time, have been the eyes of society. That's a phrase our friend Gary uses quite a lot. I don't know whether be made it up, or whether he ... but it's sort of appropriate. The artists are, in many ways, are the eyes of society, and they draw our attention to the things that maybe should be addressed.

My whole artist experience started up here in Haida Gwaii, the Queen Charlottes as it was then, back in 1988, so this is a special place for me to return to.

It just really struck me (was that) that this civilization, in that village at least, had come and gone and.. the only thing left to.. as a sign that they had been there, was a work of art... and I just suddenly saw art in a very different way. I went back to Toronto, I quit my job within a month and ran off to Mexico to be a painter.

It's full circle in a sense because the art world has changed ... as I said the world has changed, and the art world has changed as well. So all working artists are having to try and rethink their role in society... and because of all the distractions today, art today has become a form of entertainment... the artists in these cultures are more central to their culture.

As explained elsewhere on the New Regionalism site (the Untold History Of Art) when the systems constructed to safe guard society fail, and it becomes clear the interests or the people are not longer being served, it is has traditionally been the artists (Independent artists that is, who exist outside of established systems) who have seen the way forward. This is why Regional art is often referred to as an art for the people. In days past, it was artists who also led the social movements that improved life for the population as a whole.

Not so long ago, before postmodernism turned the world upside-down, and technology captivated us, artist's place in society was understood. Our goal, as Regional artists, is to celebrate this long tradition independent art, to recall the untold history, and (as stated in Eyes Of Society) rethink the role of the artist in society. We hope you will join us in this project, and support the artists who still represent the interests of the people.

Note: On the subject of technology and freedom of speech, Senator Frank Church's commentary on NBC in 1975 (a summary of the Church Commission findings in the wake of MKUltra) should not be revisited today, in the era of social media. (link)


MAILING LIST REQUEST