What is Regionalism?

It is likely only a small portion of those who started reading the last page will have arrived at this point. There is an expectation today, in the late-postmodern period, that all information should be delivered in easily digestible soundbites. The trouble with our 'Twitter' culture, which favours such stripped down formats, is that complex ideas cannot be easily communicated, and the more important issues are not always so easy to grasp.

It could also be that the ideas presented here simply cannot be understood. They fall into the 'invisible environment' category, described at length in The Medium Is The Massage. McLuhan used the analogy here, of the Emperor with no clothes. The reality need not buried in reams of dense, academic text; it might be right before our eyes. But if this idea contradicts the consensus view, the socially acceptable or politically correct, it is likely to be passed over – dismissed, ignored, and put from mind. It may also be fiercely resisted. Let's see.

In much the same way as technology-dependent art cannot seriously challenge the technology supporting it, the same is true of our increasingly technology-dependent culture. To return full circle at this point (as this statement will no doubt provoke a response): in light of the widespread adoption of smart phones, and the belief that these devices are an indispensable fact of life – particularly among millennials – who would give up their devices or limit their application? The very suggestion is generally met with an expression of bemusement, and often evokes some strong rebuttal; for these devices are perceived (among other things) as tools of empowerment.

The issue is emotionally charged, and (at the risk of appearing deliberately argumentative) a key idea from the 1999 film, The Matrix, comes to mind: anyone not 'unplugged' (metaphorically speaking) will fight to defend the system they are connected to. In Simulacra And Simulation, the book which reputedly inspired the film, Jean Baudrillard writes (alarmingly): '[T]he masses, who should only be the livestock of culture, [become] the agents of the execution of this culture.' Baudrillard himself, it appears, was inspired by the notion of 'Culture And Administration'. Earlier social theory is replete with dark analogies of this kind, from Hegel's commentary on the unconscious dynamic of 'Master and Slave' onward; but it is Baudrillard who adds this disturbing new dimension, made possible by the culture of postmodern, consumer society – and technology.

Who wants to be 'the livestock' of culture', with all this implies? No one, of course, but all technology is sold on the promise that it will liberate the individual. It is understood, therefore (and the notion goes without question), that we use the technology, and not the other way around; herein lies the essential idea of film. In the 'invisible environment', that is 'The Matrix', reality is not at all as it appears.

The difficult questions must be asked, however, if even the slightest suspicion exists that things may be other than they seem. Happily, there are various groups now undertaking this (often) thankless task. Some arguments are more convincing than others, but in our hyper-subjective, postmodern world, any idea put forward is regarded, simply, as matters of opinion. The 'aesthetic' argument made earlier, which may have led you into this material, is not our main argument however, as you will have gathered by now (though we firmly believe that to browse art on a mobile device is to entirely miss the point).

Our main concern, surprisingly, relates to the 'convenience' of using phones for financial transactions; for the smart phone, in conjunction with Blockchain technology, takes the concept of money to a whole new level of abstraction. It has been the wide-spread lack of understanding of our current monetary system (of 'modern money mechanics' – to reference one of the Federal Reserve's own publications) that has led to the hollowing out of the middle-class. In this system wealth has concentrated at the top social pile, while it has been 'bled', unnoticed (or rather, invisibly), from the middle; the 'trickling down' effect, much lauded in the 80s, has proved entirely false. The middle-class, who has traditionally supported independent art, has struggled to do so in recent years (and particularly since the 2008 financial crisis); this next monetary 'revolution', despite claims to the contrary, will reduce (and impoverish) the middle-class still further, and bring an end to independent culture.

The statistics in Toronto, as mentioned elsewhere, show that the middle-class in this city alone has been reduced from 2/3 of the population to 1/3, in just thirty years. As the middle-class shrinks and independent artists disappear, the vacuum is filled by international(ist) art – selected, sanction, supported and promoted, by a systems whose motives (and politics) are increasingly coming into question.

The recent resignation of the Senior Curator of Canadian Art, at the AGO, underscores these concerns, and calls to mind similar charges of 'American Imperialism' made by the London Regionalist painters in the 60s and 70s. Cultural hegemony, of course, is always the danger of 'officially' sanctioned art; which underscores the importance of 'independent art'.

A recent piece in the Toronto Star, 'Why I quit the Art Gallery of Ontario' lends credence to this assertion.

Once again, American officials appear to be filling the ranks of Canadian cultural institutions, but today, 'Globalization', is the watch word – for a new generation of Regionalists artists in particular (More on this subject later).

As suggested above, the subject of electronic money takes the notion of 'abstract' to a level not surpassed, even in art. The 'hidden forces' at work here, 'that not one man in a million will understand', to quote John Maynard Keynes, constitute another aspect of the 'invisible environment'; these forces remain unseen by (and of little interest to) the general public, despite the degree to which they impact the lives of everyday people.

It almost seems, at times, as if a spell has been cast; a kind of 'black magic', which prevents the mind from putting the pieces of the puzzle together, or even speculating on the subject. Herbert Marcuse explores this phenomenon in a more pragmatic way in his book One-Dimensional Man. The postmodern individual, the theory has it, is conditioned to not question; and cannot not see, therefore, beyond the surface appearance of things. This is what makes advertising (and propaganda) so effective; though we know better, we still want to believe. It is as if the suspension of disbelief nurtured by our entertainment culture, film in particular, has carried over into everyday life. As stated in The Dialectic Of Enlightenment: 'The triumph of advertising in the culture industry is that consumers feel compelled to buy and use its products even though they see through them.' Sometimes, though, consumers do not 'see through them.' See also: Life: The Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality – Neal Gabler

A recent poster in a Canadian bank, a touching scene portraying a carefree dogwalker and a happy dog, suggests we can now pay our dogwalker with our phone. The bank's objective, and that of the phone companies too, presumably, is to encourage the use of phones for financial transactions in general. They hope to take a cut of every transaction, of course, however small. Governments will endorse the endeavour as such an innovation promises to bring previously unseen transactions out into the open, where they might be taxed. The dogwalkers out there (if no one else) will find this idea disconcerting; but this isn't really a question of taxation, or even business ethics. The technology enabling such transactions, Blockchain in particular, is presented to the consumer as a decentralizing, democratizing force, which, they say (yet again), will empower the individual. As mentioned earlier, whoever designs, owns or manages the system, controls the system; the opening paragraph of The Blockchain Revolution, in fact, explains how the promoters of this technology are investigating, among others things, new models of global governance.

Little disturbs people more than the idea of a one-world government and a one-world currency.(apocalyptic Biblical prophecies notwithstanding), so when the promoters of a new technology suggest enthusiastically, that their product – which depends on a single global network tracking and documenting every single financial transaction, real-time – we should probably start asking some serious questions; what sort of 'independence' will the individual have in such a scenario. 'Double speak', often associated with that nightmarish world Orwell once wrote about, should be foremost in our minds. Things are often not as they appear, especially when it comes to technology; the downside will be ignored and obscured, while the positive will always be accentuated, by those who have a vested interest.

Further reading, and video, are available at the links below, but do find a copy of the above mentioned book as well, if the subject interests you.

This discussion will continue, but the point must be made that even the old-fashioned 'paper' currency, that most people still carry in their wallets, is so poorly-understood that very few can explain how it came into being – who really knows the difference, for example, between the 'value-based sovereign currency' we used in Canada, until 1974, and the 'debt-based private currency' that quietly replaced it, resulting in more than $1.2 trillion in debt servicing charges alone?

The introduction of a new electronic currency system (and even more abstract) 'virtual' money, is hardly likely to favour anyone who didn't hear about the last transition, or understand impact that it has had on the taxpayer and the middle-class; it won't only be the 'dogwalkers' who will feel the impact, or bear the cost, of this next monetary 'revolution'. It may give pause for thought (and hopefully spur interest in continuing this conversation) to know that, in addition to the carrying cost; the debt itself, which can not be paid off because the money we now use is 'monetized' debt (a more in depth explanation of this to follow) now far exceeds this amount. Including unfunded liablitities, the figure has been quoted at over $4 trillion. The next monetary innovation will have an even greater impact on the lives of every day people, and cost us even more.

The argument here, therefore, is not about technology, per se; rather, a general lack of understanding that has left the public vulnerable to the machinations of a financial elite – those who do understand this system. Thus, our goal is to do what independent regional artists have always done, throughout history, and draw attention to the things the public should pay close attention to; the introduction of a debt-based currency (without the consent of those who would unwittingly bear the cost through their taxes) is the root cause of innumerable other issues. Artists may be the catalyst, but it remains for the public – as a whole and en masse – to press for change. With public support, we might slow the adoption of this latest iteration of electronic currency long enough to explain what happened in the last transition – when our national currency was secretly privatized and profits from the growth in our economy redirected into private hands (instead of the national treasury, for the benefit of the Canadian people as a whole).

Read about the additional hidden costs of the last transition in our monetary system, and the most likely impact of the next, in future updates.

Please sign our mailing list if you'd like to receive updates on our various related projects, and see what has been happening elsewhere in the world in the area of monetary reform and public banking.