ART'S PLACE IN A FUTURE SOCIETY AND THE

SUICIDE OF THE ARTIST

ANTHONIE MAGAR
JEREMY ASKEW
Contents
Art’s place in a future society and the suicide of the artist...................................................................3
I- Art/Society....................................................................................................................................3
II- Learning Art?.............................................................................................................................. 4
III- Elitism and Contemporary Art...................................................................................................6
IV- The Artist................................................................................................................................... 6
V- Conditions of Perception.............................................................................................................8
VI- The simulcra of an exhibition....................................................................................................9
Bibliography....................................................................................................................................... 11

Note: This document was written by Anthony Askew and Jérémie Magar in 2008 to
accompany an arts event. The following text is in its totality a manifesto for the consequent
exhibition.

A particular dissident/angst/reactionary stance was adopted and propounded and this is

evident in the text as much as it is a integral feature of the final work.

2
Art’s place in a future society and the suicide of the artist

The Art exhibition we propose to organize, aims to destroy an old, irrelevant (and many
times contested) Art status within its context of creation, showing, dissemination, selling,
influence, and feed back: to society.

Our intention is to perform and articulate through the exhibition medium the following
points:

• Cohesion between Art and Popular Culture that is not commercially driven.

• A renovation of the traditional gallery space that results in a more publicly

accessible arena.

• The position of Artist and Art itself in a contemporary society as a malleable and
destructible entity.

• Art conditions and the condition of the artist. 5. The destruction of generalised Art
culture, the image of artist and the prefabrication of high culture attributed by
society, as attained through criticism and the act of simulation.

• The values of the original, ownership, inhibition, preconception, public awareness,

and public opinion through the use of physical engagement with Art.

• The value of the original, the value of the reproduction, the value of expression, and
the potential of simulation, as both a system and a relevant social theory, through
the use of cyberspace.

• The relevance of all Art, past, present, future.

3
I- Art/Society
Simulation of the real, its radical adoption in everyday perceptions of Art and the Art world,
and plagiarism, the improvement and appropriation of documented history and social
criticism to suit a contemporary environment. Johannes Baargeld and Max Ernst’s Dada
Early Spring open gallery in 1920, for example, attempted to provoke the public into
destroying work through violent images and insults. The intention of inciting violence
during a turbulent time in European history, shortly after the First World War, calls upon
aggression for aggressions sake. Dada drew upon public discontent and dissident feeling
to fuel the art movement’s temperament for violence.

Alternatively the approach towards violence could be reviewed as a sociological

investigation into public inhibitive behaviour.

Self-expression in terms of honesty, issues revolving around whether Art is honest to itself
in regards to its social involvement and contribution. Are people honest about Art when
they don’t think it’s good, it doesn’t work or even when they feel it is just an empty
metaphor for bullshit, and moreover are people honest to their selves? These questions
address both artist and audience who have to accept a mutual responsibility in the
construction of Art as a medium and a movement. Art appears to conceive itself as popular
and cultured but certain genres are widely ignored and dismissed by the mainstream
masses and the general public which means that Art is already lying to itself and is already
not being true to itself by not recognizing this fact. As Art’s existence continues within
closed spheres, preaching to itself that it is important to culture, important to the people, it
is perpetuating a state of unhealthy self-delusion. So fuck it, by reasoning against these
general principles, if Art is modern culture then contemporary culture must lead on Art. Art
needs to fuck all other Media’s in the mouth to stop its tendency to fall for corporate
authorization; it needs to be underground so that it is on top and not because it’s buried by
public disinterest. That is a basic principle.

Due to our oppressive society, oppressive in the sense that culture calls for a commercial
gloss, and the fact that all individuals occupy the same space as criminals, it is deduced all
people are incapable of acting within moderation or within consideration of their own
welfare and the welfare of others. “The news reporter tells us that we are all into crime
abuse in every corner every house and body part, (...)” (Benji Webbe, ’Killing Me’ 2007) a
prelude for the virtuous to comment. Rules are suggested, adopted, breached and
enforced. Cyberpunk social evolution, the more oppression is questioned the more
liberties are taxed, integrity replaced with surveillance, identity replaced with a data chip,
as if somehow all randomnoisity and natural anarchy can be somehow eradicated from the
human animal. As a consequence of this captivating totalitarian security, so often
translucent due to our close proximity and the dependence/obedience ensured through
attending the educational circuit, we are cautious to disagree, to be opinionated or to
question for fear of reprimand. When we do not argue we do not express ourselves, we
are effectively trapped within our own inhibitions.

Common and Popular Western culture is a vital stimulus; consumer culture is the working
title, Art as the public service. Art pretensions must be destroyed and replaced by social
occupation; Art’s place is within the social circle as a form of communication, of
expression, of humanity and of honesty. Not necessarily of the obscene, but if need be
then so, Art should portray the political correctness of itself, of the individual and of the
times. This is the form and its construct isn’t inhibited to this statement.

4
If society destroys images of babies then perhaps there is a developed social phobia of
assuming a sort of paedophilic stance through mass immorality paranoia. Political
correctness is a conceptual movement that causes channels of awareness to wilt, the
response is of a public body unable to respond; aggravation is met by denial, the law is
permitted to steal, break down and re-align under these conditions. Would an immorality
occur if a riot truly knocked a seat of power that was taking advantage of its position, using
law to con and manipulate, not just the masses, but the structure of law inversely on itself?
Art’s own reservations echo this social phenomenon. The gallery is boring, it’s not social.
Art is boring, because it is not engaging. Truth is that common preconceptions of Art are of
stale boredom, pseudo-culture and talent-less artists who actively mystify a meaningless
and pointless activity. Is this true? Ulteriorly, it seems, Art has become a sort of fascism.
The super elective environment esteems mystification above all other things; it’s not about
exploration in terms that are relative to society or common understanding but about
sustaining a barrier of incomprehension between those who have been gifted and those
who cannot begin to understand. In a corporate manner the Art industry states groups,
‘now learn and follow’. I can judge because I am a doctorate of the Arts community. The
bullshit perpetuates. Perhaps people don’t get it, perhaps it’s unclear, perhaps the point of
communication has decayed and reduced Art to acknowledgeable failure? So the public
should decide.

II- Learning Art?

Fine Art is academically taught from an early age without theory, which is an existential
necessity for contemporary art; hence why art is received as being shallow and pointless.
Thought itself cannot be taught, it has to be generated out of interest which is often a
consequence of engagement. In part a popular culture exhibition addresses this theory by
engaging itself with popular culture and hence making association between itself and the
‘popular’. Although sustaining different motives Adolf Hitler echoed this intention when he
stated that, “All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the
comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.” Advertising more
or less works on these principles as it lures at base attractions like sex in order to relate to
its audience.

It is appropriate to elaborate why or how due to a negligence to educate Arts theory at a

pre-graduate stage, and then with the resulting naivety push the appropriation of
scapegoat theory and historical reference at a graduate stage, the outward appearance
really is one of the escapist bullshitter. Even if the artist started out with good intentions
and metaphorically struck gold, it would be purely accidental. By allowing accident to
assume the status of deeply grounded exercise the foundations of post-contemporary Arts
are flaky and unstable. It would be more sensible to abolish the supposition of the
necessity of theory until the time for its utilization is due.

The education system is a prime example of how society has actively accepted its passive
role as consumer, aspiring to be, or be like, its commercial role models. Renaissance
influenced subjects, Mathematics, English and also, although less so, Science, still hark
back to the times of exploration and invention which have long been replaced by
manufacture, reproduction, distribution and reinvention. Now is a time of communications
and subordination, languages, computing, business, teaching.

Lessons hypothetically encouraging thinking, or effective individual criticism, are internally

5
critically taught. English language is so inhibitive and traditionally imposed so that it’s
academic evolution appears static; Language Art is almost completely omitted whilst
freedom of speech is completely. Writer William Burroughs, famous for fathering the Beat
generation and for his work with the cut-up technique, had a stylized method of writing,
which was in its own way Surrealist, implementing the use of drugs to generate
unconventional literary juxtapositions and expose contained trains of thought. By
destroying convention Burroughs created a more compact and powerful descriptive means
of expression and personal literary communication (see William Burroughs ‘Naked Lunch’,
1959, or ‘Soft Machine’, 1961). As a contemporary artist Burroughs is often excluded in
favour of much more conventionally styled artists, a negligence which inhibits that genre
and also public awareness of method, technique and literature. Consumer society as a
result of such omission fancies towards Literatures’ disintegration as a taught subject in
favour of the commercially abstract Information Technology, Language, Business or
Psychology. There is an imbalance between classes that should promote healthy mental
competence and those of obligatory compliance. Non- compliance is not allowed to
flourish at all and is effectively punished, disagreement is surely disciplined into silence
whilst virtual escapism is inadvertently encouraged along with a subversive ambition to
undermine the oppressive authority figures; hence the attraction of Business, Psychology
and Law.
Inevitably, the combined affect of mass [the masses] concern and obligatory compliance
[law] suggests the subservient use of such subjects is made in vain as the six degrees
most commonly taken in 20061 illustrate (in descending order):

1. Law
2. Design Studies
3. Psychology
4. Management Studies
5. Business Studies
6. Computer Science

not everyone can possibly be successful. Not everyone who tries has enough faith to even
step out of a completely servant consumer role into one of relative independence,
especially when educated against holding anti-authoritarian ideals and opinions or anti-
compliance notions. Individuals instead tend to yield to social pressure, continuing as a
part of the mass. We end up with a sadomasochist society which is predominantly
masochist, the sadists adopting the roles of authoritarian figures, the same figures who
force a masochistic identity on to each individual subordinate to them. As with opinion it is
conceivable the self is also suppressed. The self as a result attempts to establish a
construct for itself the only way it knows how- via commercial means; hence the often
reoccurring criticism that everyone is the same, a construct of a monotonous commercial
environment.

1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6071026.stm 2006 Mike Baker

6
III- Elitism and Contemporary Art
Although Contemporary Art has broken boundaries several times and reintegrated its’ self
with life and society (R. Filliou states that “Art is something that makes Life more
interesting than Art”), we can observe nowadays a return to an old fashioned Art status
compelled in the museum and destined to a selected self-designated public.

The World is saturated of money and consequently, as any other, Art field benefits from it.
An Art sphere accaparated by powerful people leads to an insane collaboration between
the dominating nouveaux riches and artists. This dependence expects artists to think in an
elitist way regarding their activity, which in some ways can be compared with the Last
Modern, 19th century artist’s status. Conservatism and schizophrenia: mediocrity reaching
the top of mountain. Hypocrisies of Art manifestation as the very concrete reality of this
état de fait is what interested us in this project.

As Dada did, re-invindiction of non-seriousness of Art, self-derision, and direct feedback of

our personal productions is our way of contestation against it. Our purpose is to question
this bullshit with a return to the real maker of Art: the viewer. Art placed itself above the
world, unfairly, and we propose to the world to take its revenge on it. The metaphor of
revenge may be too strong and the exhibition we propose should better be interpreted as a
really simply way to replace Art (or art) in is normal, humble place which is in the society.
People interested, not interested, acknowledged, ignorant, sensible or not, familiar or not
with Art should express themselves equally in front of a piece of Art if they want to and if
they make an effort for it. I think the vicious circle between unresponsiveness to Art from
the society and the pretensions of Art has to always be disabled and rethought, especially
now, as the circle is reaching his most unforgiving point. What society might offer to Art
shouldn’t be what Art is. Art should be searching on his own the way to integrate life.
Two examples that come to mind: the scene in the movie “La Haine” in a Parisian Art
exhibition with three young socially excluded boys and a concrete experience in a Parisian
Art show, more precisely an Art Sale, in November 2007.

In the first example, we witness three young men not socially integrated (this is a major
social problem in France, as demonstrated in the 2005 November’s riots) encountering Art,
in a typical gallery exhibition. The scene underlines the impossibility of three young men
reaching an understanding of the exclusively bourgeoisie aimed Art hung to the walls of
the gallery. Although the message of artists can’t be easily approached, real Art should
develop curiosity. However, bullshit, contemporary, pseudo- iconoclast art emits the putrid
smell of its’ hermetic self-complacency.

The other illustration of this rusted art gearwheel is related to a personal experience in a
Salon of Art. I was there for financial reasons principally and I witnessed a very interesting
social experience. I was the Artist. An aura surrounded me (to a point that it intimidated the
public who did not buy any of my shit). People visit the salon at the week-end, to find very
pleasant, cocace, perhaps funny, tormented, unique pieces of Art made by an inaccessible
human: the artist. Art is mysterious and property of the only artists. Untouchable pieces of
Art, priced pieces of Art. Financial transfers. We were all trapped in the same symbolic
system, artists and then spectators, but we were careful not to mix up our roles.

7
IV- The Artist
The second dimension of the project is related to the artist’s approach of art, more
precisely, his personal approach of making art. What happens when I create a piece of
Art?

Essentially, Art is designated to the public. Art shouldn’t be thought of as exclusive for the
artist. The artist is exposed permanently to the external world, the judge, the spectator, the
unknown viewer. The encounter with the viewer is happening before the exhibition, it
happens when creating. “The suicide of the artist” occurs when the spectator take place in
his own work, personalizing it and destroying it at the same time (in my opinion, critics are
always deformations, and interpretations). The exhibition purpose is to push this logic to its
end, which is for the artists (us) to completely take upon themselves the fact of their
suicide making art. Sherry Levine, quoting R. Barthes, states that: “A painting’s meaning
lies not in its origin, but in its destination. The birth of the viewer must be at the cost of the
painter”.

The question around the relationship between the artist and his society, “the suicide of the
artist” rests not only on his spectacle essence but also in the fact that any creation is a
tribute to mainstream culture. The artist in his society is the receiver of the culture, the filter
of the huge historical, cultural background. Is he creating as a person, an individual or as a
small part of the shared global, normal thinking? Again, the thinking of Sherry Levine helps
us: “We know that a picture is but a space in which a variety of images, none of them
original, blend and clash. A picture is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable
centers of culture”. Who is positioned ahead of the other? Is the Society developing faster
or artists opening doors before it?

This point raises a very important question on our practice, our way of life as artist as the
very first conceptual artists did, reacting against the image of the hypertrophy of the ego of
expressionist artists.

We are always exposed to the public. That necessarily means that the artist is involved in
the world. The temptation is strong when I produce a piece of Art to think myself as an
individual creator but, at the end, I create for and because of the society. In that sense, it
appears paradoxical that the artist is often placed apart from the world being essentially
related to it, more than most of other professional spheres.

The destructive principle of the exhibition, after being subjected to social-critics, remains
for me a personal questioning on my present and future practice. I make pieces of art to be
destroyed and here, the destruction will be effective. I question my ego as an artist (both in
my relation with my own work (does it belongs to me?) and with the implicit nature of art,
which is to be viewed). It is a very strong way to think my relationship to the spectator, to
the society, to the world. That is to penetrate in the arena. That is to be as the whore
waiting the client in the whorehouse.

However, I tried to distinguish this reflection around the ego of the artist to my normal
reflection around my concrete art, my production. My art exists itself and is motivated by
concerns other than the one I exposed here. However, these annex thoughts exploring the
reception by the artist of the society and vice-versa is necessary for self- consciousness
towards the artist condition.

8
The suicide of the ego is the self-destruction of the artist by exhibiting to a critical
audience. Art requires an audience and an interest, an engagement, in order to be popular.
By actively asking for a critical audience to destroy what is not good the artist wilfully
accepts the oppression of their own expression. One expression is effectively being
argued with, destroyed or accepted through the exhibiting process.

Ideally the exhibited work will be meaningful, an expression of the artist. The fact that work
may be destroyed is negligible but can be considered in relation to the progression of
works. It is proposed a self-expressive technique is adopted, for paintings for example
surrealism or expressionism so that the artist’s self is being judged; this does not have to
be implemented. An artist’s own individual explorations theoretically suffice as self-
expression directly or indirectly by definition. Perhaps there is a subliminal intention to
create something popular, although not commercial, perhaps pseudo- commercial or
mock-commercial.

As to how the artist reacts to the exhibition results is variable. Audience reactions could be
taken as critical feedback on the works social compatibility, the works strength, the works
weaknesses, the results are negligible. Equally the artist may not exhibit any original art
work at all; instead reproductions could be substituted in, so that any active destruction of
work is even more in vain as both original and digital reproduction survives. Value itself is
a device to be explored.

V- Conditions of Perception
The exhibiting space has to be considered in its translation from the stationary gallery to
the ephemeral internet galleries. This transfer implies the purchasing and viewing of
artworks, whilst existentially retaining a physical composition, is performed in a variety of
undeterminable atmospheres, such as that of the home which can be very much unlike
that of the gallery environment. Imperatively this should inform the Art world the classical,
pseudo-respectful, and stifling atmosphere A-typical of exhibitions is now fundamentally
dated (wrong). The atmosphere should now be a construct of the work and of the
exhibition whereas before it may have just been seen as a consequence.

Across the Arts shallow rooted artwork serves as a reminder, a painting for paintings, a
performance for performances, a chord for chords, assuming a souvenir type credit whilst
deeper works themselves should appropriate through awareness other mediums, not in
isolation but, en masse.

Adoption is always optional, as with the incorporation of sound and environment. The lack
of which will equally assume value instead of being a burdened commodity. I concede that
expression at the end of the day has more or less value depending on how popular the
medium is.

Art traditionally incorporates intoxication, fine art, music, dance, theatre, all occasions
where drugs have historically been imbibed. Furthermore political correctness isn’t
correctness. If Art succumbs to authoritarian prohibitionist tyranny then Official Art

is pointless. The quote, “what hindered truth was clothing, the impermeable element
between the interior world and the exterior world,” (Oswald de Andrade: ‘Anthropophagite
manifesto’ May 1928) aptly describes how the point of action, of expression, of art, itself

9
becomes a façade of sorts, true intentions are buried beneath an overt desire to oblige and
be politically correct.

The predicted eventualities of holding an exhibition where destructive expression, music,

fine art, and binge culture amalgamate are:

1. No-one turns up and nothing happens.

2. People come and go straight away.
3. People come and work is damaged.

Binge-culture, as the name implies, is a culture of binge drinking that is adherent with the
stereotypical contemporary youth lifestyle. So blatantly we want everyone to get
completely fucked (inebriated) at the exhibition in keeping with popular culture criticism.
That point needs no more elaboration. The concept of simulation, which in this case
transpires as a Happening, mimics the event of a contemporary exhibition; this
corresponds with Jean Baudrillard’s theory of a social redesign to a state of the pseudo-
real. The artificial replaces the original with such precision that their differences are
indistinguishable, the original is ultimately lost. Already this can be viewed as an actualized
theory through the ready world of internet communication. Millions of images digitalized
and distributed en masse across the internet are viewed and accepted as valid references
to use as first hand experience. Experience itself is becoming increasingly artificial,
internet visions for example; this can also be witnessed in the education and authoritarian
system’s methods of stating opinions as facts, supposing mental experience, whilst
prohibiting first hand physical experience often in the name of safety or common sense.
To reiterate my point I would state that images of artworks online or in books are often
construed as first hand experiences of seeing the fore mentioned images. This is the
perception of society in general but is perhaps knowingly allowed to occur due to the 2nd
hand educational experiences the authorities have developed us with. Basically a picture
is a picture. Through this sense of the photograph telling the same truth as the original, a
picture can be replicated and can retain the same value. Therefore by asking the public to
destroy the original image you are not existentially destroying the work at all if you have
already digitalized the work. This destruction of the original is symbolic of this
transmogrification from the original to the duplicate or real to simulation. This defiance
against destruction also effectively makes the action of expression in this case futile as
regardless of result the image will continue to exist. The real destruction is subverted by
the illusion of the simulacrum.

A similar intention has been translated in the ‘Television Manifesto of the Spatial
Movement’ (1952), that “it is true that art is eternal, but it was always tied down to matter,
whereas we want it to be freed from matter. Through space (...)” It reads a bit like a
religious text but its sentiment is effectively realized through the enactment of digitalization,
making art “eternal”, and physical destruction, “freed from matter.” The Spatialists promote
an expansion into cyberspace, the internet, an environment which is publicly open and is
yet still not completely controlled by powerful corporate structures, where a degree of
cultural liberty, although virtual, is implied.

The Art industry is corporate because Art is synonymous with culture and culture is
predominantly corporate as it is made available through controlled commerce. Without the
Arts there would be no culture, or at least not a distinguishable culture. Unless the Arts
were synthesized, or the Arts and culture itself becomes historical in the sense that culture

10
is merely a referential reproduction of the past and culture is simply a series of
reinventions. Then there would no longer be Art as a metaphor for anarchic creation, only
a simulation of the metaphor. The question is whether or not it is tangible to recognize the
simulation and whether or not it already exists.

So theoretically Art may have no place at all except as a manufactured tool for
commercialization, the moulding of society by competing corporate identities. A Gucci
photo print jean jacket is better than a Pop Art jean jacket. The repercussions of the
underground Arts are the form of popular culture, human nature is anarchic and propels
invention and reinvention whilst social nature is economic and opportunist, the commercial
attraction of the rebellion sells the controlled culture. Suggesting perhaps invention and
reinvention is to do with the perpetual motion of artists thinking they are thinking. To
reiterate this suggestion, all thought will not only have occurred before but will be pre-
meditated too.
In accordance with this theory of simulation the proposed exhibition will only be a
simulation of an exhibition with the traditional free alcohol, though instead of wine to
lubricate the minds aesthetic tongue the appropriation of vodka, referential to binge
culture, will make the event less about thoughtful reservation but expressive criticism.

VI- The simulcra of an exhibition

The Simulation of the Exhibition
Art, however unimportant, is immortal as through the artist it will leave its mark whether
that is in original, reproduced form or in influence. Digitalisation suggests that Art can
attain a sort of longevity before unavailable, perhaps also suggesting that in a state of
virtual stasis work can be recalled at will to re-influence culture when desired.

The successor to the ‘Happening’ exhibition will be a durational cinematic piece of the
exhibition; a simulation of the exhibition, which is in turn a simulacrum of an exhibition. The
entire event must then have conditions, for example an expiry time, perhaps as long as the
recording device allows or as long as the exhibition permits. The use of one or multiple
cameras is for debate as is the composition.

The Destructive Dimension

To obliterate and lose a fragment of social inhibitions is the projects primary objective. If
our exhibition is to have any purpose it would be this one.
If there is a piece of artwork that you don’t like then say so, if there is a piece of work you
dislike then do something and argue against it, this is the obvious action for deterring
misery and achieving a level of self satiation. In his 1999 essay, ‘The manifest of
polypoetry is 12 years old’, Enzo Minarelli expresses the opinion that action is important in
relation to self-expression. With the quote, “the performing event is necessary to be what
you are,” Minarrelli suggest actions clarify identity, a universal argument which adequately
justifies the intention of the exhibition. By allowing for the counter argument of the critical
audience to manifest itself in a physical action the opinion becomes solid and real, a true
representation of thought and of engagement. Can people do this or is social pressure
enough to stunt reactions? The public is allowed an opinion that is active as an action is a
base mode of expression, as opposed to the passive method of paperwork and silent
disagreement.

Instead of obligation to accept, the option of response is available.

11
The social stimulus is provocation? Although you’ve been taught not to, you are both
capable and allowed to act because you are not, by nature, bound to rules, rules which are
often ridiculously limiting and yet still imaginary, social constructs.

From this perspective it is less about the artwork than it is Art but in its entirety the
exhibition constitutes a Happening. The proposed Happening, or ‘Exhibition’, spans the art
of itself, the simulated exhibition, the theatricality of participation and social engagement.
I suggest the revitalisation of Dada self-destructiveness to forsake traditionalist
prohibitiveness in the gallery space, to bring a realist edge to a stale environment. To
make democratic an elitist subject, force the absolution of conservative thinking when
addressing Art and make Art culture biturin’.

The exhibition is a criticism directed at matters of fact, the dangerous and hypocritical
notions tied to our education towards the reception of Culture and separation between
daily life and Art. Approaching Art has become tedious for the majority of people and it
remains an elitist interest. In some ways Art is still caught in the footsteps of the Middle
Ages, which is sanctified and related to the transcendence. Approaching Art is like
approaching God through an exclusive journey, walking in a direction instructed to us by a
self-nominated warden.

Superstructure, as Marx thought, is the reflection of infrastructure that is related with

structure of the power. It is hard to think of how to change this rusted machine but our way
to contest it is to expose to destruction and violence our creation as the questioning of
reception of Art by the Society.

“Art is boring because it is not for me” will be transformed as “Art could be mine; I can
touch it, and have an opinion on it”.

A gallery should be a whorehouse and an exhibition should be as much about viewer’s

reactions as artist’s creations.

12
Bibliography

Books:

Calder & Boyars Ltd, William Burroughs: ‘Soft Machine’ Jul 1968
Cassell Illustrated, Stephen Farthing: ‘1001 Paintings to see before you die’ 2006
Continuum International Publishing Group – Athlone, Dani Cavallaro: ’Cyberpunk and
Cyberculture: Science Fiction and the Work of William Gibson’ 1 April 2000
Flame Tree Publishing, Micheal Robinson: ‘Surrealism: the world’s greatest art’ 2005
Flame Tree Publishing: ‘Modern Art’ 2005
Grove Press / Atlantic Monthly Press, William Burroughs: ‘Naked Lunch’ 30 Jun 2000
Harper Perennial Modern Classics, Aldous Huxley: ‘Brave new world revisited 1954’ 2006
Phaidon; ‘The 20th Century Artbook’, 1999 pg484, pg209, pg512
Pluto press, Jean Baudrillard: ‘Revenge of the Crystal’ 1990 pg66
Polity Press, Jean Baudrillard: ‘The Illusion of the End’ 1994

Essays:

Ambrosini, Burri, Crippa, Deluigi, De Toffoli, Dova, Donati, Fontana, Giancarozzi, Guidi,
Joppolo, La Regina, Milena Milani,Morucchio, Peverelli, Tancredi, Vianello: ‘The Television
Manifesto of the Spatial Movement’ 17th May 1952
Anthony Askew: ‘Essay’ 24th February 2008
Anton Giulio Bragaglia: ‘Futurist Photodynamism’ 1st July 1913
Benji Webbe: ‘Killing Me’ 29 October 2007
Bread and puppet Theatre: ‘Why Cheap Art? Manifesto’ 1984
R. Bruce Elder: ‘State/Intended: Some Reflections Parallel to the Book of All the Dead’
1999
Christian As. Kirtchev: ‘A Cyberpunk Manifesto’ 14th February 1997
Christian As. Kirtchev: ‘A Cyberpunk Manifesto V.2’ 28th January 2003
Emily Rachel Grey: ‘Dada Exhibitions: A Survey and Analysis’ 2006
Enzo Minarelli, ‘The Manifest of Polypoetry is 12 years old’ July 1999
Eric Hughes: ‘A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto’ 9th March 1993
Eric McCanley: ‘Warhol’s bridge into Pop art’ 2001
Francis Picabia: ‘Litterature No.8, ‘Francis Merci!’’ 17th May 1952
F.T. Marinetti, Emilio Settimelli, Bruno Corra: ‘The Futurist Synthetic Theatre’ 18th Feb
1915
Hugo Ball, ‘Dada Manifesto’ 14th July 1916
Jean Baudrillard: ‘Simulcra and Science Fiction’ 1998
John Armitage: ‘Resisting the Neoliberal Discourse of Technology: The Politics of
Cyberculture in the Age of the Virtual Class’ 1st February 1999
Matthew Gandy: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, ‘Cyborg
Urbanization: Complexity and Monstrosity in the Contemporary City’ 1 March 2005
Oswald de Andrade: ‘Anthropophagite manifesto’ May 1928 Paul Virilio: ‘Speed and
Information: Cyberspace Alarm!’ August 1995
Richard Wright: ‘NET ART MARKET: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?’ 25th August 1998
Tristan Tzara: ‘Dada Manifesto’ 23rd March 1918

13
Websites:

http://englishhistory.net/keats/poetry/odeonagrecianurn.html,2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6071026.stm 2006 Mike Baker
http://people.brandeis.edu/~liji/_private/eng-writing/beautytruth.htm 2003 Ji Li
http://prizedwriting.ucdavis.edu 2001 Eric McCanley
http://www.391.org/manifestos/1928anthropophagite.htm, Adriano Pedrosa & Veronica
Cordeiro, 2004
http://www.artnet.com 2008
http://www.bookrags.com/biography/jenny-holzer/ 2006 Encyclopedia of World Biography
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/media/litcrit.html 2003 Mick
https://drum.umd.edu/dspace/bitstream/1903/4214/1/umi-umd-4026.pdf, University of
Maryland, 2008
http://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/index.html
http://neoscenes.net/hyper-text/text/third/elder.html 1994 - 2008 Hopkins
http://www.zakros.com/jhu/apmSu03/notes_holzer_cae.html 2003 Randall Packer
www.ctheory.net/text_file?pick=111 Arthur and Marilouise Kroker
www.klitink.com: ‘Klitink Manifesto’ 2002
www.kunstwissen.de/fach/f.kuns/b_mod/holzer0.htm 2006
www.thecentreofattention.org 2007

Anthony Askew and Jérémie Magar

2008

14