I think u make some important points. It is reductive to label all Constructivists, Supremacists and Futurists as reactionary - there were phases and individuals in these movements who may have been revolutionary. However ultimately the movements were reactionary.

DUchamp however was not a movement but an individual worker. He was championed by the revolutionary SUrrealists - and broke with the fourth dimension in moving onto an n-dimensional theory in the Green Book - notes on the Large Glass. In this way he showed more sense that reactionary collaboraters to mass-murder like Einstein who advocated the ridiculous Euclidean 4th dimensionalism. For sure we can also differentiate between Euclidean 4th diemsnion and non-EUclidean 4th dimension.

The 4th dimension is in fact 1 trimension + 1 dimensnion. in effect it is an attempt to expand a situation into another trimension but falls back into the trimensional logic of the situational forcefield of what it is trying to overcome. Hence fascists try and go beyond left and right but collapse into the logic of the right.

Duchamp is to be appreciated for breaking with 4th dimensionalism and going for n-dimensionalism (green book) following the math of Poincare (analysis-situ) as Jorn did.

all institutions must be overtaken by the proletariat. this includes art galleries and restaurants as well as public toilets...

Dear Daniel

I have read your email but cannot recognize your argument in relation to our
forthcoming exhibition. I would suggest you wait and see the exhibition and
read the catalogue where, for instance, you will find Lutz Becker clearly
identifying the Futurists' links with Fascism and Hitler's persecution of
the avant-garde.

Hi,

First I want to admit your sharp rhetoric towards an indeed reactionary structure as Kettles Yard and their ideological operators and also the conclusion that modernism influenced such regimes as Nazis, Bolsheviks and Fascists. But the whole treatment of specific problematic I find out somehow confusing and even erroneous.

First – about the terms: 4^th dimensionality as an idea arouse from the non Euclidean mathematical investigations of 19^th century starting from Rieman, Lobachevsky onwards. First it was developed in the pure mathematical way and obtained the formula of n+1 dimensionality what means nothing else but the way how much coordinates one needs to describe the dot in a space. So far I thoroughly went through your treatise “The End of the Age of Divinity” and I’m aware of your investigations in multidimensionality as the multilayered approach through the senses using dimensions of sight, sound, thought, touch and taste – I would treat it as total (or at least multidimensional) approach rather.

What is I found contradictory in the whole text is that there were exactly futurists to start that a multidimensional approach (instead of the specialized one) towards reality and what was very new…and that influenced many progressive movements upcoming – letterists and situationists among them as well. Also the idea of not separating the human activity into pure cultural or political was very essential to futurists as well as the implementation of Sorel’s syndicalism. The epithet “fascist” given to Boccioni is not a correct one – officially fascist party in Italy was established few years after his death…

Dear Kettles Yard and Lutz Becker,

We are gravely concerned by the content of your upcoming exhibition “Modern Times”. Judging from the promotional material that we have come across, the works selected are all “4 Dimensional” works – and as such are promoting Fascist and Nazist perspectives. Also, besides the uncritical exhibition of Fascist and Nazi material, the exhibition, in mixing 4D with revolutionary “n-dimensional” work, lumps together and thereby confuses works supporting and supported by the Fascists, Bolshevics (Futurism, Constructivism, Suprematism) as well as their contemporary counterparts such as the CIA (Abstract Expressionism) – with Revolutionary Communist work (Dada) whilst also pointedly excluding other Revolutionary Left and Anti-Bolshevik Communist work (Surrealism, Lettrism, Situationism) which would clarify political differences within Modernist Art.

In solidarity with the Communications Electrical and Plumbing Union
Industrial Action in Queensland Australia over the next 3 days

We hereby announce an Immediate Industrial Action on Psychoelectronic
Communication

From now until the 3rd conjunction of Jupiter and Neptune this year, on
the Winter Solstice

No psychic and electronic communication is to be undetaken for the
purposes of work: This should include all Electronic mail, text messaging,
webmail, internet communication VOIP or telephony etc. Also to include any
psychic communication with persons or beings dead, undead, alive or as yet
unborn.

DEAR REDAS, STEWART AND ALL THE ART STRIKE FOLK,

Here are 3 studies of the renewed symbol of art strike (made with deep respect to source image and with high disdain to traditions) + this letter is an example (manual) how to place it/them in official letters.

(I think the original 2 hands breaking the brush should develop following the logic of trialectics.)

The Second Temporary Art Strike Action Committee – Alytus Chapter (STASAC-Alytus) has called for an Art strike action against Vilnius becoming European Cultural Capital for 2009, calling for Sympathy Strikes all over the world to support The Strike activities in Lithuania during the whole year 2009.

Just as the art strike Campaign launched in 1986 by Stewart Home which called upon all artists to cease their artistic work between 1990 and 1993 – was, unlike the art strikes proposed by Gustav Metzger and the Art Worker Coalition in the 1960s, not merely a boycott of art institutions through artists, but a provocation of artists addressing their understanding of art and their identity as artists.
In these previous strikes there has been a critical position against Art as a specifically bourgeois construction, and an adoption of the position of ‘Cultural workers’.

As the art strike is not centered on a job or region or trade – it is not a matter for a Job union, a Trade Union but an Industrial Union – that of culture as an industry. However in order to attack the Bogdanovist position where proletarian culture or proletkult is the third part of a trinity of revolutionary socialism, Whereas the unions would attend to the proletariat’s economic interests and the Communist Party, their political interests, the Proletkult would look after their cultural and spiritual life – we should look to the integration of all of these activities into our daily life and under the direct control of the workers at large.

(The Flyer is available here)

It is a situgraphic (non oriented - you can approach it from different angles)