The Italian Futurist's provocative slogan seems as appropriate today is it did in 1909, when of Filippo Marinetti penned his beautiful (and half mad) ‘Manifesto of Futurism’ (just a few short years before the First World War).
Across the industrialized world, futurist artists created ‘strident’ visions of a bold new world; a revolutionary world, in which ‘intelligent young men, drunk with their own talent and ambition’ would embrace — and celebrate — scientific progress. With the uncertainty that accompanied the end of a tumultuous century, technology promised to deliver the world from its ‘decaying spirit’ and the ‘cemeteries’ of its past.
These ‘glorious canvases [did] ‘swim ashore,’ as Marinetti put it, to find homes in the same galleries and museums the futurists had once condemned. These artists were visionaries — for better or for worse — at a time when art and politics did not pretend to be strangers. At the close of another era, as we sail in troubled waters yet again, western culture seems bent on self-destruction. Did we poison ourselves with ‘old pictures’ as Marinetti suggests? Or was it the futurist’s own hasty, delirious, push for the future, ‘without thinking,’ that brought us to this point?
‘Where, we must ask, are the futurist artists of our day; where are the visionaries?
‘Traditional’ artists sometimes feel like those stoic musicians aboard the Titanic (1912). We continue to create our art, ‘though the world will perish’ — Wikipedia incorrectly translates this from the Latin (‘though’ and ‘let’ have very different meanings of course). Are we creating art simply to entertain the passengers, or to distract them, as this crazy ship of fools (that is the postmodern / post-industrial world) slips beneath the waves? Or might we provide a better vision, ‘audacious’ as this may sound?
Should artists today (like the Futurists), celebrate the technology of our times and dismiss our history? Or is there a lesson or two we could learn from those striking visions of a future past (which did come to pass)? Should we try to shape the future according to our own (decidedly non-fascist) vision? Would anyone listen?
If you read Marinetti's Manifesto (and the writings of the Vorticists, Estridentistas and others of this era) you will naturally wonder whether the Futurists cared for the well-being of society at all. They could just as easily have been aligning themselves with the power elite of the day, and the moneyed industrialists, to promoted their interests. Artists need patrons, after all, to afford to do what they do.
If you haven't read Marinetti's words (a few of which I've scattered about here), to say such a thing will sound cynical and mean-spirited. This doesn’t take away from the art itself though, which is undeniably powerful; like the machines it represents. This was an era that lent itself to strikingly beautiful, and dynamic, art. Undaunted by the ultimate fires of WWI (though no longer ‘glorifying war’) futurism was reborn as Art Deco; yet again, a celebration of dynamism, speed and scientific progress. Looking back at this era, despite everything, it still seems like an age of innocence; more precisely, perhaps, the end of the age of innocence.
The science of today’s ‘progressives’ however, is really not science at all; it is ‘scientism.’ Instead of ‘speed and scientific progress’ we have “at the speed of science.” As Yuval Noah Harari defines science:
At least he's honest. Today's technology is not nearly so compelling as the machines that spawned Modernism, and became the stuff of great art. Technology today, as the WEF's ‘guru’ tells us, ‘has moved under the skin’; and for many — those who see the implications — this is a terrifying development. The mad scientists now see themselves as gods (“beyond God” yet), Harari tell us.
Just a few of the things these folk discuss when they put their heads together:
'An Introduction to Bio-Digital Convergence' International Electrotechnical Commission - webinar'
The ‘courtier’ artists of our day (those who aligned themselves with the high priests of scientism, and a new breed of 'biodigital' industrialist) are not artists at all, but illustrators, graphic-designers and propagandists. Instead of ‘glorious canvases,’ they create cool symbols for a nightmarish techo-fascist future.
Doesn't this just fill you with optimism for the future? Biometrics, Digital ID, the Internet of Things (IoT), the Internet of Bodies (IoB) and genetic modification so as to conform to the following, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 'standards':
ISO 20691:2022 / ISO/TS 9491 / ISO 4454:2022 / ISO 23494 series
(See ‘An Introduction to Bio-digital Convergence’ - above) And why is it that neither accountants nor financial people seem able to explain ISO to you? (Just an innocent question, because I honestly believe most of them haven’t a clue what all this is about). The new Technocratic ‘gods’ though, want to remake you in their image; or, at least, to their specifications.
I’ve gone off on a tangent again, but of course, we must return to this. I didn't quite know where this piece would take me today, only that I felt compelled to explain why I don't post as regularly on Substack as many of the others I know here (who often post almost daily): Maggie Braun (Gather 2030), Gene Balfour and Matthew Ehret among them. I admire the incredible work they do, and I am humbled by how prolific they are.
I probably could post something every day, if I didn't still have to earn a living; and, more importantly, if I didn't believe that art is the most powerful (and most overlooked) tool we possess for changing the world.
Through art (as the power elite have long understood) you can change not only what people think, you can change how people think. This the very essence of culture (emphasis on root word,'cult'). If we can change the culture, we can change everything, and this is what the Kulturkampf (the culture struggle - invisible war) has been all about. Perhaps I can refer you back to my earlier article ‘A Small Elite (Among the Middle-Class)’ for a more in depth look at this, and for explanation of how the people can take back their art and culture.
“Art will Redeem the World” a dear friend of mine always reminds me (a story for another time). She is correct (I believe). Some of you here may have heard that famous warning from Queen Victoria, to her fellow elites (I'd prefer to let you look this up rather than quote Her here). But it isn’t the artists, so much as their art; the artists are only ‘mediums’ (as it were). The real magic is to be found in those ‘glorious canvases’ — our paintings have lives (and journeys) of their own (as you will see).
Clearly, one of the things that has kept me away from my art recently is my writing (some of which you see here in my various Substack posts). There is so much to share, and sometimes (in moments of weakness) I feel that my paintings are not speaking loudly enough; that they’re not communicating with enough people. . . so I write more, because writing is more direct. I keep trying to finish the various pieces here (I've mentioned some of them before): A follow up to ‘Has Your Smart Phone been Weaponized,’ a piece of the ‘Divided Brain’ and the (resulting) schizophrenic society, and (of course), Part IV in my series on Neoliberalism. Everything seems so pressing today, it's hard to know where to start.
The main reason I've not been writing so much recently though, is that Art has pushed its way back into my life again (Speaking of ‘Art and Politics’) because of a strange (most serendipitous) event, on Leap Day, February 29th:
https://www.instagram.com/pierrepoilievremp/p/C38zvnAMrKO/
With the (sad) passing of former Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, the picture above appeared on Pierre Poilievre's Instagram. The painting above the fireplace (which I created following a kayak trip through Haida Gwaii in the late 1980s), went out into the world back in 1989. Thirty five years later, ‘Spirit of the Hills’ reemerged here, with a former Prime Minister, and (most likely) Canada’s next Prime Minister, at Stornoway.
There is an odd synchronicity here too, speaking of neoliberalism (please revisit my introduction to the subject). Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of course, was a contemporary of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and at the helm, here in Canada, at the dawn of the neoliberal era.
Reflecting on this history, we realize that things are not at all black and white; that everyone is subject to forces much larger than themselves (even heads of state). History has been turned on its head in recent years, and if there is one lesson to be learned, it is precisely this. The above mentioned story of the 'Divided Brain' is one I look forward to sharing soon, but the second lesson (going back to the days of the Rebellion of 1837 in Canada), is that of the invisible government. All we normally see of government is that ‘theatre’ the mainstream media provides us; we know, of course, that there is a lot more going on behind the scenes.
To read about Ronald Reagan's early Union days and his involvement with the Screen Actors Guild, his attempted assassination in 1981, and then his breaking of Unions (you may remember the Air Traffic controller's strike), it seems clear that something changed; maybe those ‘Chicago Boys’ had a word with him too.
To read about Margaret Thatcher's early days, her rather more humble beginnings, and then her breaking of the coal miners strikes in the UK; we see influences (subtle and not so subtle) leading Britain too in another direction. That nation of shopkeepers idea, which 'Maggie’ would surely have supported, was bound to buckle as Monopoly Capitalism (reinvented as Monopoly Neoliberalism) reared its ugly head.
Some of you will remember the attempted assassination of the British Prime Minister also, in 1984. Perhaps the film, The Iron Woman would be the fastest (and most engaging) way to trip down this memory lane. And that ‘Fauk off Argentina’ comment (Neoliberalism ‘Part I: Kulturkampf, and the birth of the Uniparty.’ ) takes on a whole new complexion too, with the recent election of Javier Milei (more on this in my next piece on neoliberalism of course).
But I've talked enough about politics (or the ‘theatre’ of politics) for now, and I’d like to return to art for a while, and all those distractions. In addition to the painting you saw above, in the Residence of the Offical Opposition, a few other paintings have popped up in the most unexpected places (below): The Official Residence of the Governor General of Canada and the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.
The paintings above: (left) ‘Passage To The Northwest’ - 19 ⅝" x 22 ⅝" - Governor General's residence (Rideau Hall) and (right) ‘Icarus’ (silver frame) and "Reflections" (black frame): The Lieutenant Governor's suite. Queen's Park, Toronto.
There is a story behind all of these, of course (which I’ve shared with my regular mailing list before). None of this is to say I have some ‘inside track,’ or any meaningful political connections, though it does all seem a bit of a coincidence, given my interests. Life unfolds in mysterious ways, and maybe this is all for a reason. Please stay tuned.
All of these acquisitions (including the most recent) were followed by commission requests for similar works, so once again, I am trying to find time to paint. I look forward to sharing some of my new paintings here (when I can find some time at the easel). For the moment (with an unforgiving end of May deadline), the production of our various 2026 calendars is taking up most of my days. . . Yes, that’s 2026. We have to work two years ahead with these projects — talk about futurism! You can see all of our previous calendars at Independent Culture Calendars, and the 2025 collections will be posted soon (once they arrive).
There are also more events coming up (or should I call them ‘Happenings’ in keeping with the art theme?):
In early May, Patricia Conlin has invited me for another Tish Talk podcast, on the subject of ‘Neoliberalism and the Uniparty.’ This week, I will be hosting an event in Uxbridge, on the privatization (and digitization) of the Ontario Land Registry Office (see my previous post). Martin McDermot will be the main speaker here, though my good friend, Adam Smith will make a presentation on neoliberalism (public-private partnerships and privatization) as an introduction to the main subject (all of which is related of course). The local folk (on my regular mailing list) will have details for this already (space is limited so I cannot send out a general invitation). I’m also preparing for another Town deputation, and I will report back on this later as well.
There is just so much to share. This past week, apropos the comments on ‘science’ above, an update on the political front from the UK (which has been 6 months ahead of Canada for the past four years):
In case you wondered why so many politicians are stepping down these days (dare I say, like rats leaving a sinking ship)? It seems they’re ‘gettin’ while the gettin (they hope) is still good. But the writing is on the wall now, and a reckoning is coming:
Thank you again for your ongoing interest, and support, and I look forward to connecting again.
David
Thank you for this!
'Meanderings' is right. . . This really was something of a stream of consciousness. As mentioned, I intended to explain why I don't post so regular here. When I do post though, it's volumes. I appreciate your taking the time :-)
Every so often, an article like yours graces my inbox with its thoughtful insights and interesting meanderings through our cultural landscape and I am compelled to reflect on my own life. Time well spent.