So, I've been toying with this idea of applying the anarchist concept of means ends unity to art (to be honest, mainly as a theoretical justification for doing what I wanted to do anyway). So, if you want to do art, and especially anarchist art, shouldn't your tools also be artistic and preferably anarchist?
I'll give an example. Poetry is art. Tools of poetry include things like language and font. Constructed languages can be seen as art projects, and they can implement and emphasize the values of anarchism. Fonts are also art projects and they can for example be inspired by anarchism and be freely distributed etc.
Other examples could include making specific image manipulation programs and algorithms and creating new image formats for visual arts, making esoteric programming languages for programs etc.
So, my idea is starting an avantgarde group/movement where we make art with artistic DIY tools and document the process in the art itself so that it doesn't hide its structure but shows how it was made.
Attached is the first poem I made specifically with this project in mind. But of course, not everything we produce as a group needs to resemble these little examples I came up with. The main thing is to try to break the expectations of art (if such a thing is possible anymore) and also to be an anarchist.
If any of this inspires you, hit me up. Perhaps we can start the group together.
Here is an example I have worked on: https://github.com/SurrealPartisan/shiofaioth
"It's purpose is to be as unsuitable for authoritarian propaganda as possible, so that it is difficult to hide power structures behind word choices."
Can you explain a bit how it does that? I couldn't see how that works from a quick read through that document.
Thank you for your interest! There are couple of ways in which I try to accomplish that goal. First is the verbal pre- and postpositions, which force you to be open about your sources and the degree of voluntariness of what you describe (of course nothing prevents straight up lying, but at least whatever you claim is explicit and ready for inspection). There's another thing that I now realize I haven't even documented yet, even though it has been one of my main ideas. That is the lack of single word ways to say one "must" or "should" or "may" do something, with the expection being taht you explicitly say who orders or allows the action. Of course there are always ways to go around this, but the aim is that if you try to hide authority behind words, it would be clunky and noticeable.