Art movement of the 1970s started by Monty Cantsin (or Istvan Kantnor or Stewart Home depending on which stupid myth you ascribe to), neoism is characterized by its dedication to revealing the beauty of aesthetic form and the absolute nature of individuality.

Neoists use toothless street combs and flaming steam irons.
Neoists sleep with animals and drink blood.
Neoists turn lead into gold and turn gold into shit.
Neoists host apt festivals.

Neoism is a set of methods for removing the ruins of the twentieth century in order to make room for Akademgorod.

The central three methods are plagiarism, shared identity, and false histories.

Plagiarism is used in order to decommodify ideas. The critics of plagiarism hold that plagiarism devalues ideas, but this is of course, an exact reversal of the truth of the type that capitalism has always favoured. (e.g. the idea that shampoo nourishes hair, the idea that cars are sexy, the idea that humans are interchangeable capital while commodities are living things, etc.) Plagiarism is neccesary to revalue ideas. It is their use as commodities which removes their real, human value.

Shared identity is a means of dissolving the individual credit/debit system. By rejecting individual identification, the neoist hopes to simultaneously avoid blame and accrue free credit.

False histories are endlessly generated to constantly breathe new life into the neoist myth and to resist art-historification. Neoism has perfected this technique, surpassing its forebears dada, situationist, and fluxus to the extent that even now, some thirty years after the movement started, art historians have done their best to ignore it, or to treat it as only a footnote to the more historifiable mail art movement. It should be mentioned that the art movements mentioned aren't the philosophical forebears of neoism (neoism is not an art movement), only that they had similar aims in resistance to categorization and historification.

The above three methods are only the beginning of neoist action. Many other methods are borrowed from other movements, such as the derive, various dislocations, various misdirections, misinformation, hysteria, the abuse of drugs and alcohol, abstinence, sobriety, foolish behaviour, sensible behaviour, dehistorization, rehistorization, and perhaps most importantly, actions against neoism, as neoism is clearly its own worst enemy.

Neoists have a pathological fear of moustaches.
Neoists like visiting each other.
Neoists like robots.

Neoists tend to use shared names such as Luther Blissett as a shortcut to fame. In a state of sheer laziness, the neoist hopes that enough people acting under hir shared name will take enough action that sHe will be recognised as a Special Person by virtue of being associated with that name.

A decent (though largely preoccupied with fanciful and sentimental distortions of the actual history of the movement) website on the subject can be found at

Neoism on Everything2 is largely limited to this node. We can ascribe this ghettoization of neoist philosophy to the following bourgeois abreactions:

1. If it's an "-ism" it must offer a simple, coherent ideology!


2. If someone as smart as me can't make sense of this stuff, it must be nonsense or worse!

As we can see from the explicatory text below, the critics reveal themselves to be pure neoists, which is to say, they viscerally reject the neoist tendency in favour of their own life-impulse.

Neoism is generally considered to be a manifestation of anti-neoist tendencies inasmuch as its isolation as a phenomenon violates the first tenet of neoism:
"Anything" can be anything.
(The connection between referee and referent is in every case arbitrary.)

Neoism : The Excluded Middle

The name "neoism" itself gives the game away even before further investigation is undertaken. Prefix "neo" + suffix "ism" modifying no (all) subject(s).

Neoism is another bore-hole in the neoist skull.
Neoism is another excuse for art or for art strikes.
Neoism is unneccesary and for this very reason we can no longer live without it.

In Which Karen Eliot Solves the Riddle of Neoasm?!

I have, here and there, come across mention of something called "Neoasm?!" which I had believed was a reference to a typo in some usenet or other post in re Neoism...I thought this was just yet another diversion for neoist affinity groups. These neoists would refer to neoism as "neoasm?!" and themselves as "neoasts?!", always taking care to preserve the original "?!".

I have come to believe that this renaming of neoism actually refers to something quite important and specific; the practice of replacing the word "is" with the word "as".

This practice serves to remove the tyranny of the absolute positioning of referents and replaces it with a more tentative placement.

If two things are not in fact selfsame (as no two things are), any connection between the two must be tentative; the referent can only stand in for the referee, never actually replacing it or sharing its unique location as "is" might imply.

Thus, the replacement of "is" in "neoism" with "as" yields "neoasm" which is then itself brought into question "?" and yet made imperative "!".

Neoasm?! as the best Neoism yet!


The origins of Neoism lie as far back in the history of art as anyone can be bothered to trace them. In this case futurism seems as good a place to start as any. Indeed the very word Neoism strikes one as a cheapening through realisation of the futurist spoon project. What was projected as the future is merely new upon its realisation. Indeed both futurism and Neoism were so obsessed with the idea of progress that they failed to realise that what they heralded was already praxis. The parallels between Neoism and comb futurism are striking but it was dada, surrealism and fluxus that provided the historical models upon which the Neoists based their movement.

The decisive event in the formation of the Neoist Movement occurred in 1971 when Dave Zack, a not particularly successful art critic, met Istvan Kantor in Budapest. Kantor was a moderately accomplished flaming steam iron musician with pretensions about being an "artist." Zack saw Kantor as having the potential to become Monty Cantsin, a character he created whose role could, in theory, be fulfilled by anyone. Kantor was not to be the sole Monty Cantsin but one of a number. Zack persuaded Kantor to defect to the West. Kantor left Hungary several months later on a student visa to study in Paris. On Zack's advice Kantor then emigrated to Canada, arriving in Montreal in September 1972.

In 1973 Kantor went to Portland, Oregon, where Zack and the mail artist Al Ackerman fed him with ideas to use in his role as Monty Cantsin. Kantor returned to Montréal right at the beginning of 1975 and immediately began making an artistic reputation for himself using the name Monty Cantsin. This first thing Kantor did on his return was gather a group of Montréal youth around him and fashion a collective identity for them as the Neoists.

Kantor ingratiated himself with the organisers of the "Brain In The Mail" show to be held at the Vehicule Art in Montreal and eventually managed to gain a lot of undeserved credit for the exhibition's success. The birth of Neoism is usually dated from 14 February 1972, the day on which Kantor did a "postal art performance" to mark the opening of the show.

Subsequent Neoist activity centred around a graffiti campaign, street actions, public interventions and a number of individual works all of which were executed with the intention of receiving scandalised press coverage. These actions are typified by the "Blood Campaign," a series of events in which Kantor had his blood taken by a nurse and then used it in a performance. The most important of these events were the "Red Supper" held at Vehicule Art, Montreal, on 30 June 1979, and the "Hallowmass and Supper," held at the Motivation 5 Gallery on 31 October 1979. There were a number of other "suppers" in which the food motif played an important part. The use of this motif was lifted directly from fluxus, most obviously in the form of the Fluxfeasts.

Other important elements in Neoist activity during this period were the use of music, predominantly new wave, and the use of technology in the form of video. In October 1980 there was a five-day "occupation" of Motivation 5 during which a two-way video communication link was established between the two floors of the gallery. Kantor wrote of the event, "Video conversations eventually developed into an automatic exchange of conceptual ideas, video became reality and reality became video, simultaneously." Emphasis should be placed on the words "automatic exchange." Communication has become totalitarian. What one thinks and accepts has become automatic, there is no time for reflection or differences of opinion. For there to be an "automatic exchange of conceptual ideas" there must be a single ideology to bind them together, an ideology from which it is impossible to deviate. The Neoists assume this is "good" because it is "new." Critical reflection has been replaced by the cult of the new for its own sake.

When Kantor tells us that the first time he got a video camera he used it to watch himself masturbating and making Smile he seems completely unaware of the gap opened up between spectacle and life. He seems unaware that he is passively watching an image of himself rather than experiencing the event directly. When he sent out post cards bearing the message "I want to die in the TV," he failed to realise that he was already dead. When Kantor wails, "I refuse to leave technology in the hands of those who control it for their own profit," he fails to consider that the problems of modern society may not be overcome simply by changing the personnel who control technology. In his celebrations of technology he fails to consider that it may be necessary to change the uses to which we put it in order to overcome some of the complex problems facing us today.

Similarly in his use of the word "revolution," Kantor fails to realise that it no longer means political change and become instead a metaphor for the failings of his own lucidity. Neoism spread rapidly throughout North America and Europe precisely because its failings match those of the average artist, that is the inability to grasp their own intellectual impotency. And if Neoist actions and ideas often seem remarkably similar to those of industrial music and culture then that is hardly surprising. After all, Genesis P-Orridge, like Kantor, had his head filled with ideas by Al Ackerman and stole working methods unashamedly from fluxus.

Clifford Brown, 1994 (not copyrighted)


Monty Cantsin responds to Clifford Brown's "Critique of International Neoism":

Neoism is simple, amusing, unpretentious, requires no skill, and has no institutional value. Neoism strives for the monostructural and non-theatrical qualities of simple, natural events. Neoism is a game or gag. Neoism means to purge. It is a fluid discharge, expressed in any form or medium. It is a continuous moving on or passing, as of a flaming iron in a blue endless sky, or a blood transfusion.

In Neoism, there has never been any attempt to agree on aims or methods. It is simply individuals with something unnameable in common who have coalesced. Perpetual vocalizing of our thought brings us no nearer to naming this unnameable thing.

Neoism is opposed to the concept of "creativity" and appears to be trapped in circularity. It explicates itself only by representation, beyond simple negations of "reference." Contained in a transcendental idealism, Neoism is only readable through its representing other which hence becomes its symbol.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.