Regionalists, by contrast, insist that art belongs to everyone; and in this cultural struggle, independent art is the resistance. If the society in which we live is truly democratic, then Regionalists might be regarded as the 'official opposition'. Everyone has a stake in the preservation of a strong and vibrant independent culture and, to this end (we must assume),
Canadian Art magazine, in a 2016 article*, posed to the Question:
'What should an art movement look like?'
Most movements in art, in the late-modern and postmodern periods, might more accurately be described as fashion trends; for in an age of apolitical art, art was not intended to address real world issues or precipitate change. Regional artists however (prior to 1953) regularly made change possible by addressing issue that were in the interest of society as a whole – without, as some have charged, producing 'kitsch' .
Artists have traditionally been catalysts of change, but it has been said (in many different ways, by numerous commentators) that the aim of postmodernism was, from the beginning, to convert 'active citizens into passive consumers'. This assessment by Eleanor Heartney in her book, Postmodernism (from the 'Movements In Modern Art' series), is perhaps the most powerful; for if this is true, art can no longer serve as a call-to- action, or gather the support required to make a difference in the wider world.
A small 'elite among the middle-class', therefore, has never been more important; if the tradition of independent Regional art is to endure and, once again, bring about positive change in the world. However, a small number of collectors, are starting to make their art acquisitions based on new criteria, while Regional artists – in the process of reclaiming their traditional role in society - are providing new 'ways and means' for the population as a whole to support an art that represents the interests of the people. We hope that you will join us, and become a sponsor or partner in this important venture.