You might’ve heard that I think fascists rarely make good art. One of the movements most closely associated with fascism is Italian Futurism. I love this movement. Is this one of the rare instances where fascists make good art? The way these two movements intertwined helps us understand how fascism affects innovation and creativity. It also helps explain why some people are very pro AI, and if you are against fascism, why you should be wary.
In 1909, a group of young men put together a manifesto on how they were gonna transform their art. These Futurists were tired of the backward-looking, self-reverential art establishment. They didn’t fear innovation. They didn't see modernity as a negative force on society. They wanted to meet future needs creatively and proactively.
To put them into context, Italy underwent significant change in the late 19th century. The Industrial Revolution had transformed travel and communication globally. Italy spent much of the 19th century transforming its nature, culminating in unification in 1870. The new nation was standardizing language and forging a new shared culture. Many people in Italy were struggling with droughts and falling behind as the nation moved from an agrarian to an industrialized economy. (Many of those whose towns did not keep up immigrated to the Americas during this era). Some Italians were aching for the change to stop. These artists were staking a claim for the future, asserting that change can be positive.
Stylistically, the art was visually complicated. Artists embraced the idea that art should capture multiple moments in one composition. One of the best-known futurist works is Balla’s 1912 image of a dog walking on the street. Having grown up with dachshunds, I know there is such glory in seeing them prance down the street, comfortable in the idea that they are superior to most beings. But what the work should be seen as is a clip of a dog working, with each movement stacked into a single frame. Balla captures the complexity of life at its fullest. The space-time continuum is rendered in two dimensions. The energy of modernity was infused in their works. Futurism is an attempt to push the limits of understanding and representation. Given that this work is being presented just as motion pictures are becoming more popular, it was a very cutting-edge way of expressing reality.
The works quickly became fashionable. A leading art writer, Magherita Sarfati, took an interest in this burgeoning movement, excited that Italy should have its own brand of modernism to counter France’s art Nouveau. Sarfati was a Venetian Jew who was more famous than many of the artists. She had powerful friends. Her stamp of approval on your artwork was a promise of making a career. She was said to be effervescent and quick-witted.
She made friends with many of the futurists, and it’s through her that her boyfriend learned of this forward-thinking art movement. This boyfriend, Benito Mussolini, was very excited about transforming Italy. He wanted to create a nation that would rival ancient Rome's power. He imagined himself as a new Caesar. Where the Romans had great roads and aqueducts, he wanted the best of technology. What he loved about futurism was its unquestioning love of new technology. He gained power as a fascist, a term derived from the fasces, the sticks bound around an ax, that ancient Roman officials used to wield power. Where the Futurists unutterably wanted nothing to do with the past, Mussolini wanted to create art that cemented his role as being ordained by ancient Rome.
Under Mussolini, elements of the futurist style were used to push his message. He chose elements that followed what he wanted to share, so, for example, Mussolini believed in Italy first. He wanted Italian Italians to use Italian products made by Italians. Fiat became the car. Similarly, if you look at the Fiat designs from that era, they have that futurist look. They have a sort of dynamism that makes them visually appealing. However, they’ve lost the complicated visual language that the early futurists preferred. Lost were the philosophical underpinnings and the complex creativity of implementation. All that is left is a nod to the style, this time being used to push a single message rather than invite viewers to see the possibilities.
The Poster House’s recent exhibition, The Future Was Then: The Changing Face of Fascist Italy, highlights how Futurism evolved as it moved from an art movement to the house style of Italian Fascism. Gone is the visual complexity. Movement is implied, but not visualized. The dynamic lines remain, but now streamlined to lead the eye to the text. Visually, these are still very strong, and yes, this was indeed the movement I think of when you see appealing art coming out of fascism. But in comparing the propaganda works to earlier ones, the ways authoritarians curtail creativity become apparent. Control and creativity are often oppositional categories.
In futurism, you also see some resonances with what’s happening with AI. Machine learning has been around for a long time. The idea that simple tasks can be sped up through the use of large datasets is something scientists and technologists have been grappling with for a while. The most recent push is due to a group that took that idea and decided to monetize it. Many AI CEOs have spoken about the transformative nature of this technology. But they are very excited, for example, to decrease the power of liberal women or create a technology that makes it very hard for people to think complex thoughts. Machine learning is inert. It’s the technologist who saw that possibility in the tool. Why? Because the tool simplifies thinking, when it is easier to have a question answered, you will keep using that tool. You will also find yourself less and less capable of asking the right question and finding the right answers on your own, but by using it, you are cheating yourself out of learning. It is simplifying your ideas so you become simple. Just as fascist art expresses an idea in the simplest way to stop your questioning of the message, AI trains you to think simply. History has shown that when free thought is seen as a problem, people generally suffer.
