Subversive Strategies in Underground Graphic Production of the "Solidarity" Movement in 1980S Poland

SUBVERSIVE STRATEGIES IN UNDERGROUND GRAPHIC PRODUCTION OF THE "SOLIDARITY" MOVEMENT IN 1980S POLAND

AGATA SZYDŁOWSKA GRADUATE SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIOLOGY, POLISH

ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Abstract tion, integrating the community connected with the movement, ridiculing the enemy to a The original logotype of Independent Self- simple propaganda. The aim of the paper is Governing Trade Union “Solidarity” was de- to examine the strategies used by the pro- signed by Jerzy Janiszewski when the strike ducers of the anti-communist graphics and to in the Gda ńsk Shipyard broke out in August capture the specificity of the “Solidarity” 1980. It spread quickly throughout Poland graphic activism by making a distinction be- and began its afterlife in countless interpreta- tween the resistance and the subversion. tions and travesties created spontaneously by multiple “Solidarity” members and suppor- Main text ters. After the proclamation of the Martial Law The aim of the paper is to capture a specifici- in December 1981 “Solidarity” movement ty of the graphic resistance movement in the along with its visual identification were forced 1980s Poland by contrasting it with widely to move underground. From that moment on, known culture jamming or subvertising the logotype and its many variations became movements in Poland and beyond, namely in a useful tool of political activism. “Solidarity” 1968 Paris and in Poland after 1989. This graphics were reproduced in underground comparison will lead to the conclusion that printing houses and ordinary citizens contri- despite some apparent similarities between buted widely to the political struggle by de- some strategies and aesthetics of graphic signing and producing subversive graphics design activism in its various embodiments, based on the well-known image of the logo- there are some crucial differences between type. Functions of these graphics varied from design activism in a capitalist reality and in a expressing support for the political opposi-

totalitarian country. These differences, in my walls re-interpreted in more or less success- opinion, are connected with the place of the ful ways. What is important, the logo was of- subject of such actions: inside the system in ten reduced to or replaced by some distinc- case of a capitalist country and outside it in tive features, such as flag or red hand-written case of a totalitarian one. So my point is that letters. This was sufficient for making the the success of the anticommunist design ac- message clear and to connect it with the So- tivism lied in a fact that its actors were si- lidarity or anti-communist movement in gen- tuated outside the system, therefore they eral. were able to produce a serious threat to the When the Martial Law was proclaimed the authorities they opposed. “Solidarity” logo along with the trade union Historical introduction itself were banned. “Solidarity” went underground and so its entire “printing industry”. From the very first days of the strikes in 1980, People employed easy to use techniques, the movement, which later become the Inde- such as silkscreen, used poor paper and li- pendent Self-Governing Trade Union Soli- mited colours, usually black and red. “Solidar- darity, had a very characteristic visual identi- ity” stamps are a good example of typical fication. According to Jerzy Janiszewski, au- samizdat publishing of the underground op- thor of the Solidarity logo, the idea of design- position. Most of them were silkscreened but ing a logo came from a need to support the these created in the internment camps were striking workers. First of all, Janiszewski made using a perforated foil and seal ink. started to think of a slogan and wall inscrip- The stamps were used to raise the funds for tions were his direct inspiration. He realized the operating of the underground opposition. that the word “solidarity” appeared many times. So the word “solidarity” came first. The excerpts from a book entitled “Visual Then Janiszewski elaborated the lettering of Propaganda” from 1987 are especially useful the word and here he was also inspired by to give an idea of the importance of the “Soli- the slogans written spontaneously on the darity” dissident graphic design: walls. Eventually he conceived the idea of “In 1980-1981 Poland was an issue to a spe- joining the letters together to make them look cial penetration of Western ideological sabo- as people in a dense crowd carrying a Polish tage. It was expressed by a wide range of flag (Daszczy ński 2005). diversionary radio broadcasting, culture and Soon the logo became extremely popular so sociological propaganda. This propaganda numerous unauthorized variations of it and spread consumer patterns and lifestyles, the “Solidarics” typeface appeared on the supported pro-western attitudes of certain walls, banners, prints, and so on. People circles, created a myth of Western and espe- simply re-drew it in do-it-yourself way and the cially American lifestyle. (...) Another direction logo became literally ubiquitous. So the logo, was an informational and material support for inspired by the wall slogans came back to the illegal anti-socialist organizations in our coun-

try. (...) The leaders of anti-socialist organiza- media which are more effective than posters, tions which penetrated and took possession they still considered posters or leaflets a se- of Solidarity structures, attempted to fight with rious enemy. Secondly, the author doesn’t the socialist party with numerous forms of give any positive example of contemporary visual propaganda. Streets and houses of communist propaganda, which suggests he Polish towns were covered by a wide range was aware of its weakness which is visible in of posters, leaflets, sign-boards, inscriptions the last sentence. and photomontages. Using achievements of Apparent similarities: May 1968, Solidarity psychology and sociology as well as material and contemporary subvertising and technical support from Western anti- When thinking about history, there is always communist organizations, propaganda staffs some kind of temptation to see things as of Solidarity initiated a so called poster war. parts of some bigger structures, to look for The crucial elements were: disinformation, similarities and continuities, influences, inspi- destabilization and discredit. rations, and common grounds. So my first Using national symbols for the propaganda idea was to see what happens if we compare actions was an obvious abuse. National flag the Solidarity graphics with the analogical colours which were widely recorded in a so- production of other social movements of the cial awareness as a symbol of patriotic ac- second half of the 20th century. Prints made tions were used to escalate antinational and in May 1968 in Paris by the famous Atelier anti-Polish actions. It needs to be reminded Populaire seem similar to the “Solidarity” that white and red were the Solidarity logo, graphics. From the other side, contemporary strike flags, layout of Solidarity newspaper graphic activism connected with such activi- and so on. Unprecedented propaganda cam- ties as culture jamming, subvertising and so paign against Dziennik Telewizyjny (TV called billboard banditry, seems also to have News) was aimed not only to formally discre- a common ground with the anticommunist dit it, but first of all to infect on a social trust to graphic design. the mass information media which were at Source of similarities: graphic language of the disposal of social and professional forces resistance and strategies of the socialist state. Collapse of the official visual propaganda was to open the door to What are the common features of this kind of the monopoly of anti-socialist propaganda.” grassroots graphic design movements? We (Wojtasik 1987) can call it following Teal Triggs who writes about punk fanzines, the graphic language of This fragment tells us two things: first of all, resistance (Triggs 2006). To put it briefly, it is the communists seemed to really believe in simple, rough, made using unprofessional power of symbols and images, thing they tools and without professional skills. The called visual propaganda. In the times of a message is clear and direct. Rough stylistics wide access to television, radio and other

of this language stresses the immediacy of a a very wide sense as an activity of people message and the transparency of design and excluded from a professional market by production process itself. This sensation gender, class, education or political views. makes the message trustworthy, especially in But if we take a closer look at the DIY ethos, a situation where professional tools and we can see that there are significant differ- technologies are monopolized by the power ences between this kind of activities in a dis- against which we struggle: authorities in case sident graphics and in anti-capitalist graphics. of France and Poland, corporate capital in In case of anti-consumerist activities, DIY is a case of subvertisers. form of an alternative economy, independent from marketing, consumerism, and so on Closely connected to the graphic language of (Krajewski 2010). By making the things our- resistance there is another term, so called the selves, we oppose the system which makes aesthetics of failure (Drozdowski 2009). It’s us buy and throw away. This is also a symp- an artistic strategy which is based on a strict- tom of an attitude which is based on a special ly controlled “anti-technique”, which is of attention paid to material objects – instead of course a matter of choice, not of the lack of throwing away, one can repair them or re- skills. By intentionally ignoring the rules of make them. But in case of Poland in the aesthetic correctness, it aims at resisting the 1980s we cannot speak about this kind of dominant aesthetic conventions and, as a ethics. DIY was simply a must, the only way result, a dominant system. What is important, the political opposition could produce their there wouldn’t be any aesthetics of failure own prints and ordinary citizens provide possible if there weren’t any normative aes- themselves with necessary products. thetics or codified rules, which is very important here. While the visual arts freed them- Another apparent similarity between the anti- selves from any aesthetic conventions 100 capitalist and anti-communist language of years ago, in graphic design there are still resistance lies in their strategies. Here we normative rules which tell us whether a piece also have to go back to the legendary May of design is correct or not. So in case of 1968 in Paris and to the theory of Guy De- graphic design, it is very easy to create and bord and the Situationist International. In or- distinguish the aesthetics of failure. Nonethe- der to struggle against the spectacle, Debord less, we have to consider, whether in case of proposed some strategies, such as diversion Solidarity this aesthetics was intentional or (détournement ) (Debord 1994). They con- not. I would claim, that in this case the specif- sisted in taking piece of ready-made cultural ic aesthetics of failure was a side effect of the artifact out of its original context and placing it limited access to the professional tools and in a new one. The fragment could also be a materials and professional designers. subject of changes and interventions. This strategy is more or less what the subvertisers The graphic language of resistance is closely are doing, but it can also be traced in some bound to the do it yourself activity, but only in

interventions the “Solidarity” activists made in tween the cultures of resistance and the so- the symbols of the communist regime and cial movements of resistance – the distinction authorities. However let’s not be deceived made by Ewa Rewers following the defini- again by the appearances. In Debord’s theory tions of Manuel Castells (Rewers 2010). In the strategy of diversion was aimed at reveal- the book entitled “The Power of Identity” he ing hidden, subversive potential of popular writes: „Resistance identity is generated by culture texts. In our case, there is no hidden those actors who are in posses- potential in communist Party’s symbols. In sions/conditions devalued and/or stigmatised some cases, however, we can see the mirror by the logic of domination, thus building image of the diversion strategy. The subver- trenches of resistance and survival on the sive content is what is hidden, not revealed. basis of principles different from, or opposed In anti-capitalist activism the logotypes are to, those permeating the institutions of socie- transformed in order to reveal their actual ty” whereas “the project identity is when so- meaning. Here the actual meaning is con- cial actors, on the basis of whatever cultural cealed, hidden beneath the nonsense, an materials are available to them, build a new ordinary word or a childish drawing. identity that redefines their position in society and, by so doing, seek the transformation of These remarks lead us to the notion that overall social structure.” (Castells 2000). there is no direct connection between activist Here, in my opinion, lies the difference. In graphics in a capitalist society (France in case of anti-capitalist actions, the actors build 1968 or Poland today) and in a totalitarian the new identity, whereas in case of anti- country. Underneath the similar form, there communist struggle, the actors oppose the are crucial differences which highlight the oppressive system. According to Ewa Rew- specificity of graphic design activism in com- ers, it is apparently the same thing (fighting munist Poland. against the power mechanisms), but in case What are the reasons of such differences? Of of the cultures of resistance there is an im- course, we can explain them by a simple no- portant critical component which lacks in the tion that anti-capitalist or anti-consumerist social movements of resistance. The critical activists in France or contemporary Poland theories are based not outside the contested have struggled against capitalism and the system, but in the very centre of it, which is a Solidarity activists struggled against com- crucial difference to the dissident move- munists. But in my opinion this distinction ments. doesn’t give a satisfying answer. Finally, the Similar thing is pointed by Łukasz Ronduda Solidarity movement was also a leftist one in (Ronduda 2006). He claims that the term its beginnings. They didn’t struggle for capi- “subversion” has often been used in relation talism, they struggled for a just, democratic to the artistic appropriation connected with society and so were the Parisian revolution- the critical art. It has a technical component ists. The difference lies in a distinction be-

which relates to the physical operations on an side and they didn’t belong to the system object, like the above mentioned diversion, they struggled against. transformation or destruction a ready-made As Marek Krajewski noticed, such activities fragment of a cultural text. From the other as subvertising, culture jamming or street art side, term “subversive” means a kind of criti- paradoxically reinforce the system because cal attitude towards a dominant culture, but they reproduce its own rules, such as attrac- still, formulated from the inside of the criti- tiveness, novelty, spectacularity, and so on cised reality, by a subject involved in it. (Krajewski 2010). Therefore what is needed Therefore we can make a distinction between is not a subversion but a resistance which in a resistance an a subversion, where resis- case of today’s graphic design means not tance is performed from a position of an out- producing the numerous anti-something sider, and subversion comes from a belief projects and prints, but by not doing certain that there is no outsider’s position possible. things. It is not spectacular but it seems the only way graphic designers can oppose the In case of capitalist society, I think we can all system – not contributing to it. agree, there is no way to take a position outside the system. As Ewa Rewers has put it: “Any project critical to the modern promesse References: de bonheur eventually appears to belong to the same logic it denunciates.” (Rewers Castells, Manuel (2000), The Power of Identi- 2010). What capitalism does is assimilating ty , Oxford, UK; Cambridge MA: Blackwell all intentions to undermine it by reconfiguring Publishing. the critical statements in order to make them Debord, Guy (1994), The Society of the work for it. Contemporary media feed them- Spectacle , New York: Zone Books. selves with the news about the acts of trans- Daszczy ński, Roman (2005) ‘Logo gression and controversies. No matter what “Solidarno ści”’, Gazeta Wyborcza , available are the latest news, it matters there are the at http://wyborcza.pl/1,109015,2883008.html news. Therefore no wonder that today no- (last accessed 23/09/11). body cares about the critical actions of bill- Drozdowski, Rafał (2009), ‘Estetyka bł ędów board banditry, subvertising, and so on. They jako narz ędzie przemocy ikonicznej’ in Li- belong to the same logic that the entities they siecki, Marcin (ed.), Sztuki wizualne jako protest against. And this shift explains why no śniki ideologii , Toru ń: Wydawnictwo Adam the communist authorities really cared about Marszałek. the resistant graphics dissimilated by the So- lidarity activists in the 1980s as we can ob- Krajewski, Marek (2010), ‘Dyskretna niezgo- serve in the passage cited at the beginning of da. Opór i kultura materialna’, Kultura the paper. They were produced from the out- Współczesna , 2(64): 35-50.

Rewers, Ewa (2010), ‘Subwersyjny podmiot w ruchu (wprowadzenie)’, Kultura Współczesna , 2(64): 1-7.

Ronduda, Łukasz (2006), Strategie subwer- sywne w sztukach medialnych , Kraków: Wy- dawnictwo Rabid.

Triggs, Teal (2006), ‘Scissors and Glue: Punk Fanzines and the Creation of DIY Aesthetic’, Journal of Design History , 19(1): 69-83.

Wojtasik, Lesław (1987) Propaganda wizual- na , Warszawa: Ksi ąż ka i Wiedza.

Acknowledgments:

I would like to thank Dr Ewa Klekot for some useful thoughts and remarks on the subject of DIY and Lidia Klein for a proof reading of this paper. I would also like to thank Rene Wawrzkiewicz for supporting me with some interesting images of the “Solidarity” graphics.

I am especially grateful to the institutions and organisations who supported financially my attendance at the DHS Conference: Design History Society who awarded me with the DHS Student Bursary, as well as Graduate School for Social Research at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Foundation for Polish Sciences who awarded me with conference grants.