Militant Improvisation

Militant Improvisation: Urgency, Refusal In the Militant Cultural Front.

In moments of profound crisis, the limitations of form become impossible to ignore. The act of depiction collapses under the weight of necessity, and the canonical tools used to represent suffering, injustice, or resistance within cultural production reveal their theatrical inadequacy in the face of material urgency.

Creative language, as inherited through dominant institutions, is already disarmed. It has been neutralized through repetition, commodified through circulation, and contained through institutional framing. Even the most violent realities are metabolised into spectacle where suffering becomes content and resistance is theme.

Art, when assimilated into this cycle, becomes soft décor for hard power, a symbolic currency within elite cultural economies, where it is asked to heal, to reconcile, to soothe. But what if healing, within this dynamic, is itself a trap? What if the invitation to “process” trauma is merely a detour, a return to a world that must be refused?

Militant improvisation emerges precisely at this point of refusal, through which it performs an entirely different function. It is tactically operational before it is metaphorical or symbolic, driven first and foremost by urgency: the urgency of the moment (the temporal) and the urgency of clarity (the contextual).

1. Temporal

Art produced within institutional frameworks often fetishizes immortality and manufactures relevance. It is nurtured by the luxury of time, slow reflection, delayed interpretation. It validates itself through processes of curation, contextualization, and critical analysis. It waits for reviews, and participates in cycles of exhibition and critique. By the time it arrives, the world it responds to no longer exists.

Improvisation becomes a necessity when the structures meant to preserve life are the same ones dismantling it.

Militant improvisation refuses delay. It is born into emergency, through the very womb of crisis. It understands that its urgency renders it ephemeral, sometimes by choice, but more often by force. In response, it improvises itself for immediate impact, with no formal attachments. It is not crafted for permanence, nor intended for the archive.

2. Contextual

Militant improvisation does not require philosophical intricacy or theoretical complexity. It is not formulated to be seen only through squinting eyes, It is vivid and instantly legible, rejecting interpretive buffers and conceptual padding. It speaks to those already in motion, those without the luxury of a still moment to fill up with silence. If it cannot be understood immediately, it has already failed to act.

In fact, one might not always recognize the categorical form of the improvised on sight, as it is not meant to be measured by institutional metrics. Militant improvisation may appear alien to the linguistics of art discourse, not because it is too abstract, but because it rejects the frameworks that render art palatable and profitable.  It manifests as gestures that resist authorship, unconcerned with legacy or polish.

Crucially, militant improvisation must not be confused with “Radical Art” as defined by galleries or academic discourse. It is not a provocateur in form yet conformist in function. It is not about illustrating slogans or echoing movements from a safe distance. It is grounded in non-metaphorical violence, not in shocking the spectator, but in sustaining revolutionary continuity.

Militant improvisation cannot be disciplined into institutional logic, where visibility is often weaponised and “militancy” becomes a strategy performed within the sanctioned violence of art spaces.

Likewise, militant improvisation does not refer to “militant aesthetics,” because insurgency has no aesthetic, and crisis follows no formal logic. It is not defined by style, and its aesthetics are not a choice. It is not “art activism” in the liberal tradition, nor a strategic disruption of bourgeois spaces for symbolic effect. Instead it is carved in struggle and indistinguishable from survival.

Improvisation allows movement in shadows, avoiding the traps of co-optation and spectacle. By refusing to ask for entry, it appears uninvited, knowing that inclusion is not solidarity, but the final act of neutralisation.

***

Though militant improvisation rejects the conventions of art as an institution, it enters this discourse not because it desires to belong, but because it is continually pursued and appropriated by it. Its methods, born of urgency and refusal, are inherently creative acts of insurgent making.

What forces it into overlap with the artistic paradigm is not a shared ethos, but the historical tendency of bourgeois artists and academics to hijack revolutionary gestures, extracting form while discarding function.

Thus, militant improvisation appears here not as art, but as a contested zone where art’s complicity, appropriation, and limits are exposed.