|
Text
written for Trama’s third publication. Buenos Aires, 2002.
When they look for me, I am never there
When they find me, I am not
The one who is opposite them because I have
Already run away farther ahead
The Disappeared
The following pages could be defined as a contribution
to the global artistic project called Rain, in which different initiatives
co-exist: Pulse, Art Bakery, Centre Soleil d’Afrique, ruangrupa,
Open Circle, CEIA, El Despacho and Trama. Throughout this work we
will attempt to lay theoretical bridges between this network of
artistic exchange and confrontation and some recent developments
in political theory. However, the reader should not be surprised
to reach the end of this essay and find that the establishment of
rigid boundaries between the political element and ways of
theorisation on the artistic element coexisting in the essay appears
to be unattainable. It should not surprise the reader either that
his search turned out to be useless. That spot where the sphere
of art and the sphere of politics overlap, that spot which partially
dissolves the dividing liner between them, where are we to find
it? Let us start by saying that different trends within contemporary
political theory have voiced their rejection to foundationalist
and essentialist postulates whose main characteristic is the subordination
of appearance to essence. The epicentre of the confluence between
research fields related to aesthetics and those focused on political
aspects results, thus, in the centrality that the category of representation
acquires in both cases. As we shall see in the following pages,
the new ways of thinking of politics place the moment of representation
at an absolute centre-stage position, as long as this representation
is not perceived as a simple transparent act but as something eminently
constitutive of that which it represents.
(1)
Let us now dwell for a moment on the will that Trama expresses through
its creators. It illustrates the artistic co-operation network in
which the project is inserted. According to that will, the multiplicity
of artistic expressions gathered there contributes to “strengthening
the bonds between the local artists’ community, bringing
to light the mechanisms which, in art, articulate the production
of sense within this peripheral context and legitimizing artistic
thought within the political and social environment”.(2)
Based on the concern for the legitimacy of artistic thought in terms
of political and social developments, we will descry three aspects
in which these problems can be seen most clearly.
Our starting point will be the fact that the artistic project with
which we are dealing at the moment is absolutely unthinkable outside
a global scenario in which highly fragmented –and, to a certain
extent, heterogeneous-- identity forms coexist.(3)
It is our intention here to highlight that which we perceive as
inherent to this powerful initiative of artistic co-operation, i.e.
a critique of the reductionist conceptions of the globalization
process.
In a second stage, we will deal with the attempt to “bring
to light the mechanisms which arti-culate the creation of sense
in art within peri-pheral contexts”. As we shall see, once
the re-ductionist views of the global have been abandoned, it is
impossible to cling onto a regional definition of the peripheral.
We might start by making a rather obvious statement about the existence
of peripheries in the centre and of centres in the periphery. In
fact, what is at stake here is the actual possibility of existence
of a centre and a periphery as two poles that account for the complexity
of globalization. Finally, our reflections focus on the desire to
“legitimize artistic thought” bearing in mind its political
and social production conditions. As we shall see, any such legitimizing
attempt demands that we leave aside conceptions of what is artistic
as a neutral means of representation of pre-existing cultural identities
and realities. The artistic challenge appears to be less connected
to the representation of the peripheral than to a critique of the
creation mechanisms of the peripheral as such. If, as we have already
said, Trama and contiguous pro-jects are extremely concerned about
mechanisms that create sense, the sense of the pe-ripheral cannot
be exempted from analysis.
Contemporary political theory has received important contributions
aimed at deconstructing globalization conceptions that used to associate
this process with the death of ideologies as well as to a progressive
cultural homogenezation. According to supporters of the latter posture,
the ideological antagonism depletion triggered by the fall of the
Berlin Wall, the expansion of the market logic to almost every sphere
of society and the miti-gated nature of national and class identities
may account for the global hegemony of certain paradigms whose effectivity
lies in their integratory capacity and their tendency to be universalized.
Only under this light may the premature conviction and –in
some cases- the enthusiasm about the imminent end of history be
understood as a conflict arena. In other words, the globalization
process used to be represented as the inevitable consequence of
the course of historical events as long as the latter incarnated
the universalization of paradigms that enjoyed unquestionable legitimacy.
Such globalized paradigms would provide the framework for the progressive
disappearance of the peculiarities of cultural identities and their
bottom-line differences (or at least the possibility of a practically
aproblematic coexistence among them).
Criticism to such exacerbated reductionism did not take long to
be heard. From a normative stance, the inevitability of –and,
especially, the need for-- antagonism and difference for the survival
of the social bond was proclaimed. In other words, it was not only
incorrect but also undesirable to forecast a world gradually homogenized
round certain cultural paradigms of global acceptance. Even the
antagonic dimension became the cornerstone of every political practice.
Thus, the appropriate gesture before the global show would be an
identification with the difference, not with its disappearance.
Concomitantly, these critiques noticed the presence of an overwhelming
proliferation of spaces where the alleged universality of global
paradigms was being strongly questioned. They would say that the
collapse of the ideological conflicts of the Cold War could not
be equated with the disappearance of the ideological conflict per
se. Quite the contrary, the very erosion of ideological matrixes,
such as social class or nation, had facilitated the emergence of
a multiplicity of resistance forms previously marginalized or non-existent.
According to this standpoint, far from protecting society from ideological
conflicts, the globalization process showed clear signs of worsening
them.(4)
This worsening of antagonism posed huge analytical challenges, since
previously used recipes had become obsolete and were now unable
to contain the network of conflicts that pervaded the new global
scenario. Among those recipes were identification of a power centre
from which the globalizing wave expanded over the peri-phery in
a sort of integrating whirlpool.
There was a first moment when the attempt to de-centralize the global
order was content with just declaring an indefinite proliferation
of differences and peculiarities. The globalized world became the
stage for an unfathomable yet seductive diversity. Attempts to establish
equivalences (horizontal bonds) in order to group together -by means
of new narratives- these unmeasurable peculiarities into more encompassing
identities were perceived as an attack against difference. (5)
However, even in this field disagreeing voices were heard. Those
voices argued that new forms of collective identity rose from the
rubble of obsolete horizons. Cultural multiplicity contained postulates
that, while not universal, were at least universalizable. That is
to say that the defence of one form of cultural difference, e.g.
the one incarnated by aboriginal movements, was brandished in the
name of a right to tolerance that overcame the peculiarities of
the case. On the basis of these postulates new identities and forms
of collective resistance emerged. It was not acultu-ralization nor
extreme multiculturalism but, as stated by Angel Rama regarding
the Latin Ame-rican case, it was a process of transculturation.(6)
As stated above, we argue that in artistic pro-jects like Contexto,
both critiques to the reduc-tionist argument on globalization reappear
with renewed strength. There is no room there for an artistic exchange
conceived as a displacement of ideas from the original centre to
previously subordinated positions which this displacement enriches
or emancipates. As we shall see in the course of this piece of writing,
the artistic projects that motivate it somehow generate criticism
of the conception of artistic flow as a translation between central
and peri-pheral spaces, or even between peripheral spa-ces, as long
as it questions the existence of a moment originating the creation
of artistic sense. However, we not only observe a profound de-centralization
in this sense, but we must empha-size criticism of certain forms
of extreme peculiarism as well. We believe this latter aspect to
be the point where the global artistic project of our concern overlaps
the construction strategies of imagined communities.
As stated at the beginning of this paper, once reductionist notions
of globalization have been abandoned, either in its universalist
variant or in its peculiarities pole, the regional distinc-tion
between centre and periphery becomes untenable. Furthermore, the
very idea of a centre and a periphery is questioned. In this sense,
we think it relevant to displace the notion of peripheral cultural
contexts to that of subalternate identities. As we shall see, the
notion of subalternation contains disruptive germs for the dichotomy
between centre and periphery. Let us see, then, some of the consequences
of such displacement.
I shall start by including what might be consi-dered a fortuitous
yet most significant piece of information. On the one hand, we notice
that projects like Contexto establish relationships
characterized by contiguity and mutual penetration between artistic
initiatives developed in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa,
Cameroon, India, Mali and Indonesia. I think it is interesting to
highlight the fact that these contexts are also significant when
we analyze the development of subalternate studies. Beyond this
coincidence, we argue that there are deeper bonds between artistic
projects articulated by Rain and the orientation of subalternate
studies, especially in the conception of the global incarnated by
both of them.
The notion of subalternation is formulated in Antonio Gramsci’s
work. The subalternate operates there as a political-cultural category
with which Gramsci tries to conceptualize the Italian south, that
which Gramsci calls the question of the mezzogiorno. This association
between the South and the subalternate be-came part of the Latin
American imaginary in the sixties and seventies, especially when
subalternate studies became an attempt to emancipate oppressed social
groups excluded from the social imaginary. It is within this context
that works such as Rigoberta Menchu’s testimony on the repression
endured by indigenous communities in Guatemala were produ-ced. However,
a definition of the sense of the subalternate based on class, national,
ethnic or regional co-ordinates might gradually lose for-ce. On
the one hand, it will become apparent that the subalternate does
not exist indepen-dently of its formulation as such by political,
artistic or academic discourse. The subalternate is not merely expressed
by the academy or art but is created as such at the very act of
representation. Subalternate identities are not constituted previously
and they are not awaiting the clarifying intervention of the artist,
the intellectual or the politician. (7)
Going back to the definitions of the status of the artistic which
we analysed at the beginning of this article, let us say that the
“peripheral contexts” defined do not exist independently
from their definition as such. That is to say, the attempt to intervene
in the periphery does create a peripheral space but, at the same
time, erodes it through its incorporation into a global artistic
circuit In short, the subalternate –the same as the peripheral-
are not ontologic categories but related categories. They are not
concepts with an immanent meaning; rather, they demand a constant
redefinition and recreation of sense. The subalternate is not a
property inherent to the South or to another form of previous localization;
but it names forms of hybrid nomadic identities, identities that
exist on the margins of the establishment of sense and subvert it
constantly. Along these same lines, we might say that what ultimately
becomes visible is not the subalternate as social or historical
concrete social subjects but the very difficulty of representing
the subalternate. In other words, the subalternate -as well as the
peripheral- loses part of its nature as subalternate when it is
represented. The
act of representation creates and, at the same time, blurs the condition
of subalternate or peripheral identity.
So far we have seen that the subversion of the dichotomy between
centre and periphery coincides with some criticism of a universalist
stance regarding globalization; a stance according to which universal
paradigms ex-pand from the centre to the periphery in an integrating
effort. In other words, once the centre periphery dichotomy has
been dismantled, any idea of aculturation no longer makes sense.
However, the other extreme view of the globalization process, that
view which
perceives globalization as a non-stop flow of unmeasurable peculiarities
and differences is not exempted from criticism. That is to say that
the resolute defence of multiculturalism is also untenable.
If, as already stated, the peripheral and the subalternate are constituted
as such through the artistic intervention –among other forms
of representation—the said artistic intervention implies the
articulation of relatively hete-rogeneous identities as parts of
a broader framework. In other words, it implies the establishment
of horizontal bonds of equivalences which, without totally concealing
the peculiarities of the identities in question, inscribes them
on an area that undoubtedly exceeds that peculiarity. Projects like
Contexto not only represent artistic expressions
of peripheral contexts but constitute these contexts as such, thus
establishing forms of equivalence and belonging through the construction
of the peripheral as imagined community. In addition, as already
observed, there is nothing immanent to the sense of periphery and
this sense will be subjected to constant displacement of its boundaries,
i.e. to a constant re-definition of its identity. As the reader
may have noticed, our distance from topographic conceptions of the
peripheral/subalternate is becoming wider. Precisely because of
this, we do not think that peripheral or subalternate identities
belong exclusively to a “region” of the global map.
According to what we have said above, it would be naive to set aside
the existence of centres in the periphery and of peripheries in
the centre. Moreover, the nomadic nature of such identities allows
us
to cut across geopolitical frontiers, such as west/east, north/south,
and ultimately, centre/periphery. This is the goal that we believe
can be perceived in the artistic collaboration me-chanisms fostered
by Rain. We may cite the ar-tistic exchange between Argentine artists
and a Dutch artist as the first instance of artistic feedback encouraged
by Punto de Vista and carried out in Contexto.
Therefore, we might say that a project like Contexto, from which
our previous example was drawn, not only brings to light the cons-truction
mechanisms of the sense of the peri-pheral but that the project
itself is a creation mechanism of sense that operates upon the peripheral.
As the reader may notice, our previous statements carry some implicit
two-faced criticism. On the one hand, our statements reject any
definition of the peripheral/subalternate in topographic terms,
i.e. its regionalization through a priori conceptions. If we accept
this, we cannot attribute their articulation as imagined communities
to the fact that they share some sort of predetermined regional
equivalence. On the other hand, if we posit the centrality of the
representation moment in the construction of imagined communities,
these communities will not be the product of purely spontaneous
movements. That is to say, for the possibility of a horizontal articulation
between subalternate/peripheral identities to exist, there should
be a (partially) external intervention that constitutes these identities
as such and establishes common co-ordinates between them. This mediation,
however, will always be contingent rather than the product of a
necessary, spontaneous movement towards community identification.
The concept of the peripheral as that which escapes the establishment
of sense and is subjected to constant displacements, as is the case
with the subalternate, reinforces the idea of nomadic identities
that cut across the centre-periphery dichotomy. Furthermore, this
anti-essentialist conception of the peripheral offers the possibility
of regarding it as an inscription area, as an imagined community
which, once constituted, establishes bonds of contingent equivalence
between its members and be-comes an identity through the construction
of a frontier that establishes a situation of shared marginality.
Nearing the end of the paper, I would like to go back to the issues
mentioned at the beginning of our discussion. They were related
to the possibility of bringing to light the creation mechanisms
of the sense of the artistic in peri-pheral contexts and with the
legitimacy of artis-tic thought in terms of the socio-political
sphere.
By now we might affirm that mechanisms for the construction of sense
become a problem only if we accept a conception of sense as inherently
unstable and consequently subject to constant displacements and
power struggles. If this is so, we will immediately see our possibilities
reduced to establishing the sense of the peripheral in regional
terms, in which case the greatest challenge will consist in esta-blishing
the boundaries of the periphery. That is to say what must be scrutinized
first is the meaning of periphery. As we have suggested, the variety
of artistic initiatives articulated by Rain not only makes the mechanisms
for the creation of sense viable: the project itself becomes a mechanism
of sense creation. This operation is possible only if we have abando-ned
reductionist conceptions of the globalization process. Our argument,
however, does not end here.
Full awareness of the constitutive role of artistic representation
in the construction of ima-gined communities becomes a key factor
to legitimize artistic discourse in relation to the historical,
social and cultural conditions from which it emerges. A first consequence
of such awareness is that it prevents an avant-garde outlook. In
this case, we are not dealing with the emancipating look of the
artist upon peri-pheral contexts that have clearly defined identities
which simply do not have representation channels. On the other hand,
by stating its constitutive role for the creation of imagined communities
-such as the peripheral community- artistic practice is no longer
perceived as a simple mediation between centre-periphery, periphery-centre
or periphery-periphery, rather they themselves build up the frontier
upon which these dichotomies lie. Frontiers become central to collective
identification of the peri-pheral as such and the terms which define
the frontier do indeed affect the resistance and integration strategies
which those communities define. I think that Rain convokes projects
that clearly express these challenges insofar as it establishes
horizontal forms of articulation that generate an area of criticism
and inscription where the peripheral can emerge as co-llective identity.
In this sense, the nomadism mentioned before is implicit in it,
a nomadism which is itself a form of imagined community. At this
point it is essential to stress the fact that the peripheral, the
marginal or the sub-alternate are not clearly defined identities
that tend to unite spontaneously. Quite the contrary, there is nothing
natural about identification with the peripheral and it is precisely
through artistic projects like the ones mentio-ned here that the
articulation of heterogeneous identities becomes possible in terms
of the creation of imagined communities.
|
|
