Art in the Era of Globalization. Some Remarks on the Period of Soros-realisms
In the meantime it has become commonplace to see economic globalization as a homogenizing, universalizing model which absorbs cultural differences and therefore ultimately rejects them. Nonetheless, much of that which is, for example, considered local - with a reference to tradition or as having the nature of a localized culture -, which is put forward against this tendency as worthy of preserving, is based on just the same foundations - for example on the myths of unmediated social relations and cultural essentialism. The concept of cultural difference, which is constitutive, for example, in the cultural paragraphs of the European Union, somehow assumes that regional cultures are transparent for all of those who take part in them. But also the concept of community which has achieved so much importance in art dialogues of the past few years, is founded on a similar concept of social and cultural transparency. A community is, according to this, a socially and culturally homogenous space within which everyone is completely clear about the intentions of their own, and other “cultures”.
Here too, although it is spatially or socially a different dimension, the concept of difference collapses within a totaling perspective that harbors the danger of indiscriminately eliminating all that does not conform to this perspective. The normalizing of the European states, to name just one example of cultural spatial consequences of neoliberal politics and economies which has been strongly thematicized in the cultural realm in the past few years, is therefore in no way merely an economically imposed phenomenon, but is closely connected to ideas of transparency which are likewise co-founded in ideas of community. The principle of the heterogeneous cosmopolitan city is replaced by that of the village and its surveillance schemes.
In a space such as the present cultural and economic one, in which different and unequal power relations unfold, a clearly defined site and a community within, or a local cultural tradition of course no longer exist in and of themselves as a solid field of reference. Sites are the result of cultural, economic, ethnic, technological and medial constructions. Here one needs to mention only the most obvious motif of the firm as a community. Communities constitute themselves within hierarchically structured spaces, within unequal fields of power. Cultural construction processes and the arising fields of reference and underlying power relations which remain largely ignored during these transports would therefore be precisely the central themes to which postcolonial aesthetic and representational practices must dedicate themselves.
But most of them avoid it. The American anthropologist and cultural studies expert Arjun Appadurai explained his concept of the new globalized spatial organization
a methodological model for the analysis of these spaces with his differentiation between ”locality” and ”neighborhood”. According to him, the world is covered by a pattern of deterritorialized ethno-landscapes. Sites which are ”charged” in terms of identity, are less and less in line with actual lived-in spaces. That which is commonly associated with the concept of the ”local”, previously expressed by the term ”homeland”, increasingly contains a virtual character. For Appadurai the relevant frame for examination consists of imagined worlds which are created in a creative process. These sites are not to be understood as replicas or imitations of a site which actually exists yet is nonetheless distant and abandoned by immigrants. It is the experience of deterritorialization itself which must help significantly in shaping this new creation.
But even today this contradicts the powerful, old, western-centered art industry. It still sees in art a global paradigm which supports the interests of its metropolitan centers. In New York, with the move of several galleries from Soho to West Chelsea in the eighties, it was possible for a second city district to be gentrified through art. The price is that the professional public no longer wants to acknowledge in any way what is sold in these galleries to finance the move as quality products of a long style-defining art metropolis. Berlin is modernized with youthfulness by an ambitious Biennial which presents the young mainstream of gallery art in a cool ambient; with public spaces by construction site art actions at the Potsdamer Platz; and with cultural consciousness by the Holocaust memorial.
Increasingly, critical voices are being raised in opposition to this new idea of world art of the hybrid. They suspect no more behind its boom than a refined version of the old postmodern strategy of artistic accompaniment to a differentiated market economy of lifestyle goods in a worldwide commercialized cultural environment. In the multitude of exhibitions, for example those with contemporary African art which have assured visitor numbers in the past few years in Europe’s art houses, they see a totally different mechanism in play: As a bazaar for non-Western artifacts - which totally satisfies the needs of the powerful in the global markets - such exhibitions delivered, so to say, finer and finer versions.
For the recently courted artists from Africa, Latin America or Asia this means that a balancing act is necessary for them to succeed in such contexts and at the same time make local and specific aesthetic and political issues understandable. It is precisely the local points of reference of their art which form the indispensable requirements for success. This balancing act is becoming increasingly difficult in the current economic situation.
It is primarily the youth, namely the immigrant children of the second or third
generation in London, Paris, Los Angeles, New York and other ”global cities”,
who no longer fit into the identity models brought over and whose social positioning
”in-between” must be regarded as a typical phenomenon of our times, who have
become the darlings of the glocal exhibition scene. Their identities appear to be built for the needs of the European world-culture
exhibition industry: they carry the genetic traits of the ethnic other, clearly
bringing the cultural capital of family or social experience of break and continuity,
the knowledge of another social or historical construction and a complex network
of experiences into their work. The question of to what or for what they belong,
becomes an existential challenge for them.
Many of the exhibitions and art transports under the new self-appointed ”glocal” art industry have also served to make visible the metropolitan art scene which until now has been unexposed in the west. But even then they still significantly contribute to obscuring the in- and exclusion relationships still dominant in the translocal art industry.
The burning question is namely: can local potential still be seen at all after being transported into the exhibition and art industry of the western metropolis?
In addition to his concept of locality, Appadurai has also brought another concept into the discussion, that of ”neighborhood”. This refers to the virtual or actual spatial realization of locality through social relationships. Neighborhoods arise not only in confrontation with the ecological and economic conditions but primarily in contrast to and as a dismissal of other neighborhoods, other ”ethnoscapes”. Appadurai’s considerations about the social construction of locality are the result of thinking over the consequences of a ”global cultural flow”. According to that, the local, the site, is essentially a fragile social achievement.
Techniques of the production of locality however are still given too little attention. If one goes into the cultural sphere, eastern Europe is a good example of this.
”Eastern Europe functions like a symptom of the highly developed West, especially
in terms of media and avant-garde art strategies. If one observes the parallels
between East and West, then one finds in eastern European media and art production
important examples of a perverted and/or symptomatic logic with regard to western
strategies and visual representations which are tied with each other in various
ways”, wrote the Slovenian theorist and video artist Marina Gržinić in springerin. Gržinić probably has, among others, quite a particular aspect of this logic in view:
the import function of the Soros Centers. As we well know, the financial speculator
Georges Soros has calmed his Popperian conscience calling for the development
of an open society in eastern Europe with a financial support program for social
science, educational programs, social programs and also centers for contemporary
art. Through these centers, imports from art discourses were brought into local
scenes which had already proven their critical ability in the West. Many, including
even those who profited from these activities, complain that this led to a
shift in attention away from local points of juncture. It is from these points
of juncture, also at a level of symbol politics, thus in art, that the resistance
against incessant western imperialism should actually still be developed. The
newly imported use of western discourse tools from cultural studies, race and
gender studies to a universalizing postcolonial approach, certainly bring with them the danger that the on-site cultural production merely orients
itself according to their standards. The art which results from that is a type
of locally colored rehashing of New York’s media critical neo-conceptual art
of the late eighties. The consumer good in all of these efforts,is a stylistically
institutionalized half-hearted mainstream postmodernism of video- and multimedia
sets, objects, installations, large format photography, which should, so to
say, maintain the power position of the old - and in the art boom years of
the eighties that resurrect now - golden triangle of market, media and museum
against the new relations which have again begun to stabilize in the past two
or three years around a new personnel.
Yet when the Soros Centers had become the refuge for curatorial and journalistic information from Manifesta through documenta to the feature story of journals of western European art, much of what has come out of eastern Europe in the international exhibition industry of the past few years has gone through precisely this filter. This is also because the centers were the only ones which financed catalogues, worked out exhibition projects, were highly present in the Internet with their info-pages, and continuously supported the development of Internet art.
Gržinić asks even further: ”What, if in contrast to the fantasy of the Internet and its overpowering globality which imagines itself to be the utopian dream of a (virtual?) community in harmonious and universal exchange relations, the eastern European ‘monster’ is introduced as not only ‘monster’ but also as a terrifying neighbor (at least some of the eastern European artists, media activists and theorists fall under this category) which rejects the philanthropic western ideology of sharing and pure exchange?”
Already at the beginning of the nineties, with a somewhat different focus, Martha Rosler pointed out the dangerous burdens of representing a cheerful globalizing multicultural culture industry: ”From the perspective of an industry which is driven by the dictates of fashion and the arrival of identity politics, multiculturalism in the art world means no more than the inclusion of a fringe group of producers who stir up public interest with their novel glance. A handful of young colorful, gay or lesbian artists are thrown into the system for an undetermined amount of time, they are given shows in international museums and galleries. A few are offered highly paid sponsorships and stipendiums. A smaller number of already older artists are recruited for university posts - whereby, I’ll quickly add, these reasons for being recruited are of course no worse than any others. What differentiates the fashion of ‘multiculturalism’ from the art world’s ‘Marxism and political art’ fashion of the seventies is the size of the reward. Powerful cultural institutions such as the Rockefeller Foundation and many universities which did not really pay much attention to the older version of political art, are now quickly clambering into the sponsoring of multiculturalism which sets up more the support of integration than an economic restructuring. Multiculturalism accepts that artists represent communities beyond the art world. Who then do artists represent when they work on political critique? It is naturally quite possible that the two, despite the shift of rhetoric, are bound only by the common status of being passing fashion phenomena. But what remains certain is that these marginal shifts don’t change the ‘white’ power structure of curators and high officials in museums.”
The statements from Gržinić and Rosler clearly support exactly how fictional this
supposed globalization of the art industry is. A convincing conception of critical
and political aesthetic practice beyond the traps of a pleasant multiculturalism
necessarily goes along with a radical redefinition of the concept of political/critical
artist. The thing is to a shift in attention away from local points. It is from
these points that most of the resistance to the incessant western imperialism
is developed, also at the level of symbol politics, i. e. in art. Then if,
as is commonly desired, it can be assumed based on the advancing globalization
processes that exhibitors and exhibits no longer belong to two different socio-cultural
”totalities” but rather are part of a global economy of reciprocal connections,
then how can the common differentiation between internal and external be maintained
and described as inclusion/exclusion in models of exhibitions?