|
|
|
From Nineteen eighty-four
to 2001: |
|
|
Text published
in Zones of silence, edited by the
Rijksakademie van beeldende kunsten, Amsterdam, 2001 .
But what of consciousness doubly bound? How shall we celebrate when we have yet to mourn and reconcile? What becomes of those who have learned to look at themselves through the eyes of others, whose scale of value has been set by their conquerors? (1)
Yes, yes, but not so hasty. We must first establish sound principles that ensure mutual respect. Let me take on the task of moderator for our new community. From now all peoples will be equal. (Aside: some more so, some more so). Let us all meet, and let there be more space for expression of voices hitherto unheard. Let there be greater interaction, dialogue and understanding. These and these alone can be the foundations of a new age where none can speak down to others! Let me organise these meetings, and invite the best amongst us to speak. The most authentic representative of every culture shall be there. All will be represented, none excluded!
Seriously, don’t you think you’re moving a bit too fast? Have you thought of what this means? You say that there needs to be equal access to all, but access on whose terms, through whose language? I ask again: what becomes of those who have learned to speak through tongues appropriated as their own? Which of their voices will you call authentic? Does this new system recognise that it may be dangerous to play with essences such as authenticity? Aren’t we going back to the same model where the powerful muster what they consider the most representative of their various domains for display at one location? Of course not! How could you even suggest that! We are very aware that diversity has to be respected, that authenticity may mean different things at different places. Let’s start with yourself: why don’t you speak about your specific circumstances rather than seeking to air generalised discontentment?
But I don’t want to speak of my own culture in isolation, because my own culture was not born of isolation. It was born of contact, of mingling and exchange. I don’t want to be an "authentic" anything. This insistence on authenticity in your system reeks of purism, where there is no space for fertile hybrids that claim a varied parentage. I think this whole issue of the authentic can imprison us in categories that we have ourselves created. How then do you propose to meet at all, if everyone insists on being intransigent over fanciful principles? No, this will not do! We all must meet on a common platform where participants represent the most significant reality of their contexts. Through reading this representation the rest of the world will understand that context a little better. We will have a new beginning with a new museum for all. One for each part of the world which has been marginalised until now. One for Asia, one for Africa, one for Latin America, one for the Pacific.
All right, let’s give it a go. I am still uncertain about these ideas. They make me uncomfortable. But I am willing to try your plan out before I argue any more.
I don’t know about this. It seems I cannot agree with either of you. It is good to have spaces where we can see work from diverse locations, but aren’t we making the mistake of considering these instances to be reflections of reality in their home contexts? I had thought we had gone beyond the theory of reflection in art history. And what of work that refuses to play the part of illustration for a reality assumed or otherwise? I fear that will be permanently excluded from this arena. Aren’t we on the verge of forming a new system of convenient pigeonholes in which to locate this work? And I fear the implications of your newfound omniscience. I believe it is dangerous for any agency to take on the role of monitoring and legitimising. It is just a short step from here to controlling culture. Look at what is happening with economic relations in this new world. Among nations and within nations, things are getting harder for those who are not part of the elite. As for mockery, I contest your right to police art production in the name of heritage or peoples’ sentiments. If we give in to these pressures, we will be faced with an ever-shrinking space for cultural practice, for articulating responses to our situations and to each other. Let us not forget the critical and creative contributions of heretics and the outcasts. How ignorant and ungrateful you are! How little you appreciate what we are doing for the cause of a multicultural world community. Why can’t you just take your place in the new order and enjoy the enrichment it brings? Don’t you understand that embracing this multicultural world community will bring unprecedented benefits to you? We have studied the situation carefully before coming to this conclusion. Be at peace! Let go your distrust and paranoia. If you want to be part of our community and enjoy its benefits, you will have to sit back and participate according to the principles we have devised.
This new world order brings enrichment
only to those who conform to its rules. Those rules are unjust.
You speak of respect for difference, and yet, it is impossible to
remain different. There is constant pressure to integrate with the
world economy, to become part of a world culture with its undemocratic
norms. Artists dare not lag behind their counterparts in developed
economies, for they will then be seen as copyists. Yet, supposedly
enlightened audiences expect the work to carry identifiable markers
of a "home" culture. The new museum has allocated places
for all. Yet, these places have to be filled in the manner of ethnographic
display in a reborn exposition universelle. An insistence on uniformity
in one arena of production is accompanied by a premium on cultural
specificity in another. This system feeds the insecurities of those
who want to police culture and censor what is not perceived as authentic.
I refuse to be either "here"
or "there". Human beings are not trees, someone once said.
Rootlessness may yet be valuable. We are what we are because of
border crossings; we are richer for creative transgression. |
Chaitanya Sambrani (1970) studied Economics and Art Criticism at the Maharaja Sayajireo University, Baroda, India. He has taught art history and theory at the K. Raheja Institute for Architecture University of Mumbsi) and the Canberra School of Art (Australian National University). His work on 20th century Indian art has appeared in books, journais and cataloques in India, Australia and Singapore. He is currently completing his PhD thesis at the Australian National University, Canberra. |
| (1) I borrow the idea of consciousness doubly bound from W. E. B. Du Bios: "It is a peculiar sensation, this double consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity." From The Souls of Black Folk, edited with an introduction by David W. Blight and Robert Gooding-Williams, Boston: Bedford Books, 1997, p. 38.
|
|
|