TheGlobalContemporary:TheRiseofNewArtWorldsafter1989,eds.HansBelting,
AndreaBuddensieg,PeterWeibel(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPressforZKM,Karlsruhe,
2013)RevisedtextAugust27,2012
CONTEMPORARYART:WORLDCURRENTSINTRANSITIONBEYOND
GLOBALIZATION
TERRYSMITH
Thereisnodoubtthatcontemporaryartisticpracticehasbeenshapedaboveallby
theforcesofglobalizationthat,fromthe1980suntilrecently,predominatedwithin
internationaleconomicexchange,drovemuchofworldpolitics,anddisseminated
spectacleasthetheatreofindividualandcollectiveimaginationinthelivesof
peopleallovertheworld.Globalizedperceptionsofcontemporaryarthavebeen
heavilypromotedbymajormuseumsinsearchofcompetitiveedgeascentersof
attractionwithinspectacleculture.Theyareusedbytheinternationalartmarketto
pushuppricesofwhatbecame,around2000,itsmostglamorous,risky,and,in
principle,infinitelyself‐replenishing,sector.ContemporaryArtfeatures
prominentlyinthelifestyleagendasoftherecentlyrich,prevailsinpopularmedia,
andisusedtoanchormassiverevitalizationeffortsornewrealestateprojectsby
citiesandnationscompetingfortouristdollars.Acknowledgingthebroadoutlines
oftheseobviousconnectionsbetweenartandsocialchange,anumberofartcritics,
historians,curators,andtheorists,alongwithcertainstudentsofvisualculture,have
pursuedaninterestingsetofmorespecificquestions.
Wastheglobalizationoftheartsystemprefiguredintheinternationalizationofart
duringthe1960s?Ifso,wasitexpressedinaspectsofthestylesemergentatthat
time––Pop,Minimal,Conceptual,Process,LandArt,etc––orweretheymainly
manifestationsofColdWarconfigurations?Didglobalizedartvaluesspreadfrom
themodernculturalcentersalongwiththeinroadsofmultinationalcapital,
2
intergovernmentalagencies,andnewtechnologies?Ordidtheglobalizationof
contemporaryarttakeholdinartproducingcentersaroundtheworldinways
distinctivetoeachofthem?Inconsideringthesequestions,shouldweinclude
withintheoverallconceptionof“globalization”actionsandattitudessuchasanti‐
globalistresistance,defiantlocalism,criticalcosmopolitanism,andevasive
tangentiality?Shouldweseesuchreactionsasindialecticaloppositiontotop‐down
globalization,asincontinuitywithpreviouscounter‐currents,orasemergent
modesofliving?Scholarsofcontemporaryhistorywonderwhetherthese
developmentscanbeperiodized.Forexample,itisarguablethat,incontrastto
reactiontotheeventsof1989,theideathatglobalizationwastheinevitable,
hegemonicversionoflatecapitalism,andthereforedestinedforworlddomination,
cametoseemlessplausibleduringthefalloutfrom9/11.Sincethen,anumberof
unanticipatedworld‐scalechanges,notablytheincreasingdisjunctionbetweenthe
leadingeconomies––eachwithdifferentmodelsofeconomicorganization,all
prioritizingnationalobjectives,andnoneseekingtouniversalizetheirmodel––has
brokenthehegemonicgripofglobalizationasaworldphenomenon.In2008it
seemedshakyindeed.Doweneedotherideastoguideourthinkingontheseworld‐
picturinglevels?Perhapswecannolongersoconvenientlysubstitute
“globalization”for“modernity”and/or“postmodernity”whenitcomestonaming
theoverarchingframeworkofpresentandfuturepossibility?
The“GlobalArtandtheMuseum”project,ledbytheeditorsofthisvolume,has
pursuedthesequestionsmorethoroughly,andonawidergeographicscale,than
mostothers.AmongitsimportantprecedentsisthecriticalreactiontotheYoung
BritishArtistphenomenononthepartofafewcommentatorswho,ratherthan
swallowthehype,placedtheseartistswithinalargerpictureofcontemporaryartin
theserviceofneoliberalcapitalismandglobalization:forexample,thewritingsof
JohnA.Walker,JulianStallabrass,PeterOsborne,andJonathanHarris.1IntheUS,
bycontrast,thecontemporaryarthistoryacademyandmuchoftheartpresshas
been,withfewexceptions,complicitorquiescentinitsresponse.Againstsuch
passivity,theaggressivepubliccampaignagainstcorporateartwagedduringthe
3
1980sanduptohisrecentdeathbyartcriticRobertHughesdeservesourpraisefor
itsmoralvigorifnotforallofthetermsinwhichitwasput.2WhileIsupport
stronglyeachoftheseenterprises,andregardthemasthebestaccountsoftheartof
ourtimes,ithasbecomeclearinrecentyearsthatcertainassumptionsunderlying
themnolongerfullyaddressthecomplexityofthemostcurrentsituation.
Isitstillthecasethatglobalizationremainstheprevalentphaseinthe“natural”
evolutionofworldeconomicorder?Inhis2012essay“MakingModernityWork:The
ReconciliationofCapitalismandDemocracy,”GideonRose,editoroftheinfluential
journalForeignAffairs,poursscornonthosewhowouldharborsuchdoubts:“The
majorbattlesabouthowtostructuremodernpoliticsandeconomicswerefoughtin
thefirsthalfofthelastcentury,andtheyendedwiththeemergenceofthemost
successfulsystemtheworldhaseverseen…thepostwarorderofmutually
supportingliberaldemocracieswithmixedeconomies.”3Ihavealreadyhintedthat
thisview,aversionofwhatwascalled“theWashingtonconsensus,”isshaky,and
willsaymoreaboutitlater.Theseconddoubtfulassumptionisthat,despiteits
vacuityandbanality,onekindofart,themostglobalizedkind,justisthedominant
formofcontemporaryart,andthattheinstitutionssustainingit(especiallythe
neoliberalmarketsandmuseumsmodeledonthoseintheWest)willkeepitthat
way.Theauthorscitedintheprecedingparagraphwouldagreethattheseare
appallingpresumptions.Theproblemisthat,whilemanyofthesecriticsdofavor
instancesofthereallyquitesubstantialamountofartbeingmadetodaythatdoes
notfallsubjecttotop‐downglobalization,noneofthemoffersanalternativeaccount
ofthestructuresthatareinplay.Negativedescriptionisnotenough.Weneed,I
believe,anaccountthatlocatestheforcesofglobalizationasonesetamongothers,
andthatidentifiestherelativestrengthsofeachofthecontendingforcesduring
recentdecadesandthroughthepresent.
Frommoderntocontemporaryart
4
Letmeoutlinesuchanaccountbyofferingasummaryofthekeyideasunderlying
myworkonlatemodernandcontemporaryvisualart.4Theseideastakeformas
linkedpropositionsabouthowcontemporaryartismadewithin,andhowit
contributestowardthemakingof,contemporarybeing‐in‐the‐world.The
propositionsare,inturn,arthistorical,artcritical,andontological.Becausemymain
purposeistoaccuratelydescribe,andtoexplicitlyintervenewithin,thechanging
connectivitiesbetweenworld‐picturingandplacemakingincontemporaryartand
life,Iwillalsohavesomethingtosayaboutgeopolitics,culturalformationand
aestheticstoday.
Thecorearthistoricalideaistheclaimthataworldwideshiftfrommodernto
contemporaryartwasprefiguredinthemajormovementsinlatemodernartofthe
1950sand1960sinEuroamerica,andbecameexplicitinartworlddiscoursethere
duringthe1970sand1980s.Postmodernistpracticewasanimportantsignalofthis
change,postmodernandpoststructuralisttheoryitsfirstanalysis.Amarket
phenomenoninthemajorcentersduringthe1990s,contemporaryartwasatthe
sametimeexpanded,butalsodivided,byartemergentfromtherestoftheworld.
Sincethen,contemporaryarteverywherehasengagedmoreandmorewith
spectacleculture––withimage‐saturatedcommerce,globalizedlifestyle,andsocial
media––andwithanxietiescausedbypoliticalvolatilityandclimatechange.These
developmentsflowthroughthepresent,thusshapingart’simaginablefutures––in
theshorttermatleast.
Unlikethegreatartstylesofthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies,thesechanges
frommoderntocontemporaryartwerenotamonopolizingphenomenonthat
spreadoutwardsfromapredominantcenter.Rather,theyoccurredatdifferent
timesandindistinctivewaysineachculturalregionandineachart‐producing
locality.Ibelievethatthehistoriesspecifictoeachplaceshouldbeacknowledged,
valued,andcarefullytrackedalongsiderecognitionoftheirinteractionwithother
localandregionaltendencies,andwiththewaxingandwaningofmorepowerful
regionalandinternationalart‐producingcenters.Appliedretrospectively,underthe
5
bannerof“alternativemodernities,”thisapproachhasledtoenrichedhistoriesof
artthroughouttheworldduringthemodernperiod.5Complexitywithin
modernityitselflaidthegroundworkforthediversitythatwenowseeflowing
throughthepresent.
Yetthisdiversityisnot,assomeclaim,bestunderstoodasa“globalart,”a“world
art,”ora“geoaesthetics.”6Certainly,eachofthesetermsspotlightsakeyaspectof
contemporaryart.Nevertheless,howeverlooselydefinedorcriticallyintended,
eachofthemechoesthemetropolitan‐provincialmodelsthatheldduringtheageof
imperialismsandwould‐beempires,butarenowfastbecomingoutdated.Worse,
thesetermsmistakenlysuggestanoverarchingcoherence,aninclinationtoward
hegemonythat,whilepresentwithinpartsofthem,is,Iargue,residualwithinthe
wholeensemble.Rather,whatismoststrikingnowisthecontemporaneousnessof
differentkindsofcontemporaryart,eachofwhich,ifithasan“aesthetic,”hasits
own,internallydiversifiedone.Fromthemulti‐scalarperspectiveofworlds‐within‐
the‐World,wecanseethateachis,atthesametimebutindistinctivewaysandto
specificdegrees,local,regionalandinternational––thatistosay,worldy––in
character.7If,tothismulti‐scalarlayeringofworlds,weaddtheintensified
experienceoftheadjacencyofdifferencenowsharedbypeopleseverywhere,and
everyone’sincreasedawarenessofcotemporality,wecomeclosetopicturingthe
keyelementsoftheontologicalideaaboutcontemporarybeing‐in‐the‐worldthatis
alsoatthecoreofmyrecentthinking.Together,thesecharacteristicsconstituteour
contemporaneity––atermthat,forme,unlocksthepresentconstellationmore
usefullythanconceptionsdependentuponideasofmodernityandpostmodernity.8
Contemporaneouscurrents
What,then,arethedifferentkindsofartthatcoexistincontemporaryconditions?
Asacoreartcriticalidea,Iarguethatthreestrongcurrentsmaybediscernedwithin
theextraordinaryquantityandseeminglylimitlessdiversityofartmadesince
around1989.Remodernist,retrosensationalist,andspectacularisttendenciesfuse
6
intoonecurrent,whichcontinuestopredominateinEuroamericanandother
modernizingartworldsandmarkets,withwidespreadeffectbothinsideand
outsidethoseconstituencies.Againstthese,artcreatedaccordingtonationalist,
identarian,andcriticalprioritieshasemerged,especiallyfrompreviouslycolonized
cultures.Itcameintoprominenceoninternationalcircuitssuchasbiennialsand
travelingtemporaryexhibitions:thisistheartoftransnationaltransitionality.For
manyoftheartists,curatorsandcommentatorsinvolved,ithasevolvedthroughat
leastthreediscernablephases:areactive,anti‐imperialistsearchfornationaland
localistimagery;thenarejectionofsimplisticidentarianismandcorrupted
nationalisminfavorofanaïveinternationalism;followedbyabroadersearchforan
integratedcosmopolitanism,orworldliness,inthecontextofthepermanent
transitionofallthingsandrelations.9Thethirdcurrentcannotbenamedasa
style,aperiod,oratendency.Itproliferatesbelowtheradarofgeneralization.It
resultsfromthegreatincreaseinthenumberofartistsworldwideandthe
opportunitiesofferedbynewinformationalandcommunicativetechnologiesto
millionsofusers.Thesechangeshaveledtotheviralspreadofsmall‐scale,
interactive,DIYart(andart‐likeoutput)thatisconcernedlesswithhighartstyleor
confrontationalpoliticsandmorewithtentativeexplorationsoftemporality,place,
affiliation,andaffect—theever‐more‐uncertainconditionsoflivingwithin
contemporaneityonafragileplanet.
Eachofthethreecurrentsdisseminatesitself(notentirely,butpredominantly)
throughappropriate––indeed,matching––institutionalformats.Remodernism,
retro‐sensationalistandspectacularistartareusuallyfoundinmajorpublicor
dedicatedprivatemuseums,prominentcommercialgalleries,theauctionroomsof
the“greathouses,”andthecelebritycollections,largelyinornearthecentersof
economicpowerthatdrovemodernity.Biennales,alongwithtravelingexhibitions
promotingtheartofacountryorregion,havebeenanidealvenueforpostcolonial
critique.Thesehaveledtotheemergenceofastringofnew,area‐specificmarkets.
Thewidespreadartofcontemporaneityappearsrarelyinsuchvenues––although
someofitdoubtlesswill,astheinstitutionsadaptforsurvivalandcertainartists
7
maketheiraccommodations––preferringalternativespaces,publictemporary
displays,thenet,zinesandotherdo‐it‐yourself‐with‐friendsnetworks.Thereis,of
course,noexclusivematchingoftendencyanddisseminativeformat.Justas
crossoversbetweenwhatIamdiscerninghereascurrentsarefrequentatthelevel
ofartpractice,connectionsbetweentheformatsabound,andartistshavecometo
usethemasgateways,moreorlessaccordingtotheirpotentialandconvenience.
Themuseum,manyartistswillsaytoday,isjustoneevent‐siteamongthemanythat
arenowpossible.Butthismobilityacrossinstitutionalandquasi‐institutionalsites
isrecent,andhasbeenhardwon.Whileconvergencecertainlyoccurs,temporary
alliance––theconfluenceofdifferences––ismorecommon.Intheseconditions––
whereamultiplicityoflanguagescoexistsincloseproximity––translationbecomes
themediumofnecessity,ofpossibilityandofhope.
Whilethesecurrentsarecontemporaneousnow,howmightweimaginethem
changing,inthemselves,inrelationtoeachother,inresponsetoasyet
unpredictablenewcurrentsandevenlesspredictablechangestothewholeflowof
artintheworld?ThefirstofthecurrentsIhavediscernedisdominantnow,butis
historicallyresidualandmayeventuallyfade;thesecondtookshapeduetolocal
necessitiesbutwasalso,everywhere,areactiontothedominanceofEuroamerican
art.Ithasrecentlycometoprominenceandwillprevailforsometime.Thereisa
dialecticalantagonisminoperationbetweenthesetwocurrents,becausebothare
productsofmodernity’sinnerhistoricallogic,itselfdialectical.Butthethirdcurrent
isemergentandwillincreasinglysetthetermsofwhatwillcountinthefuture:
thesetermsmaybedifferentinkindfromthosefirstformedduringmoderntimes.
ThePlanettoOverridetheGlobal
Myargumentaboutthecurrentswithincontemporaryartcanstandwithout
dependenceonthemoregeneralideaofcontemporaneity,butgenuinelyhistorical
hypothesesmustencompassboththegeneralandtheparticular.Theemergent‐
dominant‐residualparadigmthatIjustinvokedisofcoursethatofRaymond
8
Williams:his1970s,NewLeftrevisionoftherelationshipsbetweenthebaseandthe
superstructureinMarxistculturaltheory.10Despiteitsrecognitionofvolatility,
thisparadigmimpliesacontinuationofthedialecticalunfoldingofhumanhistory,
asaprocessofcontinuousresolutionofoppositions.Butthereis,Ibelieve,alarger,
deeperandmoreunsettlingchallengefacingustoday.Bigscaleworldpictures,and
globalforcesandhistoricaltransformations,seemnotonlycompetitivebutalso
incommensurable––indeed,theyseemdangeroustothepointofthreatening
historicalextinction.ThisishowmanyintheWestviewterrorismfromtheRest––a
fearparodiedbytheRussiangroupASE+FintheirWitnessoftheFutureseriesof
postcards.Moredisturbingisthedawningrealizationthattheevolutionofthe
planetandthetrajectoryofhumandevelopmentmayhavediverged,fatally.As
theselargertrajectoriescontendandimplode,thedarkenergyindarkmattercomes
tolight.Weseeiteverywheretoday.Contemporaneityofdifference,itseems,may
beallthatislefttous.
IntroducingtheessaysthatconstitutehisbookTheSeedsofTime,basedonhis
WelleckLecturesgivenattheUniversityofCalifornia,Irvine,in1991,Fredric
Jamesonobservedthat
Evenafterthe‘endofhistory,’therehasseemedtopersistsomehistorical
curiosityofagenerallysystemic––ratherthanmerelyanecdotal––kind:not
merelytoknowwhatwillhappennext,butasamoregeneralanxietyabout
thelargerfateordestinyofourmodeofproductionassuch––aboutwhich
individualexperience(ofapostmodernkind)tellsusthatitmustbeeternal,
whileourintelligencesuggeststhisfeelingtobemostimprobableindeed,
withoutcomingupwithaplausiblescenarioastoitsdisintegrationor
replacement.Itseemstobeeasierforustodaytoimaginethethoroughgoing
deteriorationoftheearthandofnaturethanthebreakdownoflate
capitalism;perhapsthisisduetosomeweaknessinourimaginations.
9
Hegoesonimmediatelytosay:“Ihavecometothinkthatthewordpostmodern
oughttobereservedforthoughtsofthiskind.”11
In1991Jameson’sdiagnosisofthesicknessintheworldpicturewasacute,andthe
conceptofpostmodernityashedeployeditwasthemostaccurateanalysis.Ihave
cometothink,however,thatnow––astheconditionthatJamesondiagnosedsowell
hasbecomeexacerbatedbeyondwhatevenhemighthavepredicted––theconcept
ofcontemporaneityoffersusthebestkeytounlockananalytictoolkitadequateto
understandingourcontemporarycondition.Itdoesnotencompassallofthis
condition,yetisessentialtounpackingitsdauntingcomplexity.Wemusttobeable
toimaginethedeteriorationoftheearthandthebreakdownoflatecapitalism,along
withmanyotherworld‐shapingtrajectories,lessasconstitutingone,essentially
conflictedbutultimatelyunified“modeofproduction,”ratherasunfoldingthrough
timecontemporaneously,asasetofantinomiesratherthaneventually(oratleast
potentially)resolvablecontradictions,theseelementsbeinginrelationshipsof
contingencyratherthanofnecessarydetermination,andthusasgenerativeofthe
paradoxesofthepresent––forexample,thecurrentcoexistenceofworldcapitalism
andtheearthinastateofcrisis,withtheresultantparadoxthatafuturecontaining
bothoftheminapermanentstateofcrisisisallthatmostcommentatorsseemable
toimagine.
Isitpossibletomoveourthinkingaboutthecontemporaneityofdifferencetowards
aframeworkthatwillencompasspositiveactioninthefaceofimpendingdisaster?
InherDeathofaDiscipline,GayatriChakravortySpivakurgedstudentsofwritingto
“crossbordersundertheauspicesofaComparativeLiteraturesupplementedby
AreaStudies”byimaginingthemselvesas“planetaryratherthancontinental,global,
orworldy.”Moreexplicitly,shestated:
Iproposetheplanettooverridetheglobe.Globalizationistheimpositionof
thesamesystemofexchangeeverywhere.Inthegridworkofelectronic
capital,weachievethatabstractballcoveredwithlatitudesandlongitudes,
10
cutbyvirtuallines,oncetheequatorandthetropicsandsoon,nowdrawn
bytherequirementsofGeographicalInformationSystems.Totalkplanet‐talk
bywayofanunexaminedenvironmentalism,referringtoanundivided
‘natural’spaceratherthanadifferentiatedpoliticalspace,canworkinthe
interestsofthisglobalizationinthemodeoftheabstractassuch…Theglobe
isonourcomputers.Noonelivesthere.Itallowsustothinkthatwecanaim
tocontrolit.Theplanetisinthespeciesofalterity,belongingtoanother
system;andyetweinhabitit,onloan.Itisnotreallyamenabletoaneat
contrastwiththeglobe.Icannotsay“theplanet,ontheotherhand.”WhenI
invoketheplanet,Ithinkoftheeffortrequiredtofigurethe(im)possibilityof
thisunderivedintuition.12
ThereismuchtobedonetoinvestwithsubstanceSpivak’sproposalthat“theplanet
shouldoverridetheglobe”inourimaginativeworld‐picturing.Tothatend,letus
nowshiftgearsupthroughthescaleofthepsychic,social,economicandpolitical
worlds‐within‐theWorldthat––layeredtogetherandframedbytheearthwithinthe
universe––constituteourplanetarysphere.Thecurrentsinthevisualandotherarts,
Ihavebeenarguing,aremanifestationsofthegreatchangesthathaveoccurred
sincethemid‐twentiethcenturyinthedistributionofpowerwithinandbetween
theselevels.Onthepoliticalandeconomiclevels,itisnowacommonplaceto
observethat,whiletheeraoftheEuropeanandNorthAmericancolonizersseemsto
beindecline,theirenormousinfluencepersists,andistakingnewforms.Some,in
theyearsafter1989,believedthattheUnitedStatesstoodaloneastheworld’s“last
remainingsuperpower,”astheonly“hyperpower.”However,itsfailuresin
internationalpolicyandnationalgovernanceduringtheyearssince2001areclear
evidencethatnonationretainsthekindorextentofgeopoliticalinfluenceonce
wieldedbytheadvancedcountriesofthemodernperiod.Theeconomicriseof
China,India,Brazilandothersiseverywhereacknowledged,butitremainstobe
seenwhethertheireffortsatglobalandregionalinfluencewillbeofthesamekind.
13
11
Inthetwenty‐firstcentury,nationstatesnolongeralignthemselvesaccordingtothe
four‐tiersystemofFirst,Second,Third,andFourthWorlds.Multinational
corporationsbasedintheEuroamericancentersnolongercontroltheworld’s
economy,justsignificantpartsofit.NewglobalcorporationsarelocatedinSouth,
East,andNorthAsia.Manufacturing,distribution,andservicesarethemselves
dispersedaroundtheglobe,andlinkedtodeliverypointsbynewtechnologiesand
old‐fashionedlabor.Somewouldarguethat,withglobalization,or,morebroadly,
within“thepostwarorderofmutuallysupportingliberaldemocracieswithmixed
economies,”capitalismhasachieveditspureform.Certainly,thelivingstandardof
millionshasbeenlifted,butonlyatenormouscosttosocialcohesion,peaceful
cohabitation,andnaturalresources.Nationalandlocalgovernments,aswellas
manyinternationalagencies,seektoregulatethisflowandassuageitsworstside
effects—sofarwithoutconspicuoussuccess.Theinstitutionsthatdrovemodernity
seem,todate,incapableofdealingwiththemostimportantunexpectedoutcomeof
theirefforts:themassivedisruptionstonaturalecosystemsthatnowseemto
threatenthesurvivaloftheEarthitself.Despitetheeffortsofvestedintereststo
foreclosedebateontheseissues(notablythecampaignsagainstclimatechange
science),consciousnessofourinescapablyshared,mutuallydependentexistenceon
thisfragileplanetisgrowing.
Manyartistsworkingtodayimaginethephysicalconjunctionofanumberof
differentkindsofworld:theintimate,personalsenseof“myworld”;theclose
neighborhoodofthelocal;nearbyworlds,thenincreasinglydistantbeyonds,untila
senseoftheWorldingeneralisreached.Inbetweenthese,andtransversingthem,
aretransitoryspaces,“no‐places,”passagesofphysicaltraffickingandvirtual
interconnection.Thismulti‐scalarpicturealsoevokesboththegeophysical
adjacencyoftheseworldsandtheirculturalco‐temporality.Itrecognizesthe
differentialratesoftheirmovementthroughactualtime,andthemobilityofthose
whoselivesweavebetweenandthroughthem.Whenitcomestoindividualand
collectiveexperience,antinomialfrictionisthemoststrikingfeatureofrelationships
betweenpeopleandtheirworlds,howeverpersistenteverydaynessmightbe.
12
Withincontemporaryexperience,onealsoseesgesturesofconnection,of
reconciliation,andofcoexistence.Bothfrictionandconnectionareessential
componentsofthe(im)possiblefigureofplanetarity.Toimaginethisfigureisthe
taskthatthepresentrequiresfromartistsofallkinds,indeed,fromallworkersin
therealmsoftheimagination.
Curatingcontemporaneousworlds
Thegreat,historictaskofthebiennialexhibition––tosurveytheartbeingmade
aroundtheworldtoday,andtopositionlocalartinrelationtoit––isretreatingasits
maingoal.Instead,manylarge‐scaleexhibitionsattempttoshowcrucialaspectsof
contemporaryart’scontemporaneity––thatis,it’sbeing‐in‐the‐world,thisworld,as
itisnow,andasitmightbe.
Todate,nosingleexhibitionhasattemptedtoexhibitthethreecurrentsthat,in
theirdifferentiationandconnectedness,constitutecontemporaryart’swaysof
worldbeing––perhapsbecausethiswouldbeakintomappingtheworldwithamap
thatwouldbeindistinguishablefromtheworlditself.Someexhibitions,including
TheGlobalContemporaryanddOCUMENTA(13),offercarefullyconsidered
proposalsaboutart’scontemporaneity,thatis,itscurrentworldsituatedness.They
explicitlyquestiontermssuchas“globalart,”or“worldart,”infavorofartthatis,in
somestrongsense,“worldy.”Toshowsuchart,andatthesametimeshowthe
worldsinwhichitisbeingmade,hasbecomethechallengefacingambitious
exhibition‐makerstoday.Certainly,itisthegoalofthosewhowouldmakean
exhibitionthataspiresbeyondlocalsignificance.
Everyoneembarkingonprojectsofthiskindisacutelyawareofcontroversial
precedents,suchas“Primitivism”in20thCenturyArt:AffinitiesoftheTribaland
Modern(1984),Magiciensdelaterre(1989)andDocumenta11(2000‐2002).12
Justasimportanthasbeenthegroundworklaidinexhibitionsthathave,since1989,
profiledthemajorchangesinartindifferentpartsoftheworld.Theseinclude(to
13
namejustoneofanumberfromeachcontinent,withapreferenceforanexhibition
thattraveled)CitiesontheMove:ContemporaryAsianartattheTurnofthe21st
Century(1997‐8),AftertheWall:ArtandCultureinPostCommunistEurope(1999),
InvertedUtopias:AvantGardeArtinLatinAmerica(2004),andAfricaRemix:
ContemporaryArtofaContinent(2005and2008).Eachofthese,alongwithmany
others,hasasked:whatisdistinctiveaboutthecontemporaryartofourregion,how
doesitderivefrom,breakawayfrom,orstandatanangleto,artmadeduringour
modernity,andhowdoesitrelateto“international”(Western,thentransnational)
contemporaryart?Theseareartcritical,andthenarthistorical,questions,towhich
theseexhibitionsgivecuratorialanswers.14
ThecuratorsofTheGlobalContemporaryinsistedthattheywantedtohighlightthe
importanceofa“globalpracticethathaschangedcontemporaryartasradicallyas
‘newmedia’haddonepreviously.”15AtZKM,locusclassicus,ifthereisone,ofnew
mediaanddigitalart,thisclaimhasastrongresonance.Leavingasidedebateabout
whether“newmedia”has,infact,hadasradicalanimpactasthecomparison
implies,thisisapowerfulgeneralizationaboutcontemporaryart.Anumberof
contemporaryartistsexplicitlystatethatachievingsuchapracticeistheirgoal,and
many,suchastheRAQsMediaCollective,areamongitsmostarticulatetheorists.16
Somehaveposeditasagenerality,forexample,Indianculturaltheoristandcurator
NancyAdajaniadrawsonEnwezor’sidentificationofawidespread“willto
globality”onthepartofpeopleseverywheretocharacterize“globalism”as“the
foundationalpremise”ofherpractice,onethatis“notmerelyareactionto
globalisation,butastheaudaciousandpositivereflectionofadesiretoreleasethe
culturalselftowardsothersinamannerthatbypassesdependencyandembraces
collaboration,thusmakingforaproductivecosmopolitanism.”17
TheclaimthattheartexhibitedatKarlsruhedemonstratestheemergenceofa
“globalpracticethathaschangedcontemporaryartasradicallyas‘newmedia’had
donepreviously”isacuratorial,criticalandhistoricalideaasimportantasanythat
havebeenproposedinthepasttwodecades.ItisidenticaltothatImakeabout
14
whatIcallthetransnationaltransition:that,inthemanyart‐producingcentersin
therestoftheworldoutsideEuroamerica,avarietyoflocalnegotiationsbetween
indigeneity,tradition,modernity,andglobalizationled,first,totheforgingof
distinctkindsofmodernart,andthen,inartisticexchangeswithinnearbyregions
andwithdistantcenters,theemergenceofspecifickindsofcontemporaryart.These
developmentshavebeenunderwaysincethe1950sinAfrica,the1960sinLatin
America,the1970sintheCentralDesertofAustralia,the1980sinCentralEurope
andChina,the1990sinSoutheastAsia,the2000sinIndiaandtheMiddleEast,etc..
18Takentogether(theirseparateoriginsconnectingintoaworldcurrent)they
amounttoasubstantialreorientationofthewayartismadeintheworld:theyclaim
valueforthemakingvisibleoflocalissuesandtheyhavebecomeanimportantway
inwhichbothlocalandglobalinequitiesarerenegotiatedtowardrespectfor
difference.Indoingboth,theyareartists’contributionstowardthecoming‐into‐
beingofwhathasbeencalleda“newinternationalism”ora“cosmopolitan
aesthetic.”19
Inmoregeneralterms,wecanseethatinrecentyearsmanysurvey,biennialand
mega‐exhibitionshavedemonstratedthatthesecondcurrentisamajorforceinthe
world’sart.Ofcourse,therearemanychallengesfacingartistsandcuratorswhoare
activeinthiscurrent,notleastistheseductionofeasyexoticism,theinvitationto
fallforaesthetictourismoftheOther,ortosimplifythelocalspecificityofwork—in
otherwords,tobecomethestereotypethatuncriticalaudiencesintheWest
instinctivelydesire.Yettheseexhibitionshavehelpedusseetheshapeofitsflow
throughtheregionsthattheytreatedandinsomeofthenationsthatconstituteeach
region.Theyalertustotheconnectionsbetweenregionsandthosethatreachacross
towhatwereoncethecolonialcenters.Insomecases,theseoldcentersremain
importantforumsthroughwhichartmustpasstohaveinternationalpurport.Yet
newonesconstantlyemerge,drivenfirstbyart,withmarketsfollowingonbehind.
(Ifthereverseoccurs,asishappeningtheMiddleEastatthemoment,themarket
soonretreats.)Amongthenextstepstobetakenbyhistoriansandcuratorsisthe
researching,stagingandcirculationofretrospectivesofmajorartistsfromthe
15
decolonizingregionswhohavemadebreakthroughsofworld‐picturingrelevance.
Forexample,EmilyKameKngwarryeandElAnatsui.20
Someremarksinconclusion.IhavedescribedwhatIbelievetobetheactual
situationofcontemporaryartwithincontemporaryconditions.Iamnotadvocating
thisstateasdesirableorideal––farfromit.Ibelievethatwemustmovefromthe
presentsituation,inwhichacrisiscontemporaneityofconflictedandmutually
destructiveincommensurabilitiesisthenorm,toastateinwhichtheplanetand
everyoneandeverythingonitcanimagineaconstructivemutualitybasedonan
inspiredsharingofourdifferences.“Contemporaneity”and“planetarity”arethe
wordsIhavecometothinkshouldbereservedforthoughtsofthiskind.Theyopen
ustothemultiplicitousinteractionsthroughwhichwecontinuouslymakeour
worlds‐with‐the‐World,aworldstillbeingglobalizedatthesametimethatitmoves,
quickly,beyondglobalization.
1.KeytextsbytheseauthorsincludeJohnA.Walker(withRitaHatton),
Supercollector:ACritiqueofCharlesSaatchi(London:Ellipses,2000);Julian
Stallabrass,ArtIncorporated:TheStoryofContemporaryArt(Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress,2004);andJonathanHarrised.,GlobalizationandContemporary
Art(London:Wiley‐Blackwell,2011).
2.RobertHughes,NothingIfNotCritical:SelectedEssaysonArtandArtists(London:
Harvill,1990).
3.GideonRose,“MakingModernityWork:TheReconciliationofCapitalismand
Democracy,”inGideonRoseandJonathanTeppermaneds.,TheClashofIdeas(New
York:ForeignAffairs,January/February2012),2.
4.TerrySmith,WhatisContemporaryArt?(Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress,
2009);andTerrySmith,ContemporaryArt:WorldCurrents(London:LaurenceKing;
16
UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Pearson/PrenticeHall,2011).Arthistoriansinterestedin
historiographyandmethodologymightliketoconsult“TheStateofArtHistory:
ContemporaryArt,”ArtBulletin,vol.XCII,no.4(December2010):366‐383.
5.See,forexample,KobenaMercered.,CosmopolitanModernisms(London:Institute
ofInternationalVisualArt;Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,2005).
6.See,forexample,CharlotteByder,GlobalArtworldInc.:OntheGlobalizationof
ContemporaryArt(UppsalaUniversityPress,2004),PeterWeibelandAndrea
Buddenseigeds.,ContemporaryArtandtheMuseum:AGlobalPerspective
(Ostfildern:HatjeCantz,2007),HansBeltingandAndreaBuddenseigeds.,The
GlobalArtWorld:Audiences,MarketsandMuseums(Ostfildern:HatjeCantz,2009);
KittyZijlmansandWilfredvanDammeeds.,WorldArtStudies:ExploringConcepts
andApproaches(Amsterdam:Valiz,2008);andAmyJ.EliasandChristianMoraru
eds.,ThePlanetaryTurn:Art,DialogueandGeoaestheticsinthe21stCentury
(Evanstown,Il.:NorthwesternUniversityPress,2013).
7.DiscussedinmoredetailinTerrySmith,“CurrentsofWorld‐Makingin
ContemporaryArt,”WorldArt,vol.1,no.2(2011):20‐36.ValuableessaysbyIan
McLeanandMarshaMeskimmonmayalsobefoundinthisissue.
8.On“contemporaneity”asaworld‐picturingterm,seeTerrySmith,Okwui
EnwezorandNancyCondeeeds.,AntinomiesofArtandCulture:Modernity,
Postmodernity,Contemporaneity(Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,2008).
9.TheimpactofthiscurrentontheworldasawholehasturneditintowhatOkwui
Enwezornames“ThePostcolonialConstellation,”seeSmith,Enwezor,Condeeeds.,
AntinomiesofArtandCulture:Modernity,Postmodernity,Contemporaneity,207‐234.
17
10.RaymondWilliams,“BaseandSuperstructureinMarxistCulturalTheory,”New
LeftReview,vol.1,no.8(November‐December1973):3‐16;inJohnHigginsed.,The
RaymondWilliamsReader(Oxford:Blackwell,2001),158‐178.
11.FredricJameson,TheSeedsofTime(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,
2004),xi‐xii.
12.GayatriChakravortySpivak,DeathofaDiscipline(NewYork:Columbia
UniversityPress,2003),72.
13.TheeditorofForeignAffairsisinnodoubtaboutthewaythingsaregoing:“The
much‐ballyhooed‘riseoftherest’hasinvolvednotthediscreditingofthepostwar
orderofWesternpoliticaleconomybutitsreinforcement:thecountriesthathave
risenhavedonesobyembracingglobalcapitalismwhilekeepingsomeofit
destabilizingattributesmincheck,andhaveliberalizedtheirpolitiesandsocieties
alongtheway(andwillfounderunlesstheycontinuetodoso).”GideonRose,
“MakingModernityWork:TheReconciliationofCapitalismandDemocracy,”6.
14.IdevoteachapterofThinkingContemporaryCurating(NewYork:Independent
CuratorsInternational,2012)toasurveyofexhibitionsthathavetackledthese
questions,includingtheremarkablenumberthathavetrackedfeminist
contributionsduringthepastfourorfivedecades.SeeSmith,Thinking
ContemporaryCurating,chapter4.
15.HansBeltingandAndreaBuddensieg,“Introduction,”TheGlobalContemporary,
exhibitionguide,ZKMKarlsruhe,2011,6.
16.Seethelink“print”athttp://www.raqsmediacollective.net/print.aspx.For
example,theJanuary2012discussion,“HastheMomentoftheContemporaryCome
andGone?”
18
17.NancyAdajania,“TimetoRestagetheWorld:TheorisingaNewandComplicated
SenseofSolidarity,”inMirandaWallaceed.,21stCentury:ArtintheFirstDecade
(Brisbane:QueenslandArtgallery/GalleryofModernArt,2010),222‐229.Forthe
internalquotation,seeOkwuiEnwezor,“TheBlackBox,”inDocumenta11:Platform
5(Ostfildern‐Ruit:HatjeCantz,2002),42.
18.ItracktheminthecentralchaptersofContemporaryArt:WorldCurrents.
19.INIVA(theInstituteforInternationalVisualArts)hasarguedthefirstsincethe
1990s;MarshaMeskimmonprofilesthelatterinherbookContemporaryArtandthe
CosmopolitanImagination(London:Routledge,2010).SeealsoNikos
Papastergiadis,CosmopolitanismandCulture(London:PolityPress,2012).
20.See,forexample,Utopia:TheGeniusofEmilyKameKngwarreye,NationalArt
Center,Tokyo,andMuseumofAustralia,Canberra,2008;ElAnatsui:WhenILast
WrotetoYouAboutAfrica,RoyalOntarioMuseum,Toronto,2010.Formyreviewof
thelatter,seeNka:JournalofAfricanArt,no.28(Spring2011):142–45;foranessay
onEmilyKameKngwarreye,see“KngwarreyeWomanAbstractPainter,”inJennifer
Isaacs,ed.,EmilyKameKngwarreye(Sydney:CraftsmanHouse,1998).
Recommended
