Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Third Text
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctte20
To cite this article: Angela Dimitrakaki (2012) Art, Globalisation and the Exhibition Form, Third Text, 26:3,
305-319, DOI: 10.1080/09528822.2012.679039
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09528822.2012.679039
In 2007 Third Text published an article by Thierry de Duve titled The Glocal
and the Singuniversal: Reflections on Art and Culture in the Global World.1
Based on a 2006 talk in Mumbai, the essay was to generate further international interest in the coming years including as a reprint in Holland
and as the theoretical centrepiece of a conference in Spain.2 De Duves
main argument focused on how a past epoch in the history of aesthetics
could help us rethink arts position in present-tense capitalism. De Duve juxtaposed the potential universality of the singular aesthetic judgement, as
described by Kant, with the glocalism of the contemporary art scene and
the art biennial. Engaging the particular (singularity, local) and the general
(universality, global), his analysis can be a starting point for apprehending
the art exhibition as framing our encounter with art today. This is the
approach to which this article seeks to contribute, an intensifying dialogue
of multiple foci and outlooks but more or less addressing the advent of a
new era for art in globalisation. I will not explain this dubious our to
begin with, as one aim is to consider its constitution and implications for
bringing forth a different artworld a major issue posed by de Duve.
De Duves own starting point was the 140 art biennials dotting the transurban artworld map a figure that, even if approximate, indicates the
massive expansion of the exhibition as a cultural dominant today. In
seeing biennials as an exemplary feature of the global artworld, de Duve
called attention to the instrumentalisation of art for purposes allegedly external to it, as biennials have been consistently associated with economic opportunism and forced urban or even regional regeneration that benefits capital
rather than those deemed to be in need of benefits. This emphasis on arts
Third Text ISSN 0952-8822 print/ISSN 1475-5297 online # Third Text (2012)
http://www.tandfonline.com
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09528822.2012.679039
306
307
9. See http://www.sil.org/
literacy/litfacts.htm,
accessed 30 November
2010.
10. See http://www.ifpri.org/
publication/2010-globalhunger-index, accessed 30
November 2010.
11. See Jacques Rancie`re, The
Emancipated Spectator,
Verso, London, 2009,
where it is stated: It [postMarxist and postSituationist wisdom] also
depicts the law of
domination as a force
seizing on anything that
claims to challenge it. It
makes any protest a
spectacle and any spectacle
a commodity, pp 32 33.
12. De Duve, op cit, p 687:
whereas all works of art
are definitely cultural
goods, some are not
reducible to cultural goods,
and that these are the ones
that matter, the ones I
would call, using an oldfashioned word, authentic
works of art. Emphasis
added.
13. See http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/
authentic, accessed 30
November 2010.
308
For nearly twenty years now, speaking about our shared historical
moment has meant speaking about globalisation. As the term glocal
(deployed by de Duve) suggests, globalisation is not necessarily the negation of the local or the national but rather the inscription of the particular
and the contextual associated with identity in the global operation of
capital. But globalisation is also an unfortunate term, as its emphasis
on the globe designates a geographical spread of capital. Contemporary
capital, however, moves in other dimensions as well. Globalisation can
be understood as a particular stage in capitalist economy where capital
operates fully as a social relation, making any neat distinction between
economy and culture, economy and geography, economy and
life and, predictably, economy and art hard to grasp. In the end,
only a voluntarist gesture would authorise arts exceptionalism in this
dynamic context, so that a rescue operation might be worthwhile. But
such a misguided struggle would soon have to face capitalist realism.14
For example, the old Marxist thesis according to which art registered as a
form of non-alienated labour no longer holds. The hegemonic presence and
structural prevalence of immaterial labour (another unsatisfactory term for
some Marxists and non-Marxists) in the world created by global capital
means that practically all work now can count as productive labour
and therefore it becomes easier to see how dimensions of subjectivity such
as gender are manipulated artificially to sustain hierarchies of highly
valued and undervalued immaterial labour (art-making and domestic care
work, respectively). Art is emphatically integrated in the production logic
of contemporary capital, and, as Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello have convincingly argued, the age of artistic critique that coincided with postmodernism is seen, from the vantage point of our shared historical
experience, to have played a key role in launching the labour regime that
gives us contemporary capitalism as habitually reviewed in recent years.15
Pascal Gielen has suggested that a general process of immaterialisation
marked the 1970s, including the gradual exodus of the curator from the
museum and the rise of the exhibition as the realisation of a good (curatorial) idea.16 And as he points out, autonomy including arts autonomy is
greatly valued in this new regime, where (reversing the Nazi camp slogan)
freedom creates work.17 An autonomous aesthetic sphere that would
create autonomous aesthetic values would be most welcome for contemporary capital, because freedom/creativity/unpredictability in production is
now a prerequisite for exploitation. Where and when does arts autonomy,
especially when understood as resistance to the obvious forms of capitalist
exchange, enter the cycles of capitalist production? And what does this
have to do with the autonomisation of the exhibition, exemplified as this
is in the independence of biennials (exhibitions outside museums), which
reveals the contextual application of a generic exhibition form?
Let us consider a radical tendency in contemporary art. This radical art
involves, one way or another, the gift which some might be inclined to
see as evidence of an actually existing non-capitalist economy, proof that
not all relations around us are capitalist. This heartening idea is incredibly
popular at present.18 The anthology What We Want Is Free provides a
shockingly rich archive of projects dominated by the logic of the gift, but
here is a rather famous example: in Francis Alyss When Faith Moves Moun-
309
310
25. Ibid
26. The campaign was
launched in February 2012.
See http://www.
keepwalkinggreece.gr/,
accessed 26 February 2012.
27. For a description of the
project see the Capital and
Gender site at http://www.
scca.org.mk/capital/public.
htm
311
312
travel (of humans, signs etc) as formal elements of the artwork in the age of
(capitals) empire.31 Altermodern opted to rethink the journey as part of a
new grand narrative (globalisation) and make it meaningful in this new
context by associating it with translation, transcoding and transcription,
that is, with the communication of ideas and affects as widely as possible.
What both shows made clear is that global capital has raised a problem of
periodisation within contemporary art, which can now be divided into two
phases, overlapping and yet distinct in their approach to the political.32
Postmodernism (the first phase) proposed a politics of representation,
especially evident in feminist and postcolonial work in both practice and
theory. Globalisation (the second phase) proposes a politics of knowledge.
The object to be known is globalisation as such and it is an appropriate,
unknown object because globalisation, as the consolidation of global
capitalist relations, is becoming manifest as a much resisted reorganisation
of labour which partly explains why so many artists and theorists in
recent years address labour in their work.33
This shift from representation to knowledge in contemporary art
occurs as the very concept of representation is in crisis beyond art, and
principally in relation to the polity. In Paul Virilios words:
31. The term journey format
is used by Nicolas
Bourriaud in his
unpaginated catalogue
essay Altermodern, in
Bourriaud, ed,
Altermodern: Tate
Triennial, op cit. The term
exhibition form used
throughout my essay is
inspired by Bourriauds
journey-form used in
Altermodern, the
exhibition guide, op cit,
and Altermodern
Manifesto: Postmodernism
Is Dead, op cit.
32. Bourriaud recognises this
but in reality finds it hard
to cut the ties to
postmodernism, naming
the 1990s second phase the
second postmodern
period. Bourriaud,
Altermodern catalogue
essay, op cit, unpaginated.
33. See Angela Dimitrakaki,
The Spectacle and Its
Others: Labour, Conflict
and Art in the Age of
Global Capital, in
Jonathan Harris, ed,
Globalization and
Contemporary Art, WileyBlackwell, Chichester,
2011, p 192.
34. Paul Virilio, Art as Far as
the Eye Can See, Julie
Rose, trans, Berg, Oxford
2005, pp 119 120
. . . even while the acceleration of art history, at the beginning of the 20th
century, merely prefaced the imminent ousting of the figure, meaning of all
figuration, the acceleration of reality contemporary with our 21st century. . . undermines all representation, not only pictorial or architectural
but especially theatrical, to the detriment of the political stage of representative democracy.34
The DIY logic of the blog, the reluctance of first world voters to vote, the
experiment of a European Union where millions have been persuaded to
exchange their right to full citizenship for better work in another EU
country all these are expressions of the crisis of representative democracy, which seems particularly obvious following the emergence of Direct
Democracy protest movements in Europe and elsewhere throughout the
2000s. An essential difference between postmodernism and globalisation
is that whereas in the former case identity politics suggested a belief in the
possibility of expanding representation, in the latter it is widely acknowledged that the circle of non-representable subjects, individual or collective (if these terms are appropriate), is instead expanding. Indeed, we
can see in Michael Hardt and Antonio Negris figure of the multitude
an attempt to resolve the problem of the non-representability of social
beings who are otherwise found to play a key role in both producing
and resisting the empire of capital.
This crisis of representation informs and shapes my inquiry into the
role of the art exhibition. For the exhibition logic is intimately connected
to representation. Representation is an ontological feature of the exhibition, which acquires sharper contours in cases of multicultural and multiethnic shows. But as authentic art today tends to be biopolitical, affective and about knowing rather than representing the social, we are also
forced to ask: is the exhibition the optimal mode of our encounter
with art? And why do we have so many exhibitions exactly when art
questions its commitment to representation? What I am asking here is
whether, even when a specific exhibition aims to render visible art as
resistance, the exhibition form is inherently predisposed to undermine
313
and tame or else manage radical forms of art under capitals global
rule. Seen in this light, the proliferation of biennials, as the pinnacle of a pervasive exhibition culture, becomes a mere symptom of a more general
problem. For example, does it really matter that Magiciens de la terre
was not a biennial? Taking place in 1989, precisely when the seismic collapse of Soviet culture propelled us into capitals global empire, Magiciens
de la terre effectively declared the representability of cultures, offering a
proper spectacle of otherness. Representation and spectacle are intimately
connected. By invoking a familiar cultural otherness, Magiciens de la
terre asserted the value of continuing with a representation paradigm in
the institutions of art at the very moment when a totality populated by displaced, unrepresentable subjects was emerging. What I want to suggest is
then twofold: first, that there are good reasons for art criticism on the left
to identify an art paradigm that departs from the impulse to represent;
second, that the identification of such a paradigm might necessitate a
break from the hegemonic exhibition form intimately connected with the
market which ultimately it serves. To say this is not to crave the good old
days or to cite the easy target (the market) but to ask whether privileged
capitalist forms place limits on our imagination of alternatives imagining
alternatives, for example, to the exhibition form, a merely historical form
rather than an essential framework for art as a historically evolving
terrain of human action and productivity in its own right.35
314
315
316
video essayists generate critical knowledge, we note that critique has lost
its status as a noun and has been transformed into an adjective (critical).45
When Biemann makes a video essay called Black Sea Files (2005), image,
text and voiceover construct a panorama of data and commentary that
intends to incite critique. The same happens when Marcelo Exposito
and Nuria Vila make a series of video essays entitled Entre Suenos
(2004 2007) offering, in the words of Brian Holmes, a multi-part evocation of the new social struggles by attending to history in the streets.46
In all these cases, the artists work consists of entering and acting in the
terrain of socio-economic relations. Very often the video essay and the
socially functional artwork implicate spaces of social unrest (with the
notable and interesting exception of many socially functional artworks
championed by Bourriaud, for which he was reprimanded by Bishop).47
Both paradigms prioritise a physical, material setting as the habitus of
the social what we might call globalisation on the ground. This is
important because globalisation in the 1990s, at least in cultural discourse, was often perceived in terms of a virtual global village congregating in cyberspace. The turn to material spaces via the video essay and the
socially functional artwork occurs as the global cyber-village mutates into
Facebook, a technological platform for recontextualising self-representation within the collective policing ethos appropriate to a society of
control. Instead, technology in the video essay is explicitly instrumentalised as a tool for creating and interrogating social documents including
the possibility of producing such documents on behalf of others.
What the above suggests is that these two radical art paradigms claim
globalisation, as a series of interlocked socio-economic spaces, in terms of
a production site. This is their radical gesture and, arguably, the one
undone by the exhibition form.
317
318
several unattended parties featuring youthful bands in the vast de Chiricotype emptiness surrounding the premises of the 2009 Athens Biennale.51 It
is not therefore so easy for the institutions of art to become proper, open
and unpredictable social spaces. What they seem to become instead is laboratories for experimentation with the social, which is quite a different
thing both ethically and politically.
In Biemanns Black Sea Files, in which she examines the oil geography
surrounding the Caspian region, the narrator poses an important question: is knowledge produced in the dangerous zones better than that produced in libraries? The question implies that the production of
knowledge in the sites where globalisations effects acquire concrete
form entails a rather particular experiential and corporeal dimension,
one immanent in the activity of the labouring subject. It also circumscribes contemporary artistic production in the broader processes of
labour geared to the production of information and knowledge, which
means that the formally accepted distinction between artistic labour
and other forms of labour loses its hard contours. The autonomy of art
is not hereby challenged because of arts focus on the social but as a
result of the form that the artists labour takes, that is, the process of producing the work as such. It is this labour, actualised only in the spaces of
the social and not in laboratories, that the exhibition form conceals from
view, treating it at best as fieldwork.
One problem of Bourriauds re-conceptualisation of modernity in
Altermodern is thus the failure to locate the travelling artist as a labouring
body and inscribe the latter within the forms of productivity privileged by
global capital for example, capitals management of migration. This
happens because Bourriaud forgets what is really at stake in the transition
from postmodernism to globalisation, that is, the displacement of a cultural
subject by a new economic subject, and this is also what de Duves argument disregards. For Bourriaud, altermodernity arises out of discussions
between agents from different cultures. Stripped of a centre, it can only
be polyglot. Altermodernity is characterised by translation. . .52 This reiteration of the primacy of the cultural could justify a reviewers re-naming of
the show as mytho-modern.53 Cultural translation is connected with the
exhibition form in a complex way: on the one hand, the art exhibition is the
only place where cultural translation can take place as it provides a democratic space, an artificial and tellingly costly heterotopia, where economic
hierarchies between cultures can be temporarily suspended (if, of course,
these cultures can afford inclusion in the exhibitions representational
heaven). On the other hand, there is not much need for cultural translation
in exhibitions since they all nowadays deploy the glocal idiom, as de Duve
rightly suggests. Mass culture may in fact have a point in ridiculing the
concept of cultural translation which, after its tragic failure in postmodernitys identity politics, returns in the age of neoliberalisms crisis as farce. I
am thinking here of a cultural good, the film Bruno (2009) in which an
Austrian male model tries to resolve the Middle East conflict through diplomatic negotiations but confuses hummus with Hamas. In contrast with
his failure to achieve results in the Middle East by reference to culture,
Bruno fares much better in Africa, where he negotiates in economic
terms and thus manages to communicate perfectly with the locals: he
gets to adopt a black baby through a transaction in which a human
beings exchange value is that of an iPod.
319
What I am trying to suggest is that a re-thinking of universality is misguided in its prioritisation of communication between cultures or the
possibility of a transcultural aesthetic gesture over encounters between
labouring subjects and/or sites of production. When de Duve says
there is no question that the reasons for the proliferation of art biennials
are mainly if not exclusively economic, a comment based on the
acknowledgement that culture sells, this is only part of the story.54
The dominance and ubiquity of the exhibition form does not just play a
central role in launching art as commodity. Above and beyond this, it
is commensurate with a service and experience economy that reduces
the aesthetic to an outcome of affective labour to which only a privileged
constituency, the art community or Karlholms secondary public, can
afford access. Consequently, the dominance and ubiquity of the exhibition form is entangled with a question of greater resonance about postFordism: where does immaterial labour emerge as hegemonic, if it is
not seen as a random effect of current relations of production? The provisional answer is that capitalist institutions those that privilege, for
example, the exhibition form are also sites where a certain differentiation and hierarchical valuation of labour occurs. The exhibition form
is typically where co-operative labour succumbs to authorship and
where the organising activity of the artist (or artist collectives) amounts
to ownership of the artwork first by the artist. Today it is therefore
not enough merely to assert that art is a commodity or art is more
than a commodity and accept the mediation provided by the exhibition
form as a necessary evil. Instead, attention must shift to the process by
which the organisation and valuation of labour creates the tendency of
art to become a commodity. If Marxist critics can assert that today
Marxist aesthetics must grapple with. . . arts position of both being
and not being incorporated, we should perhaps strive to understand
precisely how, where and why this contradiction (rather than ambivalence) gets perpetuated assuming (as I imagine de Duve would want
it) that we can draw a line between what constitutes, in specific historical
conditions, radical art and what might constitute a radical encounter
with art.55
De Duve makes this interesting statement: We would lose something
essential to the human condition were we to take for granted that the
exhibitions we visit contain art simply because they are announced as
exhibitions of art.56 In paraphrasing this, we would miss something
essential in our understanding of how the human condition exists only
historically, were we to take for granted that the exhibitions we visit
contain merely art. They also contain the operative structures and processes through which art is uprooted from its complex affective and
material context where everything is possible and delivered as the neutralised aftermath of real action in which case, indeed, the only thing left to
do with art is to proffer judgements about whether it is art.
54. De Duve, op cit, p 682
55. Day, Edwards, Mabb,
op cit, p 167
56. De Duve, op cit, p 686
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 5th International Symposium on
Art Criticism in a Global World, Resistances: The Glocal and the Singuniversal
through Biennials, organised by AICA and ACCA and held on 20 21 November
2009 at MACBA, Barcelona.