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).