The Globalization of Art:The Same Old Story?
‘Ali-Asghar Gharebaghi
Farairan Art Quarterly,No. 8
For the past fifteen years, the concept of global art, or its globalization has made quite a stir. Now, once again, this idea is buzzing in the West and in a few countries. With the onset of the third millennium, there are those who believe that this time, the idea of “globalization” has firmly established itself. The echo of these words has recently reached our land and enchanted those who have not reflected upon their own understanding of the issue of “global art.” Before a misunderstanding arises, a point must be made: today, the word “art” has a much wider meaning than before,
and this article is limited to its visual aspect.
It cannot be denied that the West has organized and compiled the history of art and distinguished its periods. By lining up the schools, styles and the celebrated artists of each period, it has given each its own niche. Thus the West views itself as the analyst, critic, and judge of art. It is also the West that has placed the term “globalization” on the tip of tongues; and when it speaks in this regard, it undoubtedly intends “others” to follow its path: its criteria, standards, and achievements.
The West knows only too well that what it means by “global art” is not an art which has its roots in various cultures, but rather, one that has been formed through the arts and artists of the world, embracing it completely. It also knows that “global art” means taking advantage of the talents of other countries and imposing changes on the styles and tastes of others. Finally, the West understands that “global art” is an art which must take shape within a cultural domain and is one of the methods of cultural colonization.
‘Ali-Asghar Gharebaghi
Perhaps due to a constant affliction of weak historical memory, the has forgotten that the West is aware that the idea of the “globalization of art” was not born today or yesterday; rather, it is an old story. Eighty years ago, in 1922, in a manifesto of the Congress of International Progressive Artists, the same issues were raised, keeping a few happy for a while, but events took the same turn, as they do now.
There was boasting and bluffing to the effect that, “Today, from all over the world, we hear cries for the need for a union of progressive artists. Today, the exchange of ideas between the artists of the world has taken the form of a necessity. The bonds which have been severed on account of political phenomena must be re-established. We seek an international and all-encompassing focus on art. We need international periodicals and permanent art exhibitions throughout the world. This long dreary isolation must now end. Art needs to be free from nationalities, political barriers, selfishness and self-centeredness; it requires the oneness of the creators of art. Our slogan must be this: ‘Artists of all nationalities, unite! Art must become global, or else it will perish!’ ”
However, experience has demonstrated that this bluff was but a ruse, a legerdemain, mere optimism and carelessness. Nothing more than superficial, unfounded sentimentality. It soon became clear what sort of “unity” was being promoted: the “artists of the world” only meant the artists of . Under the banner of “unity,” they wished to create a single art and culture, which could withstand all conditions and have the capacity to be nurtured in every corner of the world; and is this not what happened? Did not the buy the idea for years that “global painting” meant the painting of the West? And did it not believe that if it painted like the West, it would thus become “global?” Isn’t this false, half-baked modernism, the fruit of this so-called Western concept of the unity of art which was imported to ? Didn’t it grow like weeds in the nooks and crannies of every Iranian painter’s studio? This modernism brought its own values and criteria, which, to this day, have the last word in our visual arts, and our painters are still held in thrall. There is still no difference between the term “global art” and the manifesto of eighty years ago.
The concept of “globalizing art” appeared in the last few decades of the 20th century, at a time when one period of world history ended and a new period began. At the beginning of this period, that is, in 1990, a group of American cultural dealers in began discussing the topic “expansion of globalization” in the form of an international dialogue. But from the very beginning it was obvious that the goal was the expansion of an American attitude and global policies. It was obvious that in this so-called “global art,” the color of skin and nationality still played a primary role. Even Americans and Europeans who were not of Western origin had no place in it. At the Venice Biennale, even Australian art was marginalized; it remained excluded from the center. If attention was focused on the art of an Indian by the name of Anish Kapoor, it was only because he had appeared under the banner of . At this biennial, instead of giving wings to many cultures and voices, everything revolved around power, reining in other cultures, and so the results were insignificant.
For about ten years now, has volunteered to host international exhibitions. has arrived at the conclusion that it has financial ability and has become familiar with such exhibitions. To date, however, the fruit of everyone’s efforts has been to the benefit of the West. At the 1991 symposium whose expenses were paid for by , American and European art critics and experts were in the majority; they held the arena. This symposium was in fact the continuation and repetition of the Venice Biennale.
In 1993, when wished to hold an international exhibition, it was decided that the art of and countries in the Far East would be exhibited alongside the works of Koreans who had adopted in the and, a year later, in
Western institutes and galleries have recently focused their attentions on two groups of Chinese painters: they describe the works of one group as “Political Pop,” and the works of the other as “Cynical Realism.” These paintings are the result of the mentality of young Chinese painters who have not been able to arrive at a solution to problems arising from the social, political, and cultural transformations in contemporary . The only art which these painters have exhibited is the ridiculing of images drawn for official propaganda and the exposing of a growing popular culture which in some fashion depicts the new consumerism. The visual language of these paintings emanates from Chinese socio-realism and American pop art. The West encourages this sort of painting, but does not admit that being against official Chinese propaganda does not arise from a sympathy for art, but aims to satisfy a Western audience and, ultimately, to stamp the Western ideological seal of approval. Young Chinese painters, who have in any case grown up in a closed atmosphere, have innocently believed that their works are anti-propaganda, while whatever they produce, and the West buys, is one hundred percent propaganda art, only that this time they advertise in the interests of the West and its consumerism. In the magazine Art of America (1994), Lynn Macritchie reports on Chinese art. Throughout the five-page article, without imparting any new information or interpretation of the works of Chinese painters, she refers to the difficulties of Chinese artists regarding censorship and lack of freedom and security. Whereas Hu Hanro, a Chinese writer and painter, holds that “Political Pop” and “Cynical Realism” have no connection with Chinese painting. One can say that only a few painters who are known under these categories, due to Western advertising, have attained riches and that their works are sold in the West.
There are plenty of examples, but these few instances are doubtless proof enough that along the edge of its culture, the West wants to create a new culture that would be foreign to its own beliefs, ideals, and intellectual roots, and at the same time would erase from memories its colonizing ideas. This new culture would be a marginal one which has for the most part adopted Western culture and added a dash of Third World flavor; and can easily come to terms with its secondary role. A culture of this sort must always remain in the twilit regions; a world full of illusion and the play of shadows, in which neither light possesses true brilliance, nor does shadow cast a real shade.
The West knows well that the term “global art” lies alongside the humanistic ideas which made their appearance with the onset of modernism. It is a mission of the so-called humanists who wish to force an understanding on non-Western people, that the West is the model of civilization, and the only way to salvation is to take refuge in the values and criteria of the West, to hold the banner of humanism in one hand and the flag of colonization in the other. The outlook of the West toward “other” cultures is still bound by the history of colonization. “Global art” is no better than the “global village.” The West wishes to be the chieftain of this village, with others on its outskirts, holding a beggar’s bowl, fixated on its charity, begging at the door for its aesthetic theories.
The idea of “global art” is set along the lines of Coca-Cola and McDonald’s—the McDonaldization of the world. Given the experiences of the past, the West knows that, on one hand, these words are only to give them comfort, and, on the other hand, it is certain that the artists of many countries do not have sufficient knowledge and the means of entry to their domain. If with great difficulty, one or two of them do arrive with a pat or two on the back, they can be absorbed within their [Western] culture.
In any case, determining the possibility or impossibility of the globalization of art depends on the true meaning of the term. One must see how and why it began. Meanwhile, one must bear in mind that one cannot discuss the “globalization of art” separately from the history of art and today’s identity crisis. One must measure the ups and downs, the whys and wherefores of this term, and not be blindly enchanted by its attractions. In order to evaluate, one must be informed.
This is where the question arises as to whether the custodians of our visual arts and our artists possess the required background, knowledge, and abilities to prevent them from falling into this trap? What is the level of their knowledge of the artistic and cultural activities in today’s world? Do they know the methods of the art of the contemporary world? To what extent are they familiar with the history of art, the opinions of art critics and the policymakers of art? What steps have been taken to impart such knowledge?
The truth is that in the new era of colonization, especially since the end of World War II, the unequal relationship between the West and the has become more entangled than it has ever been. On the one hand, through the mediums of film, television, technology, the press, and fashion, the Western world, especially the , has unceasingly exported its culture. On the other hand, immigration, asylum, exile, and traveling in order to study abroad, in search of jobs and a better life… have led many in the to the West. Whether in the West or upon return to their homeland, this group—like a bowl that is hotter than its soup—have become staunch propagandists for Western culture, and are satisfied with nothing else. This has entangled the already knotted yarn of global art more than ever before.
Certain post-modern writings have emphasized the idea that the current of thought between the East and the West is relatively equal. In various ways it has been expressed that mixing cultures and traditions will give wings to global art and culture and eventually result in great productivity. However, one must note that in reality, cultural ideas, just as consumer products, have moved from West to East. The East must provide the raw materials and, after production, the West should take what it considers to be desirable and send the seconds to the market, to keep others as consumers of the inflated products of the West.
Under certain circumstances, blending cultures might be beneficial, but its disadvantages are obvious. The blending of cultures can only occur between two or a few cultures which are similar, presented to the world in a compatible and harmonious manner. A commanding, dominant culture does not blend well with a dependent, imitating culture. Rather, the former devours the latter.
History has demonstrated that whenever two or a few cultures have faced each other, be it in a peaceful, coexisting manner, or in a conflicting manner, new experiences occur; what we call “multi-cultural” or “between cultures” is experienced. Today, cultures are expected to resist being devoured by dominating cultures by focusing on their own special features. The efforts of the West are aimed at presenting the art of other peoples as the “symbol of collective identities” while ignoring the individual identities of “others,” that same individuality upon which Western art established itself and through which it attained an identity. Did we not witness in the 19th century how European art devoured the art of the ? Was the product of this intercourse highlighting the art of the East, or elevating the art of the West? Was taking advantage of Islamic paintings, Eastern mosaic and Persian carpets an advance for Islamic and Iranian art, or an addition to the art of Matisse? Didn’t Picasso benefit from all aspects of African sculpture and, when asked about the art of the Negro, did he not ask, “Do Negroes have an art?” The problem is that as soon as a Third World artist steps onto Western territory and is welcomed, he puts himself and his art wholeheartedly at the disposal of the West and he surpasses Westerners at being Western.
At present, the issue of “global art” in the may be interpreted in two different ways. On the one hand, it might lead some to think that they, too, must paint like they paint in the West; for if they were to paint in their own style, which they have done for centuries, they do not need a lord and master looking over their shoulder. On the other hand—and this is the positive aspect—this might be interpreted as emerging from a cocoon, as freedom from restraining traditions. If painting were to emerge from its long-drawn isolation, abandon provincial and impoverished methods and be presented at international exhibitions, then there would be motivation for serious artistic activity. Some countries have made achievements, but in our case, we must first clarify our relationship with our own art, and then be concerned about world art. We undeniably live in circumstances that should be considered from at least three viewpoints. First, our art is indigenous and regional. Secondly, it comprises works which are known as our cultural heritage. Finally, it is influenced by imported Western art, criteria and values. Incidentally, it is this imported art which has presently taken the form of our official art, and this is what is taught. Yet, despite all this, for the honor and glory of cultural items, we inevitably return to our cultural heritage, our indigenous art, and once in a while exhibit them with gong and kettledrum. The tragic part of the matter is that, ever so often, in an attempt to create a national identity, we blend traditional and indigenous art, in a disjointed and imposed manner, with conventional art. This arises from the fact that we haven’t truly experienced modernism. Whatever we have experienced has not been something which would embrace our traditional and regional art. A modernism that would embrace our indigenous and regional art must also include democracy, the distribution of wealth and social issues. In this manner, our tendency toward indigenous art ultimately took on the form of part traditionalism. Even this fragment was disrupted and scattered with the transformation of land ownership, migrations and imposed settlements. Of course, the important thing was not people’s geographic location, rather it was the change that occurred in their mentality, which also influenced the creative process of art. On the one hand, our indigenous artist was bound to thousand-year-old traditions; on the other, he was tied to modernist manifestations and Western values, without having a proper and clear understanding of either. Our indigenous artist felt the changes in himself, the need for a new identity to replace the former, now fading values. What could be done when he perceived the value of indigenous art in continuing to create along the lines of ideological and predominant examples? Inevitably, he would continue to recreate and display ancient and conventional archetypes, those not in his true, original nature.
It is true that our indigenous and traditional art was derived from our inner cultural identity, however, from the outside it was perceived as strange and obsolete. In our visual arts, being indigenous meant purity; every change was interpreted as deception. For this reason, our indigenous art found itself stationary and stagnant, in circumstances where the past, present, and future made little difference. What remained was our established art and those involved in it. Let’s face it, when the custodians of our visual arts cannot listen to a few words of criticism and, as they have demonstrated, are entangled in making the right connections and consider their presence or absence at exhibitions to be dependent upon the presence or absence of another group, how do they expect to communicate with foreigners, whose language they don’t even understand?
If “global art” is indeed one day achieved, it will be different from the Hegelian and historical phenomena. It will be a jungle in which only individual realities prevail. The talk of “global art” is not in the intricate phrases which we irresponsibly repeat. Nor is it in the name-dropping and showing off of our knowledge. We must be prepared to discuss the topic; if we employ the term “global art,” we must also consider the related cultural identity, we must be familiar with the latent meanings of “cultural identity.” We should have heard cultural warnings and have heeded them, and at least have an answer for these basic questions:
1. How do we define our cultural identity or what do we consider it to be?
2. To what extent is this cultural identity in harmony with our national identity, and what majority or minority does it address?
3. What differences and denominations must this cultural identity conceal, and which ones should it confirm?
4. What mentality does this cultural identity face? To what extent is it familiar with the mentality it intends to face, and how has it equipped itself for this confrontation?
5. Who are the “others” in this identity and what are their characteristics?
6. What expectations do we have of this cultural identity?
In addition, one must have tolerance for the atmosphere in which dialogue and exhibition takes place. We must understand the dimensions and depth of this atmosphere, in which many voices are inevitably silent, and be familiar with other people’s experiences. In today’s global art scene, this is not possible without careful consideration. With what background, knowledge, and information do we wish to understand these methods? Do our artists and art critics know what led to past changes, such as those of 1989, when the First World and the were led to a dialogue among cultures? Do they know how it came about that the horizontal became vertical, that East and West were changed to North and South? Why is it that the arts of filmmaking and literature eventually compelled the North to look at the South? Wasn’t this look intended to remind the other half of humanity? What fraction of our artists know why, in the 1960s, in the focus on Pan Americanism gave way to Latin Americanism? After so many years, the cause and motive of this phenomenon should be clear to our artists, but it is not. The reason was that aesthetics defended art while politics defended culture. In all these years, have we witnessed a single instance of aesthetics defending art and politics defending culture? Do our artists and art critics know why, ultimately, a few of the cultural “others” became “one of us?” With what tools had these “others” equipped themselves? Were they merely shouting slogans, merely taking advantage of trips abroad and making others indebted to them? How did Australian artists ultimately present their indigenous art to the world and make specators and critics take their art seriously, receiving prizes? Do they know how African art was presented to the West, and with what difficulties it made the West understand that African art was not limited to pottery and sculpture, and that the paintings of that land must also be considered? Are the custodians of our paintings familiar with the ideas of cultural intellectuals such as Mari Carmen Ramirez, Gerardo Mosquera and Guillermo Gomez Pena, and the methods used in order to free itself from the domination of the West? Do they know anything about the cultural movements of Chico Mendes in the Amazon and Rigoberta Menchú in ? Have they heard anything about the artistic activities of Rashid Araeen, a Pakistani artist, and his struggles with British galleries and art councils for providing a niche for at least some art? Are they aware of the three or four female photographers who brought modernism to its knees? Do they know what uproar they caused in the world of art during the last two decades of the 20th century? Do they know their names? Have they read four words about these artists? With what sort of resources do our artists and custodians of art wish to step into the world of art? Perhaps shouting slogans is effective in our closed society, especially in special circles, museums and exhibitions, but they are not the sort of goods we would be able to take to world markets and receive recognition for.
It is true that in the last two decades, some post-modernists have spoken widely of concepts such as “hybridization,” “hybrid culture,” “decentralization,” and “misplaced cultures.” Still we must put aside illusions and tend to the real story. Even if it is believed that “global art” is an abstract, illusory issue, in so far as it has been said that imagining the impossible is possible, one must imagine that the idea of “global art” will one day become realized. One must think of that day. If the Iranian painter were to continue shouting slogans in the wider arena, or narrow-mindedly defend the profession, the unoriginal school, and style of painting from his own land, without doubt he would be condemned to oblivion. The global arena of art is not a place for an artist of the to impose his own made-up values on others. One must present a work in which there is some substance or wisdom. One must add something to the book of traditional painting which has not yet been said; it must present an art which has not yet been presented to the world. It must present an art which the West has not taken apart and isolated into tribal categories. An artist must have the capacity to say something about the essence of art. Artists must not engage in aimless talk about institutions and their underhanded relations with each other, otherwise, before it has a chance to be registered in memories, whatever is expressed or exhibited will be forgotten. Our art must ultimately set aside prejudices and accept the fact that all cultural phenomena, in essence, are hybrid. The idea of a pure and untouched culture has the same root as romantic dreams, a romantic epic with ancient roots, usually remembered with prejudice. Our artists must accept the fact that the value in our art lies in the achievements of our historic antecedents, not in a few modern paintings which have followed Western art and their themes, which our painters, large and small have painted over and over in the past few years. Even the elements which we perceive to be an inseparable part of our indigenous art, in fact arise from new techniques and circumstances. For example, our contemporary ceramic and glasswork, which are famous globally, are mostly influenced by the city and its demands rather than our traditional heritage. Although the kitsch and schlock that our indigenous art now contains were primarily motivated by Iranian and foreign travelers, and new slipshod techniques used for meeting the demands of the market were imposed on our art, let us be fair in admitting our special talent for submission.
Finally, why is it that such simple matters do not occur to anyone, and if they do occur to them, why do they lack the courage to face them? We, who think of befriending the elephant keeper, have we built a house suited for an elephant? If the exchange of works of art does eventually become an issue, do we have a suitable venue anywhere in for exhibiting the latest works of Frank Stella or Anselm Kiefer or Julian Schnabel? Everything else aside, have we ever thought about the dimensions of these paintings? Or, will permission be given for exhibiting the paintings of David Salle, Francesco Clemente, or the photographs of Cindy Sherman and a slew of other relevant artists? Whether we like it or not, they are the world’s relevant artists. Can one say to a Western painter, “You must paint by our standards so that we would be able to exhibit your works, and you must accept the third-hand imitations of our painters as ‘new’ art and praise them?” The necessity for establishing a cultural perspective for confronting Western culture and its domination as well as achieving applicable methods which would be acceptable from a political and social point of view, require knowledge, research and planning, and not taking advantage of the situation.
Rarely does anyone think of the meaning and concept of art; rather they think of the material gains it has to offer, without giving any thought to the art and culture they are representing.•
All images from The 20th Century Art Book, Phaidon Press Limited.
