Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 15:00:37 +0200
From: ayelet zohar <ayelet.zohar-AT-ipc.co.il>


i will lead one more aspect that i think is very important: only when an
artist has moved to the west, and had adapted western art certain "ways"
(of setting, showing, representing, performing, etc.) then it will be
possible for him to attract attention. unfortunately, there are not so many
 people in the western world who are familiar or truly invest time and
effort to get familiar with third world art in its place and context, and
so, being realistic, this is probably the only way to cut through the
limits of local culture that is limited to its place, and become well known
and an "international" artist. only western culture had the motivation,
power, time, money and armies to expand itself around the world and thus
become "universal". in our world - as tim argues on behalf of fredric
jameson, the economic power of the western world + the fact that its
culture was distributed extensively during the last centuries - got it to
its preveledged status.  anish kapoor, like homi bhabha, like gayatri
chakravorty spivak, like trinh t. minh-ha, paul gilroy or even rushdie and
other thinkers and artist had first to adopt the "languge" and "way" of the
western world, and relocate themselves in centers of power and knowledge
before they could place their specific variation and redirect the eyes of
western intelectuals to some different direction apart from the old
eurocentric concerns.

take care,

ai
At 11:38 27/05/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>As a sort of footnote to this, I'd point to the Fredric Jameson piece in
>the last New Left Review on architectural aesthetics and land speculation.
>In the opening of the essay, Jameson speaks (the piece is culled from a
>talk he gave at a conference organized by the journal ANY) of a zone of
>the semiautonomous, where a given building, object, text, etc. slides
>between its formal, aesthetic attributes and its situatedness in a certain
>economy ... leading thus to various cominglings of aestheics and economy
>in one's reading of the "text" (for lack of a better word). Jameson is
>working against what he sees as a tendency of (Robert?) Fitch in _The
>Assassination of New York_ to dismiss postmodernist/modernist aesthetic
>concerns in architecture as "superstructural epiphenomenon" and towards
>the argument that architectural form and the character of land speculation
>are intertwined.
>
>tim.
>
>On Wed, 27 May 1998, timothy annett wrote:
>
>> 
>> I think Ayelet raises a significant question in her last post - the
>> question of the market. What has driven critics to speculate in Kapoor's
>> work, as opposed to the work of someone far outside the locus of the
>> Euro-American art world? To what degree has Bhabha made an investment in
>> Kapoor by his use of Kapoor's work on the cover of _The Location of
>> Culture_ (and by his
>> contribution to the catalogue of the Hayward show)?
>> 
>> tim.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>      --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>> 
>
>
>
>     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
ayelet zohar
graduate student
porter institute of semiotics and poetics
tel aviv university

e-mail:ayelet.zohar-AT-ipc.co.il




     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---