From: "Deepali Dewan" <dewa0012-AT-tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Anish Kapoor
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 98 12:07:05 -0500


Ayelet, 
I am sympathetic with the kind of structures and questions that you point out. I
feel compelled to raise two issues. 

First, although there is certain importance in the observation that artists 
receive attention only when they have moved to the west and adapted western art 
"ways", there is also a division between east and west in terms of geography, 
culture, and artistic practices and forms that is being enacted, categories that
many artists themselves try to resist in their work. In considering the work of 
contemporary artists that have experienced some movement in their lives across 
geographic and cultural borders (such as AK), and considering the various 
histories of colonialism, nationalism, migration, etc, I am faced with the 
question of at what point do they "stop" being a "third world" artists in the 
"west"? At what point can Kapoor claim some cultural ownership over the 
"western" visual forms he chooses to use and the modes of display in which he 
chooses to present his work? At what point can we stop dividing visual forms 
into categories of west and east? To what extent do these divisions really hold 
up? I can't say that I have figured out the answers yet, but I've struggled with
the problem of considering on the one hand contextualizing visual forms in the 
power relationships that produce, promote or quench them, and on the other, the 
resulting tendency to then create divisions and categories that the work and the
artists themselves tend to resist. Needless to say, there is a complexity in 
working out these details.

That said, secondly, you bring up a really important point about the 
museum-gallery world in Europe and North America, and who they will look at, 
what they will look at, and under what terms. Having worked in a contemporary 
art museum, I would be able to confirm that the aesthetic criteria for choosing 
which art work and artists to display is ultimately extremely select and 
limited. Commercial galleries and museums look to each other for guidence and 
validation. At the same time, I would argue that institutions are also paying 
attention to precisely those artists who work against "established" aesthetics 
as well because a certain "ethnic" aesthetic is in and sells. Curators have 
started attending recent biennials in S. Africa and S. Korea, commissioning 
artists from these locations, but there is still a certain unsaid 
acknowledgement that this is "good for business." It is good for museums who 
want to prove their vision of diversity to granting agencies. The result is that
artists from the "third world" and diaspora communities are gaining visibility, 
but "visibility" is defined in a certain way and has a select audience; the 
circulation and reach of exhibitions and exh. publications is limited. Galleries
are forming in the urban locations in South Asia, S. Africa, etc..., but the 
structures are the same-- the museum-gallery system having its origin in western
Europe. One often overlooked aspect is that often the artists who do gain 
attention by galleries and museums anywhere are usually art school trained.  -- 
what does this say for select aesthetics?

Perhaps not so eloquently worded, but hopefully some discussion will be 
raised...

best, 
Deepali Dewan

 Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 15:00:37 +0200
> From: ayelet zohar <ayelet.zohar-AT-ipc.co.il>
> Subject: [none]
> 
> 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,
> 


****************************
Deepali Dewan
University of Minnesota
Department of Art History
107 Jones Hall
27 Pleasant St. SE
Minneapolis, MN  55455
****************************



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