Here is a link to another interview and review of the show, here is a short blurb
"Altermodern is a term I invented to designate the field of what's next after postmodernism... Actually it's more of a debate, of a negotiation, and the exhibition is the conclusive process. Altermodern is the cultural answer to what alterglobalisation is, which is a cluster of singular and local answers to globalisation in the political field. Modernity-to-come, which I really believe is emerging, won't be continental, won't be something to totalize, but more of an archipelago of different answers, with the artists addressing many different issues, and I believe in this form of the cluster, the constellation, points are connected one to another, rather than a continental or totalising form."
This Link talks about some of the work in the show and less about the curator
This Link will take you to a review on artnet
4 comments:
So I have a question about this and some of the discussion from the last class. If AlterModernity is about the world being connected through technology and all of us linked as a result, then working with personal issues or characteristics is still relevant because we can all relate or identify, right? If we are all part of a giant globalized community, we can view an artist's work from a connected standpoint and not just as an outsider. It doesn't make personal work obsolete though. Does this make any sense? Am I getting the whole definition of AlterModern wrong and how to interpret it? I need help.
Its still hard to pin point. Currently I do feel as though there is no longer the "other", we can view the work as an 'insider'. My idea may change after I do more research but it kinda makes sense. I am not sure if AlterModern is the next "ism" but I do think he is on to something. We are a global community but it doesn't mean artist can't make personal work or about there particular culture or background. I like how he says its more of a debate. One thing I feel a little confused about is the idea of an artist having the "authority" to make work about something they may not be? Can I now make work about living in Cuba? Does AlterModernarity give me the 'authority"?
Years ago I thought it would be interesting to make work about feminism or a minority group I'm not a part of just to see how the discussion would change if I, a white male, was doing it. I never followed through with it but was always curious. I just figured most people would be upset and not even focus on the art. It is a strange idea that we could now have the "authority" do make art about living in Cuba, as you say Amber, but part of me thinks "why not?" If the work is strong and the ideas are interesting, couldn't it be somewhat valid with an added level of discussion? Let's say I'm making the work of Carrie Mae Weems, if you didn't even know I was making it the work would speak for itself. If you did know I was making it, the added debate on whether I should be doing it or not would be fascinating to me. Besides, I may not have the same connection to things like slavery but it is every bit as offensive and appalling to me. These are just some ideas I'm throwing out there. What do others think?
Bourriaud's notion of "creolization" is creating some interesting discussion here. It seems to me, however, that Bourriaud is less interested in "granting" free license for anyone to address issues typically associated with marginalized groups, but rather that those who might typically be associated with marginalized groups are free to address subjects that aren't relegated to their specific ethnic, economic, etc. identities (e.g. think back to Kwon's discussion about Rene Green in One Place After Another and how the artist felt she was unable to explore certain ideas as she was being pigeon-holed by the organizers to pursue topics related to her ethnicity). Although the construction of one's identity is fluid and contextually contingent, I don't think this creates a situation whereby I can freely appropriate experiences that are unknown to me. Systems of power continue to exist and access to those systems are hierarchical and complicated. If we accept Bourriaud's premise of creolization then we can't continue to use the reductive categories of "multiculturalism" and identity-based politics." Said differently, if I accept that the world is made more fluid and complicated through the ease of global travel, trade and the internet, then I can't reduce people to singular identities, e.g. "worker," "Asian," or "feminist." Rather our identities are a mixture of these different experiences that aren't easily distilled and simplified.
Post a Comment