13 thoughts on “Globalization: What impact has it had on Art?”
Dominant culture vs. multi-polar cultural reality
I initially thought that globalization meant the
movement towards a dominant, cultural perspective as opposed to a multi-polar conception of culture. I was beginning to grasp, however, a dynamic and dialectical process in which the dominant culture of globalization is continuously impacted and challenged by the numerous cultures with which it comes into contact. This is most apparent in the arts, where the language and symbols of Caribbean, Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Asia, East European are permeating by western art. The Question is how to utilize this process to foster, enrich and sustain a multi-polar cultural world. I would love to hear your ideas about this topic.
RE: Dominant culture vs. multi-polar cultural reality
Multi-cultual cross influencing is not new in art & culture. Think of the art of the ancients, Africans, Moslems; the powerful impact of Eastern art on the Western world, Picasso…all of them. Not a thing new, just as the Europeans had to learn to influence each other. See the exposition of Spanish influenced French artists at the Met. Lam was and is much loved in Europe, as are many other artists of all disciplines.
What does this mean, other than that the art community likes good art, whatever its persuasion. Does it change cultures. Should it. Not to sound cynical (I am not), art is trendy. During the zeitgeist sweep, everybody gets 15 minutes. Most contributors are left behind in its wake. The best go on to get incorporated into the syntax of the prevailing culure which, if you play close attention, tends always to be international, by individual contributors or ‘cultual’ influences.
Globalization, in its short life span, has proven itself to be a ravenous, rapacious beast that instead of allowing diverse cultures to expand into world markets, had instead attempted to steam-rol its way across the planet. This is true in art and commerce. Of course, you know that there is no essential difference.
If & when globalization is reborn, perhaps the debacle will be recast into something more rational and deliberate; something that will offer sustanance to diverse cultures, rather rabid uncontrolled hegemony.
RE: RE: Dominant culture vs. multi-polar cultural
Excellent Red Planet,
Would you define your conception of “Globalization” and “Multipolarization” in the arts. Perhaps you can give more examples about artists, art and themes representing this new phenomenon. And finally, would you write more about your definition of contemporary art and the new technology developed in others countries.
Definitions
Ballester can answer your question, but why don’t I chime in with my views as well.
It appears to me that what is happening in the world is not so much ‘multipolarization’ than ‘micro-apartheid.’ Even as apartheid is a micro breakdown and separation of races, not unlike what we have traditionally experienced in Latino communities, certainly in Puerto Rico — ‘el mestisaje’; the new reality is that instead of being classified from the outside as Latinos or Hispanics, we are now not only either Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, etc etc etc, but even within these cultures, the new apartheid is breaking groups down by race and subethnic groups. More, we are the definers of these groupings ourselves, not the ‘white man.’
This, I find, is very sad indeed.
Where once I would automatically greet my brother walking down the street, whether or not I even knew him, now his greeting is tepid or he walks by in a self-absorbed micro-ethnocentric cloud. Conversations are no longer about the history and and common experiences we share It is as if we no longer have anything in common. Who did this. The answer is ‘no one.’ We are doing it to ourselves. It seems that we are more interested in meeting other groups around the world, but less in meeting ourselves — as a homogeneous People!
In fact, we are not experiencing ‘multipolarization.’ We are engaged in “micropolarization.”
New phenomenon. What new phenomenon. Art themes are ancient and truly relfect the racial subconscious of the human race. New mediums help us translate those themes/messages according to contemporary technology — video art, digital techniques…and so on.
I think we hve to be careful not to confuse new words and message for subtances differences. A digital interpretation of “The Last Supper” does not change the theme.
RE: Definitions
You bring up a few interesting issues, although, what you seem to say basically is that nothing has really changed. Or to use another cliche: The more things change… You fill in the rest. From the perspective of bringing forth more diverse works from the “fringe” of the Metropolis that contributes to a breakdown in visually coding and — possibly, in the future, a re-codification that is in itself more broadly encompassing of the varied ways or codices of visualizing , this would be truly new. And it is my belief that such breakdown is occurring and that regardless of whether capital continues or not, it would seem inevitable that there will continue to be more and more thrown in the mix, racially, ethically, philosophically, artistically. There has already been a major breakdown in the visual codes of the west as well as the east and I think “globalization” is a new iteration of imperialism and in being so draws cultures into each other, breaks them up and spews them out in ways for artists and others to make sense of. I think things certainly are more open for artists to explore: Just look at the works around you, listen to the music. No one can ever say that the past forty years have not involved a major breakdown and transformation. You look at content but artists look at both content and form. And certainly form and aesthetics generally have undergone a tremendous move from the classical conception of beauty. Even what may be called art has radically changed.
CLASSICAL BEAUTY vs POST MODERN BEAUTY
Mariana, what you call form I call [passing] trappings driven by the zeitgeist.
If we use the example of physical beauty
(its easier to talk about corporal forms than abstracts), we have complained for decades that the standard for measuring ‘ethnic’ beauty has always relied on so-called western standards. Well, I’m sure you’re paying as much attention to this as I am…other than clothing sytles, hair styles, ‘mascara’ trends, the epitome of what constitutes ‘the most beautiful’ in all cultures looks exactly the same.
One simple reason could be that, inspite of cultural racial differences, the species tends to look pretty much alike. Another reason, and the one I prefer, is that our subconscious template is the same for th entire species. Asians, Africans, Europeans, Native Americans all share the same structural features; and we measure beauty along these lines, not soco-political standards.
The very same template(s) gauges the beauty of a car’s lines. Ideal form is built into the subconscious, and it transcends racial, ethnic and socio-economic categories. Similarly, you are able to appreciate Mozart, Beethoven, Monk, Sonora Matancera in the very same way that some introduced to the music for the very first time in Beijing — because they match the templates. Those who approximate the templates win the greatest worldwide appreciation for the longest period of time. All of the plastic arts are driven by the same subconscious appetite for ideal form — the same form.
The beauty of this [unifying] principle is that we should be able to see that through the appurtenances of our race and ethnic groups, we are one race, and that these ‘differences’ are essentially portals to one reality — perhaps in the same way that all religions take us to one and the same God.
Catalogue Presentation – Intersecting Circles
Dear Artists and Friends,
Attached are the electronic addresses which link you with the following:
1) Forum topic: A discussion on the issue on art in the age of globalization; “Globalization: What impact has it had on Art?” and 2) Intersecting Circles… exhibition curated online and for the International Print Triennial of Cracow.
Please forward this information to people that you think may be interested in this Forum topic. I hope that people who are part of the discussion as well as others will come to PRDREAM.COM’s new media loft, 161 East 106th Street, for a formal presentation of the Intersecting Circles Catalogue and personally share their experience about the topic some time in November. I will send you the exact date and time soon.
Fraternally,
Diógenes Ballester
RE: CLASSICAL BEAUTY vs POST MODERN BEAUTY
Theories of ‘sub-conscious’ standards of beauty are part of the hegemony of globalization put into place by the Athenization of culture. The idea of one god is in itself a cosmological concept of the West and Middle East. If one does not believe in the concept of anthropomorphizied dieties (I don’t) or of western psychiatric concepts of the dichotomous construction of consciousness and subconsciousness (I don’t) then a global standard of aesthetic form propagated by human perseptual and/or cognitive structure becomes very questionable.
I don’t believe that human culture shares any notion of one god, and certainly all religeous practice does not lead to belief in one god. Some religions or cosmological believe systems do not even believe in dieties as the west constructs them at all (Bhuddism, deep ecology paganism, atheism, Confucianism, Hinduism, theosophy).
While the general shared aesthetic perceptions of the species are undeniable – we are all homo sapiens sapiens – to impy that they are hegemonic in of themselves or absolute in any way constructs a paradigm that seems exclusive and limiting to creative production and experience.
In a world where physical/material beauty seems to have been separated from social/spiritual beauty (a VERY Western concept of materialism that pervades both Classic and post-Modern thought becuase it prioritorizes the individual aesthtic experience)perhpas the entire concept of beauty itself need to be questioned. The beauty of war and the voyeuristic beauty of violence seem to permeate our cultures (both Western and Eastern and whatever)
perhaps the general instinctual perceptive attractions of the human species needs to be vigerously interrogated and not substantiated.
As Diogenes said – the concept to be valued is that we are not all alike – we do not think the same things are beautiful even though we share the same organic perceptual systems. These differences are valuable and perhaps they can provide the theoretical resources to not only address the idea of beauty but to change human desire itself in regard to the ubiquity of violence and injustice that prevents the creation and appreciation of all the different beauties globally.
Let me end this dispatch with an apology for my strident tone – after all a continued dialog between those who believe in a deity or spiritua/philosophical construction known as God and those like me whose consomology does not include deistic concepts seems crucial. Otherwise how will we address the Christian fundamentalist coup in the USA and the war in the Middle-East especially the Palestine/Israeli war?
Peace
em’Weber
Globalization and Art
Just returned from a week in Cuba: gave highly successful lecture on Globalization. 4 pages single-spaced. Deals many issues in Latin America, etc.
Globalization, Privatization and the Art Market
Just delivered same in Havana; very well received. 8 double-spaced pages. Available in English and Spanish. Deals with topics above, references many locations in Latin America, also exploitive posture of Guggenheim museum in many areas Europe, and in Latin America. Saludos, Shifra
RE: Globalization, Privatization and the Art Market
available to you if you wish to use it.
globalization etc
OK: I have a document you can use: Globalization, Privitation and the Art Market. Received very well in Cuba last week.
RE: RE: CLASSICAL BEAUTY vs POST MODERN BEAUTY
I think your tone is less acerbic or short than you think. You might get a different sense of how you are perceived if you bring your language down a bit. Its easy. Just talk simply. The ideas are more persuasive and readable by most; and also lessens your sense of what you have to say when your remarks echo back at you.
Be that as it may, you make excellent points, nonetheless.
I certainly do believe that there are far fewer differences between the different peoples of the Earth than we like to think; that there is a subconcious (collective consciousness, if you will) that is the instrument by which the species will become ‘one’ ultimately.
I chose to use Beauty as the metaphor because it is not only so easy to see,but the actual product we are talking about. The push of the human race is to blend the races,even if the way is paved with blood. I am not sure how youre factoring ‘violence’ in as an aesthetic consideration. The violence we encounter creates, in my view, levels of post traumatic stress disorders, and perhaps ‘aping’ behavior is a manifestatioin of that condition; but I do not see that it is becoming a standard in the sense that ‘Beauty’ is a standard. The violent affect is a primitive impulse that I firmly believe the species is in the process of expelling from its genetic coding.
On hegemony, it is easy to place the blame on ‘European’ dominance of the media by which we learn what we believe it. Firstly, I have not really noticed that Europeans necessarily dominate our perceptual standards, especially since Eastern and Near Eastern, Pre-Colombian, and Sub-Saharan aesthetic values systems are prominantly evident in their ‘art’
Now maybe its because I grew up abusing the worked ‘hegemony’ that I wince when I hear an adult use it these days; but, be that too as it may, the drive to impose ones value systems and control ‘market shares’ is a human failing, equally active in all of us. The resulting genocidal tendencies in cultures we’ve read about (Europe, Pre-colonial Africa, Pre-colombian America, and so on) is clear and evident. Therefore, I no longer accuse Europeans of ‘hegemony’ It means nothing, and gets me nowhere.
To get back for moment to the conceit of this nice discourse, seeing the world as ‘one’ does not hamper creative expression. On the contrary, it is the variety of creative expression, certainly Post-modern approaches, that bring these common elements to the foreground. Isn’t that interesting or ironical. Perhaps the creative community that is spending too much of its time talking about what theyre doing is not paying attention to what they are doing. (I wonder whether this kind of active intellection is not more of a distraction than a motor for creative output.)
Consider this experiment: Select artist, of any medium, from different periods in history, and from as wide a selection of cultures as possible. Transe them, and ask them to scribble their concept of God. I guarantee you that 90% of them will develop stream of consciousness ‘doodling’ about God that is noticeably similar to all the others.
Isn’t interesting too that if you believed in God, as this Puerto Rican Catholic does (LOL), you would probably see things pretty much as I do.
Dominant culture vs. multi-polar cultural reality
I initially thought that globalization meant the
movement towards a dominant, cultural perspective as opposed to a multi-polar conception of culture. I was beginning to grasp, however, a dynamic and dialectical process in which the dominant culture of globalization is continuously impacted and challenged by the numerous cultures with which it comes into contact. This is most apparent in the arts, where the language and symbols of Caribbean, Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Asia, East European are permeating by western art. The Question is how to utilize this process to foster, enrich and sustain a multi-polar cultural world. I would love to hear your ideas about this topic.
RE: Dominant culture vs. multi-polar cultural reality
Multi-cultual cross influencing is not new in art & culture. Think of the art of the ancients, Africans, Moslems; the powerful impact of Eastern art on the Western world, Picasso…all of them. Not a thing new, just as the Europeans had to learn to influence each other. See the exposition of Spanish influenced French artists at the Met. Lam was and is much loved in Europe, as are many other artists of all disciplines.
What does this mean, other than that the art community likes good art, whatever its persuasion. Does it change cultures. Should it. Not to sound cynical (I am not), art is trendy. During the zeitgeist sweep, everybody gets 15 minutes. Most contributors are left behind in its wake. The best go on to get incorporated into the syntax of the prevailing culure which, if you play close attention, tends always to be international, by individual contributors or ‘cultual’ influences.
Globalization, in its short life span, has proven itself to be a ravenous, rapacious beast that instead of allowing diverse cultures to expand into world markets, had instead attempted to steam-rol its way across the planet. This is true in art and commerce. Of course, you know that there is no essential difference.
If & when globalization is reborn, perhaps the debacle will be recast into something more rational and deliberate; something that will offer sustanance to diverse cultures, rather rabid uncontrolled hegemony.
RE: RE: Dominant culture vs. multi-polar cultural
Excellent Red Planet,
Would you define your conception of “Globalization” and “Multipolarization” in the arts. Perhaps you can give more examples about artists, art and themes representing this new phenomenon. And finally, would you write more about your definition of contemporary art and the new technology developed in others countries.
Definitions
Ballester can answer your question, but why don’t I chime in with my views as well.
It appears to me that what is happening in the world is not so much ‘multipolarization’ than ‘micro-apartheid.’ Even as apartheid is a micro breakdown and separation of races, not unlike what we have traditionally experienced in Latino communities, certainly in Puerto Rico — ‘el mestisaje’; the new reality is that instead of being classified from the outside as Latinos or Hispanics, we are now not only either Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, etc etc etc, but even within these cultures, the new apartheid is breaking groups down by race and subethnic groups. More, we are the definers of these groupings ourselves, not the ‘white man.’
This, I find, is very sad indeed.
Where once I would automatically greet my brother walking down the street, whether or not I even knew him, now his greeting is tepid or he walks by in a self-absorbed micro-ethnocentric cloud. Conversations are no longer about the history and and common experiences we share It is as if we no longer have anything in common. Who did this. The answer is ‘no one.’ We are doing it to ourselves. It seems that we are more interested in meeting other groups around the world, but less in meeting ourselves — as a homogeneous People!
In fact, we are not experiencing ‘multipolarization.’ We are engaged in “micropolarization.”
New phenomenon. What new phenomenon. Art themes are ancient and truly relfect the racial subconscious of the human race. New mediums help us translate those themes/messages according to contemporary technology — video art, digital techniques…and so on.
I think we hve to be careful not to confuse new words and message for subtances differences. A digital interpretation of “The Last Supper” does not change the theme.
RE: Definitions
You bring up a few interesting issues, although, what you seem to say basically is that nothing has really changed. Or to use another cliche: The more things change… You fill in the rest. From the perspective of bringing forth more diverse works from the “fringe” of the Metropolis that contributes to a breakdown in visually coding and — possibly, in the future, a re-codification that is in itself more broadly encompassing of the varied ways or codices of visualizing , this would be truly new. And it is my belief that such breakdown is occurring and that regardless of whether capital continues or not, it would seem inevitable that there will continue to be more and more thrown in the mix, racially, ethically, philosophically, artistically. There has already been a major breakdown in the visual codes of the west as well as the east and I think “globalization” is a new iteration of imperialism and in being so draws cultures into each other, breaks them up and spews them out in ways for artists and others to make sense of. I think things certainly are more open for artists to explore: Just look at the works around you, listen to the music. No one can ever say that the past forty years have not involved a major breakdown and transformation. You look at content but artists look at both content and form. And certainly form and aesthetics generally have undergone a tremendous move from the classical conception of beauty. Even what may be called art has radically changed.
CLASSICAL BEAUTY vs POST MODERN BEAUTY
Mariana, what you call form I call [passing] trappings driven by the zeitgeist.
If we use the example of physical beauty
(its easier to talk about corporal forms than abstracts), we have complained for decades that the standard for measuring ‘ethnic’ beauty has always relied on so-called western standards. Well, I’m sure you’re paying as much attention to this as I am…other than clothing sytles, hair styles, ‘mascara’ trends, the epitome of what constitutes ‘the most beautiful’ in all cultures looks exactly the same.
One simple reason could be that, inspite of cultural racial differences, the species tends to look pretty much alike. Another reason, and the one I prefer, is that our subconscious template is the same for th entire species. Asians, Africans, Europeans, Native Americans all share the same structural features; and we measure beauty along these lines, not soco-political standards.
The very same template(s) gauges the beauty of a car’s lines. Ideal form is built into the subconscious, and it transcends racial, ethnic and socio-economic categories. Similarly, you are able to appreciate Mozart, Beethoven, Monk, Sonora Matancera in the very same way that some introduced to the music for the very first time in Beijing — because they match the templates. Those who approximate the templates win the greatest worldwide appreciation for the longest period of time. All of the plastic arts are driven by the same subconscious appetite for ideal form — the same form.
The beauty of this [unifying] principle is that we should be able to see that through the appurtenances of our race and ethnic groups, we are one race, and that these ‘differences’ are essentially portals to one reality — perhaps in the same way that all religions take us to one and the same God.
Catalogue Presentation – Intersecting Circles
Dear Artists and Friends,
Attached are the electronic addresses which link you with the following:
1) Forum topic: A discussion on the issue on art in the age of globalization; “Globalization: What impact has it had on Art?” and 2) Intersecting Circles… exhibition curated online and for the International Print Triennial of Cracow.
1) FORUM topic:
http://www.prdream.com/cgi-bin/bin/discussionBoard.cgi?TOPIC=0090
2) Intersecting Circles… exhibition curated online at:
http://www.prdream.com/galeria/index.html
Please forward this information to people that you think may be interested in this Forum topic. I hope that people who are part of the discussion as well as others will come to PRDREAM.COM’s new media loft, 161 East 106th Street, for a formal presentation of the Intersecting Circles Catalogue and personally share their experience about the topic some time in November. I will send you the exact date and time soon.
Fraternally,
Diógenes Ballester
RE: CLASSICAL BEAUTY vs POST MODERN BEAUTY
Theories of ‘sub-conscious’ standards of beauty are part of the hegemony of globalization put into place by the Athenization of culture. The idea of one god is in itself a cosmological concept of the West and Middle East. If one does not believe in the concept of anthropomorphizied dieties (I don’t) or of western psychiatric concepts of the dichotomous construction of consciousness and subconsciousness (I don’t) then a global standard of aesthetic form propagated by human perseptual and/or cognitive structure becomes very questionable.
I don’t believe that human culture shares any notion of one god, and certainly all religeous practice does not lead to belief in one god. Some religions or cosmological believe systems do not even believe in dieties as the west constructs them at all (Bhuddism, deep ecology paganism, atheism, Confucianism, Hinduism, theosophy).
While the general shared aesthetic perceptions of the species are undeniable – we are all homo sapiens sapiens – to impy that they are hegemonic in of themselves or absolute in any way constructs a paradigm that seems exclusive and limiting to creative production and experience.
In a world where physical/material beauty seems to have been separated from social/spiritual beauty (a VERY Western concept of materialism that pervades both Classic and post-Modern thought becuase it prioritorizes the individual aesthtic experience)perhpas the entire concept of beauty itself need to be questioned. The beauty of war and the voyeuristic beauty of violence seem to permeate our cultures (both Western and Eastern and whatever)
perhaps the general instinctual perceptive attractions of the human species needs to be vigerously interrogated and not substantiated.
As Diogenes said – the concept to be valued is that we are not all alike – we do not think the same things are beautiful even though we share the same organic perceptual systems. These differences are valuable and perhaps they can provide the theoretical resources to not only address the idea of beauty but to change human desire itself in regard to the ubiquity of violence and injustice that prevents the creation and appreciation of all the different beauties globally.
Let me end this dispatch with an apology for my strident tone – after all a continued dialog between those who believe in a deity or spiritua/philosophical construction known as God and those like me whose consomology does not include deistic concepts seems crucial. Otherwise how will we address the Christian fundamentalist coup in the USA and the war in the Middle-East especially the Palestine/Israeli war?
Peace
em’Weber
Globalization and Art
Just returned from a week in Cuba: gave highly successful lecture on Globalization. 4 pages single-spaced. Deals many issues in Latin America, etc.
Globalization, Privatization and the Art Market
Just delivered same in Havana; very well received. 8 double-spaced pages. Available in English and Spanish. Deals with topics above, references many locations in Latin America, also exploitive posture of Guggenheim museum in many areas Europe, and in Latin America. Saludos, Shifra
RE: Globalization, Privatization and the Art Market
available to you if you wish to use it.
globalization etc
OK: I have a document you can use: Globalization, Privitation and the Art Market. Received very well in Cuba last week.
RE: RE: CLASSICAL BEAUTY vs POST MODERN BEAUTY
I think your tone is less acerbic or short than you think. You might get a different sense of how you are perceived if you bring your language down a bit. Its easy. Just talk simply. The ideas are more persuasive and readable by most; and also lessens your sense of what you have to say when your remarks echo back at you.
Be that as it may, you make excellent points, nonetheless.
I certainly do believe that there are far fewer differences between the different peoples of the Earth than we like to think; that there is a subconcious (collective consciousness, if you will) that is the instrument by which the species will become ‘one’ ultimately.
I chose to use Beauty as the metaphor because it is not only so easy to see,but the actual product we are talking about. The push of the human race is to blend the races,even if the way is paved with blood. I am not sure how youre factoring ‘violence’ in as an aesthetic consideration. The violence we encounter creates, in my view, levels of post traumatic stress disorders, and perhaps ‘aping’ behavior is a manifestatioin of that condition; but I do not see that it is becoming a standard in the sense that ‘Beauty’ is a standard. The violent affect is a primitive impulse that I firmly believe the species is in the process of expelling from its genetic coding.
On hegemony, it is easy to place the blame on ‘European’ dominance of the media by which we learn what we believe it. Firstly, I have not really noticed that Europeans necessarily dominate our perceptual standards, especially since Eastern and Near Eastern, Pre-Colombian, and Sub-Saharan aesthetic values systems are prominantly evident in their ‘art’
Now maybe its because I grew up abusing the worked ‘hegemony’ that I wince when I hear an adult use it these days; but, be that too as it may, the drive to impose ones value systems and control ‘market shares’ is a human failing, equally active in all of us. The resulting genocidal tendencies in cultures we’ve read about (Europe, Pre-colonial Africa, Pre-colombian America, and so on) is clear and evident. Therefore, I no longer accuse Europeans of ‘hegemony’ It means nothing, and gets me nowhere.
To get back for moment to the conceit of this nice discourse, seeing the world as ‘one’ does not hamper creative expression. On the contrary, it is the variety of creative expression, certainly Post-modern approaches, that bring these common elements to the foreground. Isn’t that interesting or ironical. Perhaps the creative community that is spending too much of its time talking about what theyre doing is not paying attention to what they are doing. (I wonder whether this kind of active intellection is not more of a distraction than a motor for creative output.)
Consider this experiment: Select artist, of any medium, from different periods in history, and from as wide a selection of cultures as possible. Transe them, and ask them to scribble their concept of God. I guarantee you that 90% of them will develop stream of consciousness ‘doodling’ about God that is noticeably similar to all the others.
Isn’t interesting too that if you believed in God, as this Puerto Rican Catholic does (LOL), you would probably see things pretty much as I do.