Expanding Internationalism - A Conference on ... - Mary Jane Jacob

EXPANDING INTERNATIONALISM
A <strong>Conference</strong> on International Exhibitions
May 27 • 28, 1990
Venice, Italy
Arts International
Institute of International Education
809 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017
212-984-5370

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Foreword 1
Jane M. Gullong
II. Introduction 5
Mary Jane Jacob
III. Opening Remarks 13
Sheila Avrin McLean
IV.
Keynote Speeches
Simultaneous Translation: Mbdernity and the Inter-national 21
Homi K. Bhabha
The Verb "Curate"
35
Guy Brett
V. Position Papers
Aracy A. Amaral (Brazil)
Ermlanuel Nnakenyi Arinze (Nigeria)
Piedad de Ballesteros (Colombia)
Ma.rk Francis (Great Britain/United States)
Guillermo GOmez-P~a (United States)
Ma.rina Grzinic (Yugoslavia)
Beral Madra (Turkey)
Jean-Hubert Martin (France)
Gerardo M::>squera (Cuba)
Bernice Murphy (Australia)
David A. Ross (United States)
Ryszard Stanislawaki (Poland)
Vladimir Vadja (Yugoslavia)
51
57
63
67
69
73
79
83
85
87
91
95
97
VI. Moderators' Summaries of Roundtable Discussions
VII.
Multiculturalism
Kinshasha Holman Conwill
The Other
catherine David
International Exhibitions Today
Lynn Gumpert
International Exhibitions and the Host Country
Paulo Herkenhoff
New Forums
Milena Kalinovska
List of Participants
103
109
113
123
130
141

FOREWORD
Arts International, a division of the Institute of International
Education, convened a two-day conference "<strong>Expanding</strong> <strong>Internationalism</strong>" during
the opening week of the Venice Biennale in May 1990.
The papers and
commentary included in this report reflect something of the wide-ranging
discussion that took place on the ways in whiCh contemporary art of diverse
cultures is chosen and presented in international shows.
The participants themselves represented the Challenge of expanding
internationalism, corning from 36 different countries and drawn equally from
Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East, Latin America, North
America, and Western Europe.
Their energy and receptivity to new ideas made
the conference an important step in reconsidering and Changing the role and
irrpact of major international arts exhibitions throughout the world.
The
riChness of the papers and discussion has already produced more interest in
continuing to exchange ideas through meetings, conferences and publications.
"<strong>Expanding</strong> <strong>Internationalism</strong>" would not have taken place without the
leadership, corrmitment and generosity of its contributors. Alberta Arthurs,
Director of the Arts and Humanities at The Rockefeller Foundation, encouraged
the development of the ideas for this conference from the outset and The
Rockefeller Foundation's support made it possible for participants to come
from all over the world.
Raymond Learsy, Agnes Gund, and The Stanley and
Madalyn Rosen Fund made contributions at a crucial moment in the conference
planning and we are most grateful for their vision and generosity. The United
States Information Agency provided travel subsidy for several of the
participants from Africa. Fiat made possible a reception and private viewing
of "Andy Warhol: A retrospective" at The Palazzo Grassi.

The conference was conceptualized and coordinated by Mary Jane Jacob who
brilliantly identified the participants, named the issues and conceived the
conference format.
The staff of the Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice,
especially Renata Rossani and its Director, Philip Rylands were indispensable
supporters.
The Cini Foundation on San Giorgio Maggiore and Venice itself
were an inspirational and unparalleled setting for an international meeting.
Arts International, which administers The Fund for U.S. Artists at
International Festivals and Exhibitions, undertook the organization of this
conference with the encouragement of the Fund's partners--The National
Endowment for the Arts, The Pew Charitable Trusts, The Rockefeller Foundation,
and The United States Information Agency.
The Fund was established to help
assure that the excellence, diversity, and vitality of the arts in the United
States are represented at international events. Arts International, a
division of the Institute of International Education, encourages international
collaboration in all the arts through programs of grants, advocacy, exchange
and information.
The Institution of International Education is the largest
educational exchange agency in the United States. It manages more than 200
exchange and training programs, involving 158 countries.
Noreen Tomassi, Associate Director of Arts International administered
"<strong>Expanding</strong> <strong>Internationalism</strong>. "
The staff was guided by Sheila McLean, Vice
President for the Arts and Education of the Institute of International
Education and by Thomas M=sser, Chairman of Arts International' s Advisory
Corrnnittee and the Director Emeritus of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation.
Finally, it is our hope that "<strong>Expanding</strong> <strong>Internationalism</strong>" will not end
with the conference in Venice or with this report, being distributed now only
to its participants and supporters. Arts International is seeking support for
-2 -

the printing 1
publication and wider distribution of this report. We hope to
encourage the establishment of permanent networks among curators; to arrange
regional meetings that continue to address these critical issues; and to
encourage and sustain dialogue which may result in meaningful collaborations
and exchanges.
Jane M. Gullong
Director 1 Arts International
-3 -

-4 -

INTRODUCTION
International exhibitions have gained vitality and taken on a new
irrportance in the field over the past decade.
Their frequency, scale,
attendance, costs, and press coverage have all escalated; they now play a
central role in the exhibiting, making, and distribution of contemporary
art. At the same time, we have also become more aware of aesthetic and
cultural issues that can no longer be contained within the definitions of
national boundaries nor identified with a single type of artist today.
Now after a series of critically and commercially influential
international exhibitions in the 1980s, and in light of events of the
recent past that have reshaped political, economic, and cultural
boundaries around the world, it seemed particularly timely to take up the
subject of international forums and look at them from today's changed
perspective as it reflects a new era of internationalism. Venice, the
site of the longest running international show and occasion for the
international art world to gather, was an especially appropriate place and
moment for this meeting.
The impetus for this conference carne in 1989 from the museum and
arts professionals serving on the Federal Advisory Committee on
International Exhibitions who expressed a feeling of isolation and lack of
dialogue with their colleagues worldwide.
Knowledge of major periodic
international shows beyond the biennials of Venice, S~o Paulo, and Sydney;
Gennany' s "Documenta; " and the U.S. ' s "Carnegie International" is scant
and their irrpact is greatly diminished.
From a wide range of sources,
recommendations of possible participants were received.
The delegates
-5 -

invited were those who play an active role in the criticism or
presentation of contemporary art in their countries and who have special
interest in international exchange.
An attempt was made to represent
nations from around the world defined as the following six areas: Africa,
Asia/Pacific, Eastern Europe/Middle East, Latin America, North America,
and Western Europe.
A balance was achieved as far as possible within the
budgetary limitations of both organizers and participants, and given the
logistics of worldwide communication and personal factors of
availability. This meeting was intended to be a working session limited
to about 50 persons. From an initial mailing of 100 names in 50
countries, 56 individuals attended, coming to Venice from 29 countries: 4
from 4 African nations, 6 from 4 Asian/Pacific countries, 7 from 4 Eastern
Europe/Middle Eastern countries, 7 from 6 Latin American countries, 19
from 3 North American nations, and 13 from 8 Western European countries.
To have a meaningful dialogue--one in whiCh all participants could
take an active part--the conference centered around five roundtable
discussion groups eaCh composed of ten participants led by a moderator.
Being able to talk directly to eaCh other was essential for grappling with
the philosophical and practical problems facing us today in presenting art
internationally and to come to an understanding of what others--and
ourselves--mean by the terra "international art."
The conference opened with keynote speeChes by two distinguished
critical thinkers in the field of international art. Their talks are
reprinted in full in this report. Homi Bhabha, a professor in comparative
literature and literary theory who has become a spokesman for a new field
of critical thought in the visual art, has brought aspects of his
-6-

discipline of training to the theoretical inquiry of the arts. In his
talk, "Simultaneous Translation: Modernity and the Inter/National," he
advocated a change from a binary system of international relationships
(e.g., us and them, self and other) that implies "social destiny of
difference" and defines cultural universalism, simultaneously translating
cultures in terms of each other, sanitizing cultural difference between
foreign cultures, homogenizing them, and placing them within a hierarchy
of major and minor, or marginal cultures. He showed how modernity, a
Euro-centric notion, can only be insured in a culturally homogeneous
climate such as that of Western nation-states, which itself demands a
binary logic of inside/outside, tradition/progress, and so on.
Emanating
from a colonial perspective, modernity appropriates the "Other" to
establish cultural prerogative and superiority. Bhabha asked for a
rethinking of the language of cultural corrmunity from a post-colonial
point of view that would allow for complex cultural and political
boundaries, and a hybridization of cultural influence.
The next speaker, Guy Brett, a London-based critic who has organized
several exhibitions of Latin American artists as well as published on both
avantgarde and vernacular art, spoke directly to the group in their role
as exhibition organizers, asking them in his talk "The Verb Curate" to
consider a show's context as a major curatorial responsibility. He began
with the premise that the familiar format of biennials is inadequate, and
even that of ":M3giciens de la Terre" (Centre Georges Pompidou, 1989) ,
which departed from previous models, still polarized work by showing it
according to "us and them" lines. Brett suggests that efforts for greater
"international representation" in so-called international exhibitions are
-7 -

meaningless without fresh thinking of the concept of art and the models
used for these exhibitions. He pointed to artists who have stretched
limits and brought about new genres as a model for how curators can expand
the idea of internationalism. To Brett, what is needed now is not just an
extension of the existing system to include others, but a redefinition of
the system and alteration of the assumptions upon which it has been
traditionally based.
In addition to these two lectures, a series of position papers were
distributed to serve as the basis for the next day' s roundtables.
These
commissioned statements by selected participants from the six defined
regions of the world are all reprinted here.
In these, their authors
addressed:
how they define "international" geographically and
philosophically; if they believe that work from diverse nations can be
presented in the same exhibition; whether they find traditional biennales
to still be a viable format for exchange today; how international
exhibitions function for their country; and what they think are the
pressing challenges that lie ahead.
On the second day of the meeting, participants reported to the
roundtable to which they had been assigned.
Broadly speaking, the topics
were defined as: Imllticulturalism, the other, the host country,
international exhibitions today, and new· forums.
"Mllticulturalism" was
led by Kinshasha Holman Conwill, Executive Director of The Studio Mlseum
in Harlem, New York.
This group investigated how a Im.llticultural point of
view can affect the organization of international exhibitions; whether
this work can be selected according to the same aesthetic criteria used to
assess mainstream art, and whether this work should be joined in the same
exhibition with mainstream works, in other words, in what context should
this work be viewed.
-8 -

Catherine David, Curator at the Jeu de Paume, Paris, led the session on
"The Other" which looked at how we represent the art of other cultures and
how we represent ourselves to others in international exhibitions. As we
increasingly observe confrontation between the dominant and those of
others, it is necessary to consider what context is appropriate, or even
possible, for showing the work of diverse cultures. Are we seeking to
achieve a balance of cultural diversity or to shed light on cultural
difference by expanding the scope of international exhibitions How do
anthropological or social points of view based on a colonial perspective
intervene in the presentation of this work, and how can they be changed.
How international exhibitions can be made more effective for the
host country, particularly when they are located outside major Western
centers, was the theme of the roundtable led by Paulo Herkenhoff, curator
of the M.lseu de Arte de sao Paulo I
Brazil. Location can effect a show' s
focus, interpretation, and reception. How the individual participant's
concerns were shaped by their country of residency became evident in
exploring whether such exhibitions should respond to local needs for
exposure to contercporary art, or be intended for the international art
community.
It was pointed out that the lack of press and infonnation
systems, and the weak patronage or gallery system in some parts of the
world affect how these shows are represented and received
internationally. Also discussed was how artists and institutions in the
host country can be more actively engaged in the international show, and
how these shows can be used as an occasion to educate the local
constituency.
-9-

Lynn Gumpert, an independent curator based in New York, moderated
the discussion group dealing with the contribution of international
exhibitions to today' s conterrporary art scene.
The conversation
inevitably led to considerations of how the prevailing mainstream and the
marketplace affect the content of these shows and whether they are best
seen as forums to expose new art; or to give recognition to those artists
who have reached a certain level of achievement; or to deal with topical
concerns.
In addition, the format for international exhibitions best
suited to displaying today's art--the blockbuster, smaller focused,
thematic shows, or shows of individual artists--was debated.
Throughout
the discussion it was necessary to keep returning to the question: who is
the audience for these exhibitions
"New Forums" was the subject of the roundtable led by Washington,
D.C. -based independent curator Milena Kalinovska.
This group looked at
how new models and sites might help to address the need for an expanded
internationalism, or could changes be achieved through curatorial
leadership, for instance, by increasing the participation of non-Western
curators. Government agencies have played a key role up till now in
defining the character of international exhibitions; the group discussed
how this could be changed, as well as what are the viable exhibition
formats that can be alternatives to that of national divisions as
exemplified by the Venice pavilions; and who should organize international
shows--should they be selected by one curator, a committee, local or
foreign persons It was found that in reconsidering the international
scene, there is a pronounced need for new exhibition sites around the
-10-

world through which change can be implemented.
If instituted, how could
exhibition sites outside the West be promoted to a primary rather than
secondary status
An outline of the proceedings of these roundtable discussions was
presented by the moderators in a plenary session immediately following.
Their summaries are also contained ir1 this publication. From these it was
clear that each roundtable touched on many of the same issues, though
approached them from different perspectives. General themes of inequity
within the art system and imbalance of nations as represented in the art
world was frequently voiced.
The traditional Western-based program was
constantly questioned.
Over and over the need for new types of
international exhibitions and exchanges was expressed, along with the need
for a new terminology to deal with these issues and concepts. And in this
dialogue more voices from the non-Western world, it was evident, are
needed and will hopefully be heard in future conferences.
Though seemingly coming from differing points of view and, in fact,
from different parts of the world, many participants surprisingly found
that their interests coincided and that they faced the same problems in
bringing about change.
This bond, in part, was due to a growing
connection and communication between art professionals around the world.
Each delegate, too, in being selected with same criteria in mind, shared
some common experience and attitudes that allowed for ready discussion.
For the most part they represented a generation seeking to change the
status quo.
-11-

Immediate results from this meeting were seen even before its
closing: new associations and networks were built as newly introduced
colleagues spoke about future plans and projects. In the responses
received after the event many spoke regrettably that the time was too
short to get to know each other and to talk. The program for this
conference, with its far reaching and general topics, was too broad to
cover all subjects thoroughly, but it revealed a future agenda.
And this
conference conceived as a starting point will hopefully be but one
conversation in a continuing dialogue.
Perhaps moving on in other
directions, subsequent meetings may bring more artists into the
conversation; continue the successful roundtable format while focusing on
more specific topics or those germane to the conference site; may become a
forum for visual, as well as verbal, exchange of information; make
recommendations for action. For now, this conference, however, has served
to move us along in our collective and individual rethinking of
internationalism, cultural context, and conterrporary art.
Mary Jane Jacob
Independent Curator
-12-

OPENING REMARKS AT THE PLENARY SESSION
Sheila Avrin MCLean
Vice President, Arts and Education
Institute of International Education
On behalf of the Institute of International Education and Arts
International, I am pleased to welcome you to this conference.
We are
delighted to have gathered such a distinguished group--50 participants from 32
nations--to discuss the irrportant subject of this meeting: the changing nature
of international exhibitions.
I would like to take a few moments before addressing the specific goals of
this conference to familiarize you with the work of IIE and of its Arts
International program.
The Institute of International Education has been in existence for over 70
years.
It was founded soon after the First World War by a group of prominent
U.S. internationalists who believed that lasting peace depended upon greater
understanding among nations and that such understanding could be increased
through cultural exchange.
The Institute began operations in 1919 with a
single program.
Today, it has evolved into a diverse organization that
administers over 250 programs involving nearly 10,000 individuals in over 150
countries. We currently have staff in six U.S. cities and in Hong Kong,
Indonesia, Thailand, Mexico, Egypt, Sri Lanka, South Zimbabwe and we will soon
be opening an office in Eastern Europe.
The exchanges managed by IIE are supported by individuals and by a variety
of organizations, including foundations, corporations, the U.S. government,
international organizations, and foreign governments.
Certainly our best
-13-

known program is the Fulbright Exchange.
All our activities, however, are
linked together by our fundamental mission:
to encourage the free flow of
ideas and the sharing of intellectual and cultural resources across national
boundaries.
The Institute's involvement with the arts dates back at least forty years
to 1949 when it brought 22 artists to the United States for summer residencies
and administered the first Fulbright Fellowships in the creative arts. A few
years later, the Institute began management of a visual arts program which
continued until 1983, touring exhibitions in cooperation with the Smithsonian
Traveling Exhibition Service and the American Federation for the Arts.
The creation of the Arts International division in 1987 was a result of
our increasing cornnitment to the arts as envoys of society's most inportant
cultural messages.
With the guidance of Thomas Messer, its chairman and
director emeritus of the Guggenheim Foundation and M.lseums, Arts International
works in a number of ways to enc::ow:-ag€! international activities.
First, Arts International is manager of the Fund for U.S. Artists at
International Festivals and Exhibitions. This Fund is supported by the
National Endowment for the Arts, the U.S. Infonnation Agency, The Rockefeller
Foundation, and The Pew Charitable Trusts. It provides $1 million annually to
send U.S. performing artists to international festivals and to support u.s.
representation at international exhibitions such as this one in Venice.
This
year, The Fund has provided essential support for the Jenny Holzer
exhibition.
N
Last year, it sponsored the Martin Puryear show at the Sao Paolo
Bienal.
-14-

Second, Arts International also manages a number of other fellowships,
travel grants, internships, and exchange programs, including the prestigious
Cintas Fellowships which provide grants of $10,000 to Cuban expatriate artists
around the world.
Third, within the United States, Arts International is a primary
clearinghouse for information about international arts. We maintain data on
sources of support for international arts projects and on international
festivals and exhibitions. We also publish reports and books that provide
information to U.S. artists interested in working internationally.
In addition to these activities, Arts International has a very serious
advocacy agenda aimed at creating a U.S. policy on cultural exchange and
increasing government and private-sector support for international work.
Led
by Mr. Messer, Arts International's Advisory Committee works toward these
goals in cooperation with prominent national leaders from the public and
private $ectors.
Arts International also has become, somewhat by accident, a conference
organizer. From time to time, an issue presents itself to us that we and our
~nsors believe cries out for intelligent analysis and discussion and we find
ourselves convening a conference.
This conference is--as its title suggests--concerned with expanding and
redefining the structure and goals of international exhibitions.
Traditionally, international exhibitions have been grouped by national
definition. But perhaps the time has come to introduce new models.
As you know, it has become increasingly difficult to label artists
bycountry and we have all become increasingly sensitive to the inherent
hierarchy and cultural biases such a system encourages.
There is a growing
-15-

need to acknowledge the cultural diversity within countries and accept that
cultural connections and communities in the late 20th century are no longer
bound by national borders.
In fact, we have experienced--and are in the middle of
experiencing--significant changes in the ways nations coexist. We trade in
new corrmon markets. We share media. ~~e ponder shared solutions to global
dangers--ranging from the environment to arms control. Remarkably, in the
past year, we seemed to have embraced exchange as the essential means for
growth in the next century. More than ever, we rely on arts and culture as a
corrmon language to facilitate this exchange, and upon nu.1seums as the halls of
cultural diplomacy and curators as cultural diplomats.
IIE is proud to have helped bring together this meeting of curators and
other experts to consider some of the deeper messages of: whose art is
displayed why and how might choices of exhibitions be expanded
We are
living in a historic period of transition of nations, which co:rrpels us to look
back at history. Almost two centuries ago, in 1798, Friedrich Wilhelm of
Prussia wrote of great paintings:
"Only by making them public and uniting
them in display can they become the object of true study, and every result
obtained from this is a new gain for the corrmon good of mankind."
This conference is intended to engage those already working in the field
of international exhibitions. There can be no more irrportant or timely
subject than how such exhbitions can, in Friedrich Wilhelm's language, "result
in new gains for the corrmon good of mankind."
This conference has been
structured to create dialogue among a small number of participants
representing every part of the globe. We hope that it will engender new
-16-

alliances among individuals from diverse cultures and ultimately challenge the
way in which international shows have been conceived.
Most important, we hope
it will offer practical suggestions for the future and act as a catalyst for
change.
I would like to thank the Rockefeller Foundation for their support of this
gathering and their contribution to travel stipends.
They have made this a
far more inclusive gathering than would otherwise have been possible.
I would
also like to thank three private donors--Raymond Learsy, Agnes Gund, and
Madalyn Rosen--for their generous contributions.
Our thanks also to the Fondazione Giorgio Cini for sharing this beautiful
setting with us.
And I thank all of you for joining us and for bringing your ideas and
experience to bear on these vitally important issues.
-17-

-18-

-19-

-20-

SIMULTANEOUS TRAN"SIATION: :MJDERNITY AND THE INTER-NATIONAL
Homi K. Bhabha
International events exude an aura of the "common good" in their
attempts to forge a common language in which to continue the cultural
conversations of mankind.
Despite the asymmetrical relations of
geopolitical power, and the appropriation or annihilation of sites of
cultural otherness, we seek a kind of redemptive, representative
commonality.
And we seek it in a world that is only as brave as the
aftermath of AIDS, Chernobyl, and Bhopal allows us to be;
only as new as
the 'new' freedoms of Eastern Europe which bring in their wake the
spectres of racism, nee-fascism.
If ours is no longer a brave new world,
there is none-the-less a horizon of hope that haunts international
events: the hope for a common language of corrparison, connection,
collaboration and communication;
the possibility of a kind of
"simultaneous translation" of cultural traditions, aesthetic strategies
and political priorities.
We seek to represent their historical time in our space;
to
synchronise our signs and sciences with their knowledges and notions; to
simultaneously place our tribes and traditions beside their myths and
mentalities; to reflect their identities in our mirrors and somehow,
ironically, attempt to look at ourselves in another's glass darkly.
Ours
and theirs determine various social relations: the socio-political
distance between North and South, the class divisions of Them and Us, the
cultural marginalisations irrplicit in Self and other, the discriminations
of race and sexuality represented as the "normal" and the "perverse."
-21-

In the "international" mode -- if I may call it that -- we seek to
simultaneously translate such polarities in terms of each other,
registering the social destiny of difference -- sometimes tragic,
sometimes empowering -- in order to transcend them in a for:m of cultural
universalism, sometimes called the "global village," sometime, the
"international community."
It is as if the main technological innovation
that makes possible an international discourse -- simultaneous translation
-- becomes cultural differences. But culture does not live by metaphor
alone!
The "market" is equally implicated in the simultaneous translation
of the "symbolic capital" of art-works into the values of the
stock-exchange even if the language of possession/acquisition is couched
in the mixed metaphors of patronage, patriarchalism and patriotism: Who
can forget Alan Bond's attempt to make a thousand flowers bloom by buying
the Van Gogh Irises, "for Australia." Van Gogh's ghost went crying all
the way to the bank!
The crucial question is whether the universalism, that is often
inherent in the expansive, empathetic impulse to "simultaneously
translate" cultures, can provide us with the critical space appropriate to
the contradictory and hybrid cultural identities that distinguish the
histories of nations toward the end of our century.
The "global issue"
may blur the "localness" of the national location, but as one artist
recently testified: "We are pushed to understand our work in a more
universal context ... [although] I know that when I say "universal" that
context is defined by Western culture." Should our search for an
international, liberal "comnon ground" be replaced by our attention to the
more problematic, more liminal sense of a shifting, multivalent
-22-

"borderline" between and within national comrmmities
How do we negotiate
those contentious borderline histories that are expressed in the
hyphenated, articulated peoples of our times - diasporic, refugee,
migrant, exilic: African-American, Latino-Chicano, Afro-Caribbean,
Sri-Lankan Tamil, Aboriginal-Australian, Indo-Kashmiri, Turkish
gastarbeiter, New Yurican
The cornnon coin of cultural exchange in modem societies, at the
international level, is still the national community and the national
culture, even though their representations may be more complex.
In the
current climate it is difficult to think of the politics of cultural
identity outside the national question. We celebrate the blossoming of
the "Prague spring" in the Winter of 1989 for much of Eastern Europe;
we
are painfully and quite properly reminded of the need for national
self-determination in South Africa and Palestine; we rightly deplore the
violations of national autonomy in the Carribean, now that it is
increasingly seen as the "backyard of the United States of America." We
have no option but to agree with Edward Said that "You want the right to
represent yourself, to have your own ethos and ethnos; "
but then his
qualification must be our urgent task:
"unless ... linked ... to a wider
practice which I would call liberation, beyond national liberation ... it
seems to me a violently dangerous and awful trap. "
Our vision must extend beyond the two familiar, if opposed,
positions that determine the terms of "international" discourse. We
cannot place ourselves in that Archimedian space of neutrality between
"world cultures," in a kind of mus~ imaginaire;
nor can we espouse the
nativist perspective that speaks assertively, on the basis of its own
-23-

"authentic," pure cultural particularism. Neither of these positions
takes us into that wider practice of liberation because they do not
interrogate and displace the underlying myth of modernity that fuels the
universalist tendency of this questionable "internationalism. "
And this
strategy to appropriate and sanitize "cultural difference, " in the name of
the universal, is not only relevant to the representation of other
"foreign" cultures -- of the Orient by the Occident -- it is equally
crucial to the heirarchical and homogeneous representation of the
"otherness" of minority or marginal cultures within the indigenous or
native "location," done in the name of the national and international,
both in the East and the West.
For despite the multinational movements of capital, the
transnational telecommunications networks, the international language of
the Coca-cola sign, and ethnographic surrealism of Warhol's Marilyn on a
calcutta billboard, advertising Ponds's, appropriately named, Vanishing
Cream -- despite these simulcral citations that some jejune postrnodernists
celbrate as making new, carnivalesque connections in time and space, I
agree more with the Chilean-New York artist Alfredo Jaar that, although
there is a growing referencing and cross-referencing of diverse cultural
locations and practices, in some essential ways "the boundaries between
'here' and 'there' are stronger than ever. Racial tensions are
increasing, immigration laws are becoming more restrictive ... So the way
from there to her from the non-West to the West is closed, although it is
an open road from here to there ... we send them our garbage, our poisons."
The cultural traffic from here to there is powered at the
idealogical level by the Eurocentric notion that it is the cultural
-24-

homogeneity achieved by "national" societies on the Western model, that
ensures the emergence of the "civilizing" values of modernity.
When I
talk of "modernity" I am referring primarily to that set of cultural ideas
and values associated with post-enlightenment Western thinking: the
ethics of individualism, the linear narratives of historicism, the
homogeneity of the social, the sovereignity of the "rational." These
values have a paradoxical existence in those cultural canons that we
identify with the movements of modernism;
reproducing them at the
ideological level while challenging them in the act of formal innovation.
But such paradoxes are permissible because modernity, whose matrix is the
nation-space, enables cultural value to be framed in what Walter Benjamin
called a "homogeneous empty time."
It is a fo:rm of cultural-time that allows the "simultaneous
translation" of traditions and peoples, so long as forms of alterity,
minority voices, marginal and transgressive styles of life and art, can be
ordered and represented in terms of a binary logic of inside/outside,
tradition/progress, custom/culture, ritual/writing. The homogeneous empty
time of modernity needs to move beyond its "ethnos and ethos," to cite,
quote, fetishise, appropriate the "Other" in order to authorise and
establish its cultural prerogative.
If this is not done explicitly in the
name of the nation -- for instance, The National Gallery -- it is done in
the name of the metropolis -- The M=tropolitan M.lseum of Modern Art. Can
the "universal" claims of globality or the metropolitan values of the
museum articulate or exhibit non-appropriative, non-marginalising
significations of cultural difference What are the possibilities of such
representations given the "homogeneous empty time-frame" that provides the
national and international conditions of "modernity"
-25-

Too often the argument takes a moralistic turn: condemnations of
African masks in the work of Picasso, or T.S. Eliot's Vedantic chants of
"Shanti! Shanti! Shanti!" like a doped-out sadhu at the end of The Waste
Land. At other times, as in the Hayward show "The Other Story," in 1989,
there was a far-reaching, collective critique of the paradoxical
ethnocentricity of the citadels of modernity.
Abstract and conceptual artists, many of whom emigrated from the
fo:r:mer colonies to London in the '50s because their radical faith in
modernism had helped them to question the traditionalist precepts of their
societies (often reinforced by colonialist orientalisms), found themselves
barred from the international movement of modernism.
Their abstraction
was derivative; their concepts second-hand;
they somehow lacked the
shock of the new.
Unable to accept the show's historical intervention
into the ethnocentricity of art institutions, critics repeated precisely
what they had said decades before: these were pale shadows of greater
precursors and anyway it was all rather dated now.
We quickly learned the
living credo of cosmopolitanism:
Talk Global, exhibit local:
London ... New York ... Paris ... Berlin ...
M:>dernity and modernism pride themselves on their ability to
simultaneously translate various axial planes, different languages verbal
and visual, multicultural voices and visions. All this, so long as its
fragmentations silently follow the symmetry of that binary ordering at the
point at which texts of cultural difference are articulated. A plurality
of meanings are reproduced in the gaps, in the disturbance of surface
sense and sensibility. Pluralism and relativism are fine so long as the
irrplicit teleology, and the modernist-national history of the "homogeneous
empty time-frame" is preserved as the tabula rasa of cultural
inscription: the nation-space, the gallery-space, the canvas, the page.
-26-

In many instances, despite the invocation of the postrnodern, citation,
assemblage and bricolage, this fundamental pluralism and relativism that
assumes a homogenity of time-frame has not been substantially
transformed.
Indeed, it is Richard Rorty, the much celebrated
Anglo-American "postrnodern" philosopher of pluralism and pragmatics who
writes in his latest work that Western societies have already had all the
conceptual revolutions they need in the work of John Stuart Mill. Whose
modernity What internationalism
Now what I have described as the binary ordering, that produces a
"modernist" teleology at the point of the articulation of cultural
difference, is the specific critical issue in a number of current debates
on the representation of the cultural Other.
Thomas MCEvilley took issue
with the "Primitivism in the 20th Century Art: Affinity of the Tribal and
the Modern" show at The M.lseum of Modern Art, New York, in 1984 precisely
on the grounds of its juxtaposition of the Modem and the "primitive;"
critics of "Magiciens de La Terre," contested the juxtaposition of
postrnodem conceptual Western artists with more traditional, even "folk"
fonns from the Third World which, they claimed, produced (rather than
critically reflected) an ideology of "uneven and unequal development."
In his "The Multicultural Paradigm: An open letter to the National
Arts Community" published in High Perfonnance in Fall 1989 (see also
"Position Papers"), Gomez-Pena also proposes a practice of cultural
juxtaposition across the concept of borderline cultures where "to be
avant-garde in the late '80s is to contribute to the decentralization of
art ... to be able to cross the border back and forth between art and
politically charged territory .... "
The inpulse to dialogue is to
-27-

dialecticize the asymmetrical relations between North and South.
Juxtaposition is a multi valent term:
it refers to philosophical issues
concerned with forms of dialectical or "doubling" in the articulation of
cultural contradiction and heterogeneity;
it relates to the making of
meaning through the mediation of image, metaphor, symbolic and linguistic
difference;
it is relevant to the punctuation of the gallery space with
artworks, juxtaposing text and image, objects, multi-media, orality and
visuality, positioning the spectator;
locating the gaze in the movement
through the te:rrporality of the musemn.
Mc:Evilley' s influential critique -- which objects, in my terms, to
the simultaneous translation of cultural difference -- opens up a debate
both from the critical-theoretical perspective and for the curatorial
function.
I shall only deal with two issues.
First, in objecting to "elective affinities" in the juxtaposition of
modernist and primitive works, Mc:Evilley suggests that the social
intentionality and cultural histories of tribal image makers are repressed
in attributing this or that Western aesthetic to them.
He suggests a form
of autonomy and separatism -- "the fact that the tribal objects were not
shown entirely in their own separate area, that was my point." Secondly,
he says, "I want the objects written about without attributing our motives
to their makers.
I want writing and exhibiting that are as clean as
possible of ego-projections." I will now discuss these issues because
they are resonant and representative problematics wherever
multiculturalism and the Other are in question.
The strategic, political importance of McEvilley' s position cannot
be overemphasised, nor the importance of his critique of that particular
-28-

show. Conceptually it is more problematic. In restoring an autonomous
context for tribal works, doesn't his separatism itself -- which is
polemically pitted against similitude -- suggest a kind of homogenous
time-frame that is part of the peculiar western ideology of national
cultures Does the "separation" not reproduce another form of the binary
ordering that I've argued against In the "separation" is there not the
shadow of the atomization of cultural experience that follows the
particular western division of the private and the public -- the socially
effective and the psychically, sensuously effective -- even while he is
asserting that tribal objects would be better compared with utilitarian
objects rather than objects d'art.
MCEvilley is right to question that specific juxtaposition of
objects, but by demanding a separate space he doesn't question the
"homogeneous empty time" that frames both the connoiseurship he condemns
and, ironically, his own espousal of cultural pluralism and his
problematic ethnographic desire for a problematic transparency in the
reproduction and representation of the "intentionality" of the cultural
Other.
Intentionalities -- as the horizons of social and collective meaning
are always transformed in relation to the institutions and locations in
which they are represented; they can never be inscribed or repeated in and
for themselves.
Their cultural displacement is itself a matter of
interest: a site of re-location and re-inscription.
To demand that cultural judgement and choice be free of
ego-projections is also to ask for a denial of the super-ego;a disavowal
of the norms and values that constitute our awareness of the social and
-29-

ethical world in which we live. To be sanitized of the power of
psychological "projection" is to disavow our dangerous, crucial and
corrplex fo:rms of human identification mediated through myth, symbol,
metaphor, image, narrative, figuration -- human agency without the
fantasmatic function of the Unconscious and the designs and defenses of
desire. This would be to capitulate corrpletely to a "rationalist" notion
of modernity and the sovereign individualist subject.
It would also fail
to interrogate -- by sirrply negating -- the institutional, and individual
desire and pleasure that constitutes the modern museum's flirtation with a
manicured, well-mannered metissage.
McEvilley leads us correctly to the
"ethnocentric" boundaries of the modernist culture of aestheticism and
museum practice, but his propagation of a form of separate, exhibiting
spaces for the Other's culture, does not open up that hybrid "borderline"
that I've argued for, and which Jaar and Gomez-Pena evoke as a horizon of
hope in the '90s.
What form of cultural juxtaposition could free us from modernity's
homogenous empty time and its universalist implications
This requires an understanding of the strange "irrpossibility" of
modernity, the paradoxical destiny of difference that fuels its desire for
the Other; confronts it with the cultural and structural ambivalence that
constitutes its own authoritative image; reveals the narcissistic, organic
"boundaries" of its cultural priority or purity as always being open to
the "borderline" process of difference and heterogeneity. For crucially,
the binary divisions upon which cultural homogeneity is secured -- in the
simultaneous translation of the national as the international -- suggest
that it is only through the process of difference that cultural priority
I
,t.,.'
-30-

can be secured.
At this point we begin to see that the cultural myths of
national integrity and organicism, contained in the homogeneous empty
time-frame, are open to question.
In his influential essays on national
sentiment, Tom Nairn names the nation "the modern Janus." Nationalisms
repress our awareness of the "uneven development" of capitalism, he
argues.
There exists a splitting at the heart of the idea of national
modernity:
progression and regression, political rationality and
irrationality exist simultaneously in the very genetic code of the
nation.
This is a structural fact to which there are no exceptions and
"in this sense, it is an exact (not a rhetorical) statement about the
nation to say that it is by nature ambivalent."
To reveal such a liminality of national cultures -- both in the East
and the West -- in order to contest fonns of cultural supremacy and
domination, is the prime task of the postcolonial perspective.
Its
significant precursor here is the cultural front of feminist movements
that rearticulate the personal-in-the-political. The irrportant
contribution of psychoanalysis for cultural analysis is to question the
"naturalization" of masculinity and femininity; to suggest that these
positions of the subject are neither biological nor binary.
The cultural
politics of sexual difference struggles to understand the objects of
fantasy and representation -- dreams, desires, discourse, displacement
as the point at which the symbolisation of the social crosses over, and
crosses out, the full sufficiency of the subject.
In questioning the notion of a homogeneous empty time-frame of
modernity, the postcolonial perspective provides an alternative historical
and conceptual frame for the articulation of cultural differences.
It
-31-

substantially intervenes into those justifications of modernity -­
progress, homogeneity, cultural organicism, the "deep nation," the "long"
past -- that rationalize the authoritarian, "normalizing" tendencies
within cultures in the name of the national interest of the ethnic
prerogative. Post-coloniality is not the "end" of domination; it is the
recognition of its diversity and dissemination; its hybrid and productive
existence at the level of cultural objects' identifications. It disavows
any nationalist or "nativist" pedagogy that sets up the relation of Third
World and First World in a binary structure of opposition.
The
postcolonial perspective resists any such homogeneous or holistic forms of
social explanation in its recognition of the more complex cultural and
political boundaries that exist in-between these political spheres.
It is
a way of reconciling Jaar' s sense of the peculiar and perverse nearness
and farness of the here and the there.
It is from this experience of a productive hybrid of cultural
influence and "national" detennination, that the postcolonial attempts to
elaborate a historical and cultural project. The orientation of such a
project requires a for.m of dialectical thinking that doesn't sublate or
surmount the alterity, the Otherness that constitutes the symbolic
representation of psychic or social identification. The play of social
contradiction, or the incommensurability of cultural judgments, resist the
transcendent scale of universalism; they cannot easily be accomodated
within a cultural or philisophical relativism that assumes "a public and
syrrmetrical world" (Ernest Gellner) The cultural possibilities of such a
differential history have led Fredrick Jameson to recognize the
"internationalization of the national situations" in the postcolonial
-32-

criticism of Roberto Retamar "which calls us into question fully as much
as it acknowledges the Other ... neither reduc [ ing] the Third World to some
homogeneous Other of the West, nor ... vacuously celebrat [ ing] the
'astonishing' pluralism of human cultures". (Foreword to Retamar, caliban
and Other Essays, University of Minnesota, 1989) .
As current debates in postmodemism question, to adapt Hegel' s
phrase, the "cunning" of modernity -- its historical ironies, its
disjunctive temporalities, its paradoxes of progress, its representational
aporia -- it would profoundly change the values and judgements of such
interrogations if they were open to the argument that metropolitan
histories of civitas cannot be conceived without evoking the savage
colonialist and imperialist antecedents of the ideals of civility. It
also suggests, by implication, that the language of rights and
obligations, so central to the modem myth of a peoples, must be
questioned on the basis of th~
anomalous and discriminatory legal and
cultural status assigned to migrant, diasporic and refugee populations who
find themselves, inevitably, on the other side of the law.
The postcolonial perspective forces us to rethink the profound
limitations of a concensual and collusive "liberal" sense of corrmunity.
It insists that cultural and political identity is constructed through a
process of alterity. Questions of race and cultural difference overlay
issues of sexuality and gender, and overdetermine the social alliances of
class and democratic socialism. The time for "assimilating" minorities to
holistic and organic notions of cultural value has dramatically passed.
In this neuraesthenic hour the very language of cultural and "national"
corrmunity needs to be rethought from a postcolonial perspective, in a move
-33-

similar to the profonnd shift in the language of sexuality and the self
effected by feminists in the seventies, and the gay community in the '80s.
Culture is a painful process of becoming:
as rm.1ch an uncomfortable,
disturbing practice of survival and supplementarity between art and
politics, past and present, the public and the private, race and
sexuality, the known and the numinous, as its resplendent being is a
moment of pleasure, enlightenment or liberation. It is from such
narrative positions in-between cultures and nations, theories and texts,-­
the political, psychic, poetic, and the painterly, the past and the
present -- that the postcolonial perspective seeks to affi.rm and extend a
new inter-national dimension, both within the margins of the nation-space,
and in the boundaries in-between nations and peoples.
Difference and Otherness emerge most forcefully, within cultural
discourse, when we think we speak most intimately and indigenously
"between ourselves." It is by questioning the collusive, "commonsensical"
sense of an international community that we should attempt to create a
more difficult, differential commonality amongst ourselves as others.
-34-

THE VERB "CURATE"
Guy Brett
I speak as someone who wrote his statement before coming here, and
based it inevitably on projections of what kind of assembly this would
be.
I knew that this was to be an assembly of the visual arts world, and
I thought I could see from the list of participants that it would be an
assembly or a particular part of the visual arts world, namely the
directors of museums and curators of exhibitions. Although it is broad in
one way -- its multinationality -- it is narrow in another: it seemed that
the voice of the artist was not included.
I know that in some cases
curators are also artists, but they are here in their capacity as curators.
Such selectivity certainly becomes a cause for reflection. Why this
kind of assembly What others might be possible or desirable How does a
distinction, on a micro-level, an intemal level, an art world level,
between curator and artist, bear on the big, macro-level, questions of
power and politics, the division of the world into affluent and
impoverished This may seem an odd, perhaps oblique way of posing the
question, but I hope the way in which it could be related to a more just,
more transnational representation of the world's people as artists will
:become clear later. The question has another inflection which I would
like to introduce: what is the relation between the kind of discourse
conducted here -- a verbal discourse, probably leaning towards the
sociological -- and the production of meaning in art works We speak in
-35-

the name of art, but what happens when art's possible meanings are reduced
in line with the concerns of a particular interest group, or with
already-held views for which the art work is used as an illustration
What does it mean when discussions of exhibition strategies and other
managerial questions are separated, or assumed to be separate, from
discussion of artistic structure and quality, as they appear to be here
Art is a sensitizing process. Will this survive the construction of the
exhibition
I think everyone is familiar with the topography of large
international exhibitions which exists today.
The inadequacy of the
structure of biennials, where quite a wide range of nations are
represented by artists chosen by their cultural authorities, somehow
condones the practice of exhibitions like "Documenta" which has been
almost exclusively limited to European and North American artists, and to
those either well-established, or up-and-coming-, .i.J:'l "t:he gallery I dealer
network.
Those familiar with the well-trodden path followed by the most
of the curators of such exhibitions when they visit even Western European
countries, will not be surprised by the effects of information barriers
and different levels of cultural infrastructure when it comes to other
continents. The aspirations towards globality of the Paris exhibition
"Magiciens de la Terre" passed a revealing comment on these "previous"
models.
It tended to counterpose "Western art" with traditional ritual
art of countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, or contemporary
evolving fonns of them, and to shy away from artists of those continents
whose working context resembled that of Europe.
The result, as many
-36-

people comnented, was to polarize "here"/"there," "We"/"They," First
World/Third World.
All of these have been models of a kind of absorption
rather than dialogue.
"How," as the Chilean-Australian artist Juan Davila
asks, "can one avoid bringing to the European market new products"
Does therefore, "expanding internationalism" mean simply an
extension of the existing system, the desire of those inside the system to
extend it and of some of those outside it to "plug into" it, or a change,
or at least a challenge, to that system.
"The question here," as Jean
Fisher has written, "is not how do we make the artifacts of others "fit"
our institutions, what universalizing principles can we invent to
incorporate them into our exhibitions, but how do we interrogate and
dismantle the assumptions on which our institutions are based." I think
this has been a vital issue throughout 20th-century art, which bland terms
like modernism and postmodernism only cover up, :because it concerns the
social value and the efficacy of art. I would like to pursue this issue
by asking what it might mean in relation to a notion like internationalism.
Ponder the following statement by the British artist Richard Long:
":M:>untains and galleries are both in their own ways extreme, neutral,
uncluttered, good places to work .... "
Although the remark is a kind of
aside and probably came very naturally to Long, it is worth looking at
what is implied here: the remarkable link made :between mountains and
galleries, :between the "earth" and the "nruseurn," as a link :between the
"real" and "ideal" space in which both are assumed to :be neutral. The
tone of the statement, by which a kind of art-school assumption of the
availability of space and materials is projected outwards so that the
whole world is available as a tabula rasa for the artist (I :believe Long
-37-

works in the same spirit whether he is in the mountains of Scotland or
Bolivia), joins together a conception of art and of the world.
The
"mountain" becomes santized, tamed and delocalized by its association with
the "gallery;" the "gallery" becomes romanticized, placed in a great open,
timeless space by its association with the "mountain."
We know that galleries and museums are far from neutral. They are
subject to the laws of the land, and are often the focus of intense
controversy, either taking place privately before the exhibition or
publicly afterwards, as to what is permissable or desirable in that
space.
The question of what is permissable becomes coupled with the
question of the relation of the museum to the land, or the "cultural" to
the "natural" space, in a particularly acute sense, in fact in a
life-and-death sense, with the history of shows of Native American art.
These questions were illuminated for me by the writings of Jimmie Durham,
Jean Fisher, Susan Hiller, Margaret Holm, and others.
At the 1986 World's Fair in canada -- to take a typical example
space in the projected "Indians of canada" pavilion was denied to Native
American groups because the authorities felt that if they controlled it
themselves they would not use it in prescribed cultural ways, but would
draw attention to their present-day struggles, especially struggles over
land rights. For their part, Native American groups have sometimes
refused to land artifacts to museum shows as a challenge to the ruling
assumptions, which, in relation to Native American culture, have
one-sid.edly emphasized the spiritual. Thus, "The Spirit Sings, " organized
at calgary as part of the 1988 Winter Olympics was boycotted by the
Lubicon Cree because the oil company which partly sponsored the show was
-38-

operating with devastating effect in their own territory, land over which
they have been involved in a 40-year dispute with the local and federal
government.
"You don't feel," an interviewer from an Alberta magazine asked
Lubicon Cree Chief Bernard Cmniayak, "that the viewer will get an insight
into conterrporary Indian culture through the historical references"
"No," he replied. "There's a great difference between the past and
the presently. What's happening now is that our people are slowly being
killed, I think a lot of times our people would be better off if someone
came up to them and got rid of them instantly. Anything so we wouldn't be
dying a slow death."
"Is this really just a show for white people in the city" the
interviewer asked.
"That's right. And again it's glorified by the same people who are
doing the damage to the Native people in our area. "
In what way is the economic power of the oil company associated with
a notion of culture as an ideal space in which the production of every
people is given its place among the "masterpieces of world art" In what
way is the Native American resistance associated with a notion of culture
as taking responsibility for the whole, with refusing the separation of
phenomena
The title "The Spirit Sings," instead of being uplifting,
suddenly becomes sinister, a sign that we are being duped.
When it came to "Magiciens de la Terre," the organizers chose to
ignore all the considerable body of work by Native Americans which both
stands within the international context of mondemism and deals with
"spiritual values" in terms of the historical conflict between Native
-39-

Americans and European settlers, the dilemmas of identity, the
possibilities of new language, new metaphors.
Instead they chose to
include a neo-traditional Navaho sand painting by Joe Ben, Jr.
I am not criticizing the painting itself and certainly not the
painter, but actually the inclusion of this work, along with a number of
others, raised difficult and problematic questions which point to the
confusions and struggles which are going on over the concept of art. It
is known that Navaho sand paintings are traditionally part of a healing
ritual -- just a part, "one among a great number of things." But
"Magiciens" was prevented from explaining this function because, in the
name of treating everyone as "artists," they were displaying little more
than the artist's name, place of origin, and title of work.
They had,
thus, prevented thernsel ves from carrying out what was supposed to be the
raison d'~tre of the show: to consider artists as "magicians," shamans,
with an aesthetic practice and social role different from the traditional
Western one.
But again, apparently the only way open to them to explicate
the painting would be through anthropological, text-panels, which would
relegate it to an etlmographic category and lower its status in comparison
with the work of the Western artists. Was, in any case, the Joe Ben, Jr.
painting an authentic liturgical work, or had it been modified, as I think
has been the custom, to allow it to enter the Western realm and concept of
art as a museum exhibit
I don't believe these are merely hair-splitting distinctions. They
have very much to do with our relationship to art today, and in what way
we consider art to be efficacious. Our society makes everything visible,
consumable, buyable. A few years ago I was deeply stunned and moved when I
-40-

saw for the first time the drawings and paintings by survivors of the
bombing of Hiroshima, eye-witness memories of events lived through thirty
years before.
I realized that the Japanese group charged with the care of
these pictures, their curators, had faced the dilemma that to withhold and
to hide the images was as important as to show them.
They tried to assess
each person's or organization's request to exhibit or reproduce the
pictures so that they would be properly shown and labelled and would not
lose their efficacy (which is very considerable) through over-exposure.
They were co:rrpelled to take this attitude out of respect for the people
whose devastating experiences these picture depicted.
Even the book they
produced, combining photographs of the effects of the bombing with the
paintings, was not made available for sale, but could be applied for as a
gift.
Although it is rather difficult for the Hiroshima paintings, even
without their labels (the texts writt~ on .them by their authors), to slip
into the category of "naive art, " for which there is already a subsection
of the art market, there are plenty of contemporary, popular visual
expressions being produced around the world as a testimony to lived
experience which are eminently consumable on that level. How do we
prevent them from falling prey to what the Australian writer Eric Michaels
has called "our ultra-consumerist appetite, using up the object to the
point of exhaustion, of 'sophistication, ' so as to risk making it
disappear altogether" This is, I believe, a problem which a number of
artists in different places have actually addressed themselves in their
work in recent years. And this is one of the points at which I would like
to propose an examination of the relationship between artist and curator.
-41-

One of the ways in which I think some artists have addressed these
questions has been by relinquishing the traditional notion of the artist
as god, controller, master, the creator of a world, with a tyrranical
"will to fom," and by exploring a new relationship both to their material
and to the spectator. This was one of the desires which lay behind
experiments in participation, at their height in the '60s, a moment which
has apparently passed without its radical nature being properly
remembered. I can't go into great detail here. These artists (I'm
thinking of people like the Brazilians Lygia Clark and H~lio Oiticica, the
Filipino David M=dalla, and others) experimented in giving up the role of
sole creator, the producer of unique objects consumed by a passive public.
Instead they proposed relational, dialogical, objects/events/structures.
In M=dalla' s "participation-production pieces" of the mid-' 70s, the act of
looking became connected with the act of making in a way which did not
allow "using up the object to the point of exhaustion, " because a process
of renewal was involved.
His proposal obviously contained a challenge to
the Im.lseological concept of art, because in museums things are not
renewed. They are untouchable, they merely age. In fact, the experiments
in participation took place in the midst of a very widespread challenge to
the institutions of art.
Another way in which artists have relinquished the master-role and
the monological voice is through an enomous variety of methods of
mediation.
This is another "collaborative" practice which is often used
with considerable irony.
I want to just briefly mention two examples:
the American artist Susan Hiller's work Fragments (1978), which
incorporated the materials of "another culture" (many small broken found
-42-

pieces of Pueblo pottery made by women potters) as a way of
cross-referencing it with her own society in order to establish the
struggle of women to be seen as "primary makers of meaning. "
Or, for
example, recent sculpture by the Brazilian Jac Leimer which involved
collecting and sorting tens of thousands of devalued banknotes, and
bringing to light the notes as carriers of anonymous popular graffitti.
In these examples, artists are acting in one sense as curators. Or
rather, they use the metaphor of curating ironically to show the illusion
of "objective" observation: to observe is to remake, reform. It's
curious that the word "curator," which I think has been a noun in English
in its museum sense since at least the 18th century, has only recently
become a verb.
I think the conflict between artist and curator has, thus,
been one of values, not of metier as such, and the denunicatory metaphors
of curating which artists have used have been metaphors of control,
master:y, and disinfection. For example, as along ago as the early '70s,
the American artist Robert Smithson exhibited as his "work" at "Doctmle!lta"
a statement, of which this is part:
Cultural confinement takes place when a curator ircposes his own
limits on an art exhibition, rather than asking an artist to set his
limits. Artists are expected to fit into fraudulent catagories.
Some artists imagine they've got a hold on this apparatus, which in
fact has got a hold of them.
As a result they end up supporting a cultural prison which is out of
their control ... Museums like asylums and jails, have wards and cells
-- in other words, neutral rooms called "galleries" ... The function
of the warden-curator is to separate art from the rest of society ....
-43-

Mbre recently the Chilean-Australian artist Juan Davila has
described a very familiar experience:
The only way for an artist in Australia to have access to the museum
[is] through the "theme-curated show." Here the artist shares with
many others the wanted or unwanted fate of a group venture, and the
limitation of being illustrators of a given theme. The curator
imposes his overview, addresses his peers and particularly avoids
any argument, trying to please everyone ... Some artists have tried
lately to bypass the system by finding more sympathetic curators or
curating exhibitions themselves.
But when they do this, Davila says, they often end up repeating the
official formula.
Mbst cultural institutions, in fact systems of education as a whole,
are still structured along national lines. Even their "internationalism"
is an extension of their notion of the nation (as Homi has so well
described) .
exchanges.
And in this they lag behind the reality of actual changes and
As Edward Said has written: "We are mixed with each other in
ways which most national systems of education have not dreamed of." I
believe I can illustrate this with an allusion to the history of postwar
art in my own locality-- Britain. Britain's official and semi-official
participation in international exhibitions has always been a projection or
exportation into the international arena of a national self-image in art:
actually a mythical image.
There is a curious but revealing symmetry in
the way the country absorbs a plethora of cultural manifestations from all
over the world, but exports resolutely an image of Britishness. Sculpture
provided one convenient support on which to construct a genealogy of
British art which each generation of cultural functionaries has extended.
If it is not as solidly white, male (it's still very male) and
monocultural as it was, it still centralizes and establishes a beaux-arts
-44-

model of art as the only one proper to the nation, a national product, a
national ambassador.
Raymond Willaims, as long ago as 1971, called it the
"timid avant-garde." Needless to say, this is very remote from the
intercultural mixings and clashings, the critical and experimental edges,
which characterize Britain.
Perhaps as a corollary to this timidity, modernism-- the
20th-century avant-garde -- was seen from the Western point of view as a
pure projection, something merely received and copied in other centers.
(This view was often reinforced by cultural authorities in those countries
who promoted work which they felt would be acceptable in the Western
metropolis where value was conferred.)
In the West we are only educated
to see our images as central and successful and originary. Others are
peripheral, late, or less successful. Therefore, we do not begin to see
the intensity of other cultural histories. We do not see, for example,
the complex dialogue or. argument between IJ\oQern:L$ITl and indigenism in Latin
American countries, in which the work of intellectuals has had a very
intricate relationship with popular culture. As the Chilean artist
Eugenio Dittborn says, we should not be talking about "modernity in Latin
America, but Latin America in modernity. "
Since we have little practice
in dialogue -- only a static notion of absorption and annulment on the one
hand, or exportation and projection on the other -- we fail to see that
there has always been a dynamic complexity arising out of artists' travels
and unofficial exchanges.
The contradiction and the mixing between artist and curator could
surely lead, if it has a positive outcome, to a new elasticity of genre
and the invention of new genres, visual genres, and mixed genres.
The
-45-

factor of the "support" is almost a constant through the history of
art--i.e. the wall, the canvas, the sheet of paper.
The support is going
through many and significant changes today--recent examples:
the earth,
water, the body; or, say, subdivisions of traditional supports: the
color xerox, the fax sheet.
By way of conclusion, I would like to tie together some of the
things I've said by reference to Eugenio Dittborn' s work (as an example or
analogy, not an illustration or prescription) .
His work was included in
an exhibition, "Transcontinental," with which I was involved recently at
the Ikon Gallery in Birmingham and the Cornerhouse in Manchester.
Dittborn has invented, or let's say greatly developed, a new genre:
the
Ainnail painting. His works at the present time are sent through the post
in envelopes which are then exhibited beside them, envelopes marked with
all the journeys the work has made from its point of origin in Santiago,
Chile.
The support is a white, synthetic, light-weight material which
unfolds to go on the wall; its surface is painted, stitched, stained,
collaged, embroidered, printed, and written on, and, of course, even when
exhibited still carries the creases of its folds.
In many of Dittborn' s works we face faces which face us. One work
is called The 6th History of the Human Face (Black and Red Camino) .
In a
long row, faces found in Chilean detective magazines of the '50s of
small-time criminals, faces of aboriginals from an anthropological book,
forgotten sports heroes--vivid persons lost to official Chilean
history--are combined with graffiti, found images, and faces from "how to
draw" books. Below is another freize: faces drawn in red paint by
Dittborn's daughter Margarita, seven at the time.
These images drift onto
-46-

other works too, in other assemblies.
The journey of the painting is
echoed in the journey of the body and in the journey of images from a
state of being lost and forgotten to being found and recombined.
And on
this surface, each crystalized presence floats in an unmarked space or
void.
Dittborn' s strategy is a coherent one.
At one level the Airmail
painting is a rejoinder, a riposte, to the prevailing art system, and one
devised specifically by an artist working at its periphery, in the
so-called Third World.
Made of cheap materials, easily transported, not
dependent on a developed infrastructure, they arrive to unfold and occupy
a substantial amount of the hotly-contested space of the cultural
metropolis. At the same time they refuse to be seen as floating, neutral,
international cultural corrmodities.
It's clear from where they speak.
But they also reflect on, or embody, traveling, exchange, the unresolvable
paradox of closeness and distance. Their political clarity meets their
personal openness and vulnerability. It becomes a way of making,
circulating, and displaying work which guards its immediacy and efficacy
for the viewer.
I would like to say more about the work of the nine Latin American
artists in "Transcontinental" as exemplifying the tension between, and
mixing of, many kinds of duality: not simply the geographical, cultural,
and political realities of the "there" and the "here", but also how these
connect with the abstract/figurative, male/female, sculpture/painting,
light/ dark, transparent/ opaque, present/ absent divides. Perhaps the
concrete particularities of such experiments are a subject we can return
to in later sessions.
-47-

-48-

POSITI

-50-

Aracy A. Amaral
Art Critic, Independent Curator
S~o Paulo, Brazil
In Latin America, and Brazil is no exception, we are relatively poor in
cultural events on an international level when compared to initiatives in
developed countries due to our pe:rmanent economic crisis. As everywhere, at
these moments the cultural field is always the most immediately affected among
the different areas of activity. Thus, while we constitute a large region of
intense artistic vitality, paradoxically, we are deprived of stable cultural
institutions and unable to organize international exhibitions for our
audiences.
As a consequence, artists and cultural milieu are limited to what
they see when able to travel: exhibitions organized by the First World.
And
this happens even when the theme of the international exhibition or objects in
it are produced in our countries. In this sense we are observers and
followers of what developed countries organize in terms of exhibitions, even
if very often our creative expression is more inventive than that of the
so-called developed countries. Only in the last two or three years have we
been assisting with a new demand for Brazilian group or individual exhibitions
abroad, chiefly in Europe, yet most of these are still organized by Europeans.
Sometimes creators who are precursors in our countries are "discovered"
very late by organizers of international exhibitions, making it seem as if we
were not aware of their quality and value. Truly speaking, there seems to
exist an advantage in being culturally "dependent":
to a certain degree, we
have a wider knowledge than those of the cultural milieu of First World
countries, since we know our production as well as that of the most-admired
developed world.
-51 -

Art in Brazil changed dramatically after the beginning of the Bienal of
1\.
s·ao Paulo in 1951.
This date signals a definite starting point of
international trends for Brazilian artists. As a consequence, this event was
very much attacked during and after the First Bienal because radicals saw in
it a surrender of Brazilian roots in visual arts by young artists who started
to be increasingly interested in following international art fashions.
But
there are many Brazils, and, as Pierre Gaudibert once wrote about it,
regionalism has been a strong issue for centuries, and today more than
yesterday, it is relevant to be different.
MUlti-cultural representation of individual countries
It is almost impossible to define what is culture within
geographic-political limits of each country.
This is why we think we should
of each nation, and not be concerned only in showing one face of its culture,
in a sirrplistic manner of trying to see the "Other, " in an utopian search of
alterity.
Representation of local vs. international artists
Every day I believe less in the possibility of comnunication through
the visual arts. That is, I believe more each day that everyone sees in an
artistic object only that which his repertory allows him to see. There is
nothing new in this point, but when a curator of a certain country organizes
an international exhibition he or she must have in mind this limitation of his
-52 -

or her eyes and his or her perception, and never try to dream he or she is
making a "conclusive" statement on the aspects of the art focused upon in his
or her concept for the exhibition. For this same reason, each country smiles
slightly when foreign curators organize shows of artists from some other
nation. An important point is also that curators seem to organize exhibitions
for their audiences exclusively. What do they want to see What are this
audience's expectations I get the inpression that, to a certain degree, they
are working like television producers trying to get a large audience, when
what should worry us most is how to get an audience initiated in a certain
art, from a certain culture. Our aim must always be the artistic object
first, and only secondly, the audience.
In other words, guide the audience
through the artistic object.
The need for the formation of new international exhibition sites
A meeting such as this one seems to indicate that there is a potential
interest in opening new sites for international exhibitions, that this is not
meant to be a mere exchange of ideas. This intention seems to me positive as
far as it may result in a project, or in several projects, in addition to the
Euro-North-American centers.
I do not fear anymore the glObal village from
the cultural point of view, nor two or ten hegemonic centers with many
dependent centers. We have been living this reality for a long time. But we
have arrived at new times.
Suddenly postwar times have ended, cold war has
ended, and we assist avec 6tonnement the rebirth of nationalisms in Europe
when, contradictorily, we are on the eve of the European Comrrnmity of 1992.
Et pour cause. . . actors and scenarios are changing very rapidly in Europe--as
-53 -

well as in Latin .America--and we don't know exactly which is the play that is
going to be performed in which we shall certainly participate. Then a curious
and problematic similitude occurs in Latin American countries: artists wish to
declare explicitly their identity from the cultural point of view, or want to
reject themselves as Latin-Americans and just be considered hommes du monde
(citoyens du monde) .
The complexity of this situation is our contemporaneity
which we live intensely, because of its unique situation in this delicate
moment -- the vertiginous instant in which we are involved.
Dissemination of information about international shows; how to increase press
coverage for exhibitions in non-western countries.
Dissemination of information about international exhibitions is
nowadays, at least in Brazil, a very serious problem.
newspapers and magazines have changed their pJ:lilo~qplJ.y.
Editorships of
Art criticism in
Brazil has been substituted by reporters' art coverage, generally quick and
superficial by uninformed journalists. There is no concern in trying to get
involved in the complexity of the organization of a show until it is received
by the audience.
Sometimes a newspaper gives an exhibition only "one day"
attention, as if an exhibition was a television program on the air for a
single evening from 9 to 10. Also, because of the "audience aura," very often
these "reportages" are written before the formal opening of the show.
That
makes it difficult for the writer to have a complete view of the physicality
of the show, which is fundamental, from our point of view, in order to write
about it.
-54 -

Even in South America the art market seems also to be the "magic word"
for the press, as well as for advertising. This means that today, more than
in other periods of this century, economic power is the main determinant not
only in sales of works of art, but also in opening up possibilities for press
and television coverage.
In the name of the art market phenomenon, art itself
is probably neglected. However, this is an international problem or
phenomenon.
How to more effectively represent artists working outside the disciplines of
painting and sculpture; other roles for artists in international exhibitions
beyond that of exhibitor.
tv
I think it is positive to give acquisition prizes, as the Bienal of Sao
Paulo has just decided to do, particularly in countries where the museums do
not have the possibility of acquiring contemporary art (as opposed to the
usual situation in developed countries). What I criticize, however, is not
having an international jury for an international event -- even if a majority
of Brazilians with knowledge of the needs of our national collections are
present. Artists working with installations and performances should be
encouraged to participate in these events, as they represent a contemporary
trend in art.
In Sao Paulo Bienal, that has taken place twenty times uninterrupted
(which is really miraculous for a country practically without fully active
museums) , I have registered a rather curious phenomenon: Brazilian or
Latin-American artists that come to visit the Bienal show an intense interest
in the works of art they see during their visits. On the other hand, foreign
-55 -

artists from the "hegemonic centres" (Europe, USA), when they are the "stars"
of the event, seem in general to come to be seen.
They arrive, organize their
space in the show, give their regular interviews, and depart the day after the
opening of the Bienal.
I believe that other efforts of involving themselves
with the local artistic world should occur.
'V
In Sao Paulo young artists have tried hard, opening their studios to
visitors during the Biennial period, making telephone calls all day long,
printing folders with their addresses.
Of course, there is always the problem
of the artist's personality, and many artists perhaps simply don't care about
exchanging ideas. But "workshops" with local institutions or artists have
already proved to be positive. And the Goethe Institute has made fruitful
experiments in this area in Brazil. I am referring to a dialogue between
creators of diverse cultures. As we all know, the meeting or confrontation of
cultures has always proved to be stimulating to the renewal of arts.
-56-

"Multi -Cultural Representation of Individual Countries
In International Exhibitions: An African Perspective"
by
Emmanuel Nnakenyi Arinze
Director
National Museum
Lagos, Nigeria
International exhibitions across the world constitute veritable tools for
speaking a language that has a meaning to people of diverse socio-cultural
backgrounds.
They are a most effective means of communication as what they
convey is capable of influencing the thoughts of people.
In a multi-cultural exhibition emanating from one country or a combination
of countries, it is necessary that certain basic issues be addressed, among
which are the message of the exhibition and who is the target of the
exhibition.
I will now posit the African experience in this framework.
Generally,
African works -- be they antiquities or contemporary art -- form a good
percentage of exhibitions that are shown in most international exhibitions
abroad, both in museums and public institutions. Requests for these
exhibitions come so regularly that most African museums are becoming less
enthusiastic in granting them.
Could this be because of lack of proper
articulation of the reasons for the request; could it be that international
exhibitions are fast assuming an economic importance in the global art world;
or could it be because such exhibitions are used as instruments of enhancing
the influence or prestige of the host museum or country
-57 -

These questions need to be addressed at this conference.
Let me
illustrate with Nigerian examples.
In 1979, the Nigerian MUseum Service
received a request from The Detroit Institute of Art for the best of our art
treasures to be exhibited in Detroit and a few U.S. cities. After lengthy
negotiations and discussions, the exhibition,
Treasures of Ancient Nigeria:
Legacy of 2000 Years, was opened at The Detroit Institute of Arts in 1980.
The exhibition was originally billed to be out for one year, but it did not
return finally to Nigeria until 1985 after traveling for five years. As a
result of very strong requests, it had to go to other countries in Europe both
West and East.
I was very much involved with the entire exhibition and was
also present at some of the openings, so I had the privilege of talking to and
discussing with people who saw the exhibition at different times and at
different locations and environments.
MOre recently, a similar exhibition on a smaller scale went to Japan for
less than one year..
Again the .. ezpe:r;ience was .. so~thing quite challenging.
Based on these ezperiences, I believe that international exhibitions do have
great advantages for both the host country and the country of origin.
Among others, such exhibitions have the advantage of:
1. challenging and correcting stereotyped views about a people and their
cultures and, through a closer examination, fostering an appreciation and
understanding of their arts;
2. creating greater understanding and awareness about the artists, the people
and their history;
3. bringing the cultural art world much closer by narrowing the gaps that
artificially divide us in the areas of arts and cultural understanding;
-58 -

4. opening up new opportunities and avenues for man to develop a greater and
better understanding of his neighbors; and
5. promoting better political and cultural relations between nations and
peoples.
The political dimension of international exhibitions is now
assuming important dimensions we can no longer ignore.
However, we in Africa do recognize the practical problems involved in
organizing international exhibitions. Let me highlight some of our fears and
problems:
1. the risk of overexposure of the works due to excessively long lengthy
viewing, thus making them lose their dramatic impact, which may lead to
trivializing their meaning and potency;
2. the lack of financial benefits accruing to the country or museum of
origin
(This is a serious problem that should be addressed at this
conference. African Museums are generally under-funded, and it does not
appear that they benefit financially like the host country or museum when
their works of art are taken out for exhibition) ; and
3. the risk of taking the exhibits out with too small a number of trained and
qualified staff from the museum/country of origin.
In most cases, as was
the case with the Nigerian experience, only one staff was taken at a
time.
This is grossly inadequate and unprofessional, especially when it
is understood that such a person acco.rrpanying the works is the anchorman
for the museum/ country of origin.
-59-

Management of International Exhibitions
1. There should be proper dialogue and negotiations with all parties
concerned so that mutual agreements can be arrived at without any
irrposition of ideas and views by either side.
2. The national interest of all parties should be taken into consideration at
all times during the negot.i.ation, the exhibition, and when the exhibits
are being returned at the close of the exhibition.
3. The financial benefits accruing from the exhibition should be equitably
disbursed among all parties according to an agreed-upon fonnula.
4. There should be an accepted standard for the exhibition in the host
country, ensuring that the exhibition does not become exposed to under
danger and/or risk.
5. There should be an effective publicity machine set in motion in both the
host country and the country of origin to ensure that an appropriate,
receptive climate is created £ar .. the exbil:>iti~QD!
·~··~········~····· ...... ~ ·•
6. Copies of all educational materials emanating from the exhibition should
be deposited with the country of origin to be used as educational resource
materials.
The Future in Perspective
As we begin a new decade and as we begin the march into the 21st century,
there is need for us to review our approach to international exhibitions.
This has become more relevant as our global vision of the art world is fast
changing.
-60-

The African situation again has all its uniqueness and peculiarities. For
instance, the requests for African exhibits to go to Europe and the United
States have always come from abroad; the concepts, perceptions and designs are
usually those of the foreign museums and countries asking for the exhibitions;
this effectively removes the country of origin from influencing the exhibition
which is made up of its own works.
Should this trend continue Perhaps we
should address it as an issue.
In the spirit of "<strong>Expanding</strong> <strong>Internationalism</strong>" I would like to put forward
some proposals that may be useful in charting the course of international
exhibitions in the future, from an African point of view.
1. The present one-directional flow of international exhibitions should
change.
A multi-directional approach should emerge whereby international
exhibitions will flow both from Africa to Europe and America, and from
Europe and America to Africa. We in Africa want to see and appreciate the
great arts and art treasures of Europe and America.
2. International exhibitions should be held in African museums to enable us
in Africa to enjoy the vision of the best of the arts of other nations.
3. M.lseums in Europe and America should sponsor exhibitions between African
museums, encourage such exhibitions to travel across Africa, and later go
abroad.
4. International exhibitions, by their contents and messages, should
challenge the minds and attitudes of people in order to make them rethink
and expand their perceptions.
5. International exhibitions should not be apologetic. They should be
presented as they are and for what they are; their messages should be loud
and unambiguous.
-61 -

6. International exhibitions should stimulate scholarship and debates.
However, in doing so, the messages of the images and/or paintings should
not be distorted. lilly attempt in this direction may make the images and
paintings "laugh" at the lack of understanding of the debaters!
7 . In expanding internationalism, we should all reach out to our neighbors so
that we can evolve a corrmon language through our exhibitions that will be
meaningful to us all.
I see Africa as a catalyst in expanding internationalism for she remains
the virgin that still can give birth to ideas which will lead to greater
research and experimentation and which in turn will lead to changes that will
further narrow the gap of our cultural vision of the changing global art world.
-62 -

Piedad de Ballesteros
Director of Plastic Arts
Colcultura
Bogota, Columbia
Introduction
Both because of the structural and con junctura! national
circumstances of Columbia these days, we cannot talk about a pe:r:manent,
coherent, and continuous philosophy, nor can we speculate upon it. As a
matter of fact, with each change of the government that takes place every
four years, the cultural politics and their philosophy are improvised or
unconsolidated because of the peculiarity of the party in power, or due to
other kinds of pressing needs and the continuous social riots which
relegate culture to a secondary position.
For these reasons, and because we think that other countries whose
characteristics are similar to ours would be interested, I am suggesting,
with the following text, a serious polemic which may:
a) clarify the general view of arts as regards the state in the
third world countries;
b) look for common solutions to common problems; and
c) find mechanisms -- through international entities such as Arts
International -- that make possible a link between the two
periods of transition, a link based on universally well-grounded
philosophies, which can help new ideas from dying, and instead
survive and develop during this changing period.
-63 -

<strong>Internationalism</strong>, Political Expansion, and Continuity
If we talk about internationalism and its expansion during these
hard times we are living in Columbia, we are compelled to specify some
points.
1. Though the image of Columbia is shown everywhere in the world by
the media as exclusively a place of crime and violence, the inner
reality is not this one.
Yes, these things happen, but they are
not the only reality.
2. For this reason all Columbians who believe in our cultural and
social values feel the necessity to spread the positive and valid
elements we have at an international level.
3. The word "international" these days, and from the point of view
of Columbia, is given in a. definition .. that;"merges the" gegg:rapmc
with the philosophic elements, because our point of view does not
allow us to separate these two categories at first sight.
4. The positive outcome generated by this situation is that we feel
obliged to reach a position that may ransom our true dimension.
In light of the above mentioned points, it is easy to understand the
interest we have in these international exhibitions as a means of showing
the cultural and artistical processes internationally in our countx:y.
But
it is necessax:y to analyze in which way this participation has to be made,
since up to now both participation and selection modalities have led us to
send one or two artists who by this means consolidate their position at a
local level.
-64 -

The fact that the selection is made by an officer working in the
Mrrnistry for Foreign Affairs or in the Culture Institute whose contacts
with the organization of the exposition is incidental, does not allow for
the development of a dialogue between the artistic scene of the country
and the international interlocutor. This brings me to suggest the
following points as a working theme:
let's take advantage of this group of people coming from different
parts of the world to create per:manent working groups; and
every one of us is playing at this moment an important role in his
own country, but our charges are temporary and the politicians operate
without vision of the future when our charges will be over and others in
our place.
This is an appropriate moment generated by the cultural leadership
of Arts International at a world level -- that could fail if no method is
defined to allow in this decade for the structuring of an organization in
which each participant works in his own country with the representative of
the geographically brother countries, under the direction of an
organization dealing with clear policies and a necessary infrastructure
that may keep this process active, in spite of the changing social,
political, and economic situation which otherwise could confuse and
deprive the real objectives here suggested.
There is no doubt that this kind of meeting represents to everyone
present a chance for mutual, open exchange and also a contribution to
everyone's background.
But such an extension must have wider dimensions.
I invite you to define "how" and "by which means" it is possible to
keep open the dialogue we are starting here.
-65 -

~
The three important international expositions -- Venice, Kassel, Sao
Paulo
are already classical institutions of contemporary art; but
thanks to the constant exchange of information taking place between
representatives of each country, international artistic events can arise
with more specific objectives, in accordance with the changes which
contemporary art, in its agile state, makes.
Some changes are suggested for a transition period, but when shared
and compared, have the regenerative strength of definitive proposals that
will surely be reflected in the important international exhibition.
-66 -

Mark Francis
Curator of Contemporary Art
Carnegie Museum
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
This debate is becoming riddled with the corpses of "compulsory
sincerity." We should not succumb to the illusion that we are discussing art
or human rights here, but rather a context of power and politics.
(We are
meeting under the auspices of an organization which states "our goals are to
increase U.S. representation at important international festivals and
exhibitions ....")
For myself, I would like to see an emphasis on three linked attitudes:
scepticism toward the national or regional interests of politicians,
bureaucrats, and critics who normally tend to hijack or simplify artistic
projects; generosity toward the interests of artists and the viewing public
(such as we experienced during the installation of "Magiciens de la Terre" in
Paris last year); and pragmatism toward realistic projects which will create a
dialogue of different histories and geographies, of artistic dialects, and of
the hybrid, composite, complex diaspora in which we are all living.
Let us take a practical example.
We might investigate what common
structures and differences could :be identified in the great urban centres of
the world--such as Tokyo, Los Angeles, cairo, Kinsha, Mexico City, Bombay.
This was something we discussed but did not treat in Paris. And here it is
more or less fruitless to superimpose the old intellectual ~ of the 20th
century, or words such as idealism or the "exotic."
-67 -

Some of the "international" exhibitions now have a long history and
tradition, as in Kassel, Venice, or the "carnegie International" in Pittsburgh
(founded 1896) .
If nothing else, those of us who are responsible for these
venerable institutions must account for what is being made in the world of
art, and continually remake the "carte du monde poetique" (M. Broodthaers) as
time passes. And it is to the artists themselves that we should first attend.
-68 -

"The Multicultural Paradigm"
(from High Perfonnance, Fall 1989)
by
ltJ
Guillermo Gomez-Pena
Artist
San Diego, California, USA
The First and Third Worlds have mutually penetrated one another.
The
two Americas are totally intertwined.
The corrplex demographic, social, and
liguistic processes that are transforming the U.S. into a member of the
"Second World" (or perhaps Fourth World), are being reflected in the art and
thought produced by Latinos, Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, and
Anglo-Europeans.
Unlike the images on television or in commercial cinema
depicting a monocultural middle class world existing outside of international
crises, contemporary U.S. society is fundamentally multicultural,
multilingual, and socially polarized.
So is its art.
In order to describe the trans-, inter-, and multicultural processes
that are at the core of contemporary border experience as Latino artists in
the U.S. , we need to find a new terminology, a new iconography and a new set
of catagories and definitions. "We need to re-baptize the world in our own
terms." The language of postmodemism is ethnocentric and insufficient. And
so is the existing language of cultural institutions and funding agencies.
Terms like "Hispanic," "Latino," "ethnic, " "minority, " "marginal, "
"alternative," and "Third World," among others, are inaccurate and loaded with
ideological irrplications. They create categories and hierarchies that promote
political dependence and cultural underestimation.
In the absence of a more
enlightened terminology, we have no choice but to utilize them with extreme
care.
-69-

"Multicultural" is the hip word of the late '80s. Everybody agrees it
is politically correct. Few know what it really means.
It is an ambiguous term.
It can mean a cultural pluralism in which the
various ethnic groups collaborate and dialog with one another without having
to sacrifice their particular identities and this is extremely desirable. But
it can also mean a kind of Esperantic Disney World, a tutti frutti cocktail of
cultures, languages, and art forms in which "everything becomes everything
else." This is a dangerous notion that strongly resembles the bankrupt
concept of the melting pot with its familiar connotations of integration,
homogenization and pasteurization. It is why so many Latino and black
organizations are so distrustful of the term.
The debate is on and we should all participate in sharpening the
meaning of the word.
Artistic quality is also relative. Hegemonic centers like New York,
Paris, and M9Kioo City have manufactured sacred CQ,DQil~~Qctc!lfl!~r~(ility
and
eKcellence that we are eKpected to follow in order to break out of regionalism
or ethnicity. But these dogmas are crumbling.
The multicultural process that
the U.S. is presently undergoing irrplies a shift of center, a decentralization
of aesthetic canons and styles, and therefore a multiplication of validating
criteria.
We must realize that all cultures are open systems in constant process
of transformation, redefinition, and recontextualization. What we need is
dialog, not protection.
In fact, the only way to regenerate identity and
culture is through ongoing dialog with the other.
Then, the question is, what does dialog mean.
Some thoughts in this
respect: "Dialog is a two-way ongoing comrmmication between peoples and
comrmmities that enjoy equal negotiating powers."
-70 -

Dialog is a micro-universal expression of international cooperation.
When it is effective, we recognize ourselves in the other and realize we don't
have to fear.
Dialog never existed between the First and Third Worlds.
We must not
confuse dialog with neo-colonialism, paternalism, vampirism, tokenism, or
appropriation.
Dialog is the opposite of national security, neighborhood watch, racial
paranoia, aesthetic protectionism, sentimental nationalism, ethnocentrism, and
monolinguality.
In order to dialog, "we must learn each other's language, history, art,
literature, and political ideas." We must travel South and East, with
frequency and humility, not as cultural tourists but as civilian ambassadors.
Only through dialog we can develop models of coexistence and
cooperation.
Only through an ongoing public dialog in the form of
publications, conferences and collaborative intercultural art and media
projects, can the wound effectively heal. "It will be a long process. It
might take 30 to 50 years. We cannot undo centuries of cultural indifference,
domination and racism overnight." All we can aspire to is beginning a
dialog. This documentation is a htmlble contribution.
I ask you to join in.
-71 -

-72 -

"Multiculturalism"
by
:Marina Grzinic
Video Artist, Independent Curator , and Critic
Ljubljana, Yugoslavia
We have to understand multiculturalism in the ;vay culture
genealogically means cultivare (to cultivate). But this cultivare doesn't
suppose a regionalism or particularism, but more corrplex taking care of
multicultural situation, cultivare differences.
So, multiculturalism is
understood to be like a pluralism of differences between cultures.
Multiculturalism is not a mere juxtaposition of cultures in
geographical terms, but a political definition. That means an understanding
of the contexts of multicultural conditions. Or, if we are speaking about
geography, than relating it to the history of cultures (in time and space) ,
instead of its territorial determination.
When we start to reconsider cultural differences, we have to speak
about context, because it can seem to us at first glance that productions are
similar--but the effects are different. Therefore, we have to ask what are
the conditions, what conditions have made this interaction of cultures
possible, and what may be the result and effect of this multiculturalism.
That means that we are proposing not to discuss the situation described
by the statement "their identity in our mirrors," where "their" means "we,
third world, socialist countries, or eastern Europe," but instead to transform
this into "your identity in our mirrors."
-73 -

If we try to make a more exact definition of this difference, i.e., to
determine it within the artistic and cultural discourse of the '80s and '90s
in Slovenia, Yugoslavia, we have to take into consideration some projects
realized during this time.
The art projects of the group IRWIN (a group of painters known also
abroad due to their exhibitions in Europe and the USA).
IRWIN, together with
the music group Laibach and the theater family "The Sisters of Scipion Nasice"
(in 1988 renamed "Red Pilot"), established a specific artistic collective
consisting of more than 100 artists, ideologists, media harbingers, etc. -­
Neue Slowenische Kunst (NSK)/The New Slovenian Art.
The paintings by IRWIN
display mostly repetition of "isms" that are constitutive for the Slovene
history of art, socialist realism, and modernism of the ' 60s, where the latter
is presented as a negative experience, as a delay in regard to the modernism
of the West, as a kind of kitsch-production. We may say that all the
syntactics of pictoriaL iconography in th§ J2~jJ)t:;Jng~
are a kind of a
construction of elements and models belonging to the Slovene cultural area and
to the avant-gardes and neo avant-gardes of Western culture and tradition.
II.
Some projects of copied paintings, sculptures, etc. by:
--Artist Adrian Kovacs who presented the project of "copied Cezanne
self-portraits" at the exhibition "Yugoslav Documenta" (Sarajevo, 1989) .
Exhibitions, projects of copying presented under titles like: "The Last
Futurist Exhibition," realized in the 1985/1986 in Belgrade and Ljubljana.
This exhibition was a reconstruction of the exhibition first held by the great
Russian Supremacist painter Kazimir Malevich, presented in Petrograd in 1915
under the same name.
The author (or authors) of the Yugoslav project signed
-74 -

themselves as Kazimir Malevich.
In the exhibition a series of Nee-Supremacist
paintings made from Supremacist elements in gobelin technique, etc .... were
included.
This Kazimir Malevich acquainted the American and world public
with his exhibition by a letter published in the art magazine Art in America
where he was asked why the real Petrograd exhibition aroused such interest.
The Belgrade repetition was followed by a New York one; artist David Diao
created an unique photograph of the Petrograd exhibition as a two-dimensional
picture.
--"The International Exhibition of Modem Art" (presented in Belgrade
and Ljubljana in 1986) was a partial reconstruction and symbolic repetition of
a large exhibition of modem art known as the "Armory Show" in 1913 when, for
the first time, modem European art was introduced to the USA; at "The
International Exhibition of Modem Art" copied works of modem art up to the
present time were also shown.
This exhibition was organized by an
international group contemporary Europecm and .. American artists.
These projects not only function interpellatively--as spots, making a
subject of a spectator, determining him as their own spectator--but also they
develop series of strategies and tactics of representations and presentations
which we can consider as new models of representation and so, thought models,
which determine the subject in this so-called time of postmodemism.
Through
these productions "the Other" ("their /yours identity") is formed, reformed,
deformed, and transformed.
We can speak about interior multiculturalism, with
international effects; through the process of reappropriating, recycling
different histories and cultures within the artistic process, a specific
multicultural condition is constructed.
-75 -

The question still to be answered regards the ideologic consequence of
postmondernism (or postmodernist condition) in the East -- in the socialist
societies. While it seems that the ideological consequences are secondary to
the capitalist art-market, the contrary applies to the socialist society,
where there is no art market.
We can say (more in a for:m of concept) that the
so-called socialist and capitalist societies are "structured" by two different
discourses. While the capitalist society functions as a neurotic discourse,
which tries to neutralize the side effects of a pertinent
interpretation/production in the way that they are to be understood as
something accidental and marginal, the socialist society presents a painful
example of psychotic discourse function, which tries to neutralize the side
effects of a pertinent interpretation/production in a way to hide, to mask, to
rename them the history. The projects delineated above, whose strategies and
tactics can be defined as imitation, simulation, loss of the object or
production of the new object,, try to reaGh ~actJj7. ~§"Jl-i-~~9EX·
We can say
that the concepts/models/strategies of copying, repeating, imitation,
simulation ... are the ideal models of producing the new for:ms of representation
and presentation, and bring it, through the effects of mimicry,
territorialization, and binocularization, into discursive constructions which
can belong to the new situation of multiculturalism of the ' 90s.
What appears here, can appear precisely because it was absent.
The
"Other" is inscribed in this "passage," which is now referred to image,
memory, history, or cliche. These works/projects function as the "institution
of different cultures and histories made visible". It is here a matter of
repetition more than copying or reproducing.
Repetition and remembering are
not corrmutati ve because the artist started with repetition in order to achieve
remembering.
-76 -

The effect of these quotations, repetitions, and combining of different
painting ted:miques and material (coal, animal blood ... ) is a special kind of
object: the contemporary relic, fetish objects whose presence we must
understand semantically.
The presence of fetish objects becomes semantic when
we realize that it, by its "positive" presence, only confirms the filling of a
gap and absence.
That is, the object, although positively given, by its
presence, presents fulfillment, confirmation, a sign of its own absence, of
its own leave.
These objects are, in their positivity, the purest symbol, "the
signifier" of absence.
That is why, aside from any ideology of returning to
the roots and closeness, such a shift from "the signifier to the object" can
present a "rational essence" of theories of this specific kind of
multiculturalism.
The effect of such a transfer is the ability to experience
how some symbolic "unrepeatable move," completely structural, defining a
structural place of the object (of the artistic production, of the cultural
condition, of the interpretation ... ) , and not its "real characteristics,"
decide about that diffe'rence.
-77 -

-78 -

"Notes on <strong>Internationalism</strong> and the International Exhibitions"
by
Beral Madra
Curator of the Istanbul Biennale
and Director, Galeri BM
Istanbul, Turkey
<strong>Internationalism</strong> today has its positive and negative aspects and
exposes a duality that must be overcome constantly in order to protect the
regional and cultural identities. The superficial internationalism created by
tourism, business interactions, media flow, television, and fashion is
building up a kind of cultural standardization. All over the world the
regional and the national qualities are wearing out.
These qualities have
been and still are the sources of cross fertilization, an essential process
for the development of the universal culture. The historical art regions
which are most Subject to touristic and commercial corruption, in both
physical and conceptual senses, are the primary victims of this kind of
internationalism. The superficial internationalism can be overcome through
reinforcing art and culture activities. Artists, traveling all over the world
and creating art works in situ for any given and chosen place, are leaving
behind evidences of real internationalism. The real internationality lies in
the confrontation of the distant references, diversities, or even conflicting
opposites, all developing into a new metaphor.
Since the beginning of the '80s the frontiers of the art world have
been rapidly expanding.
The conference in Glasgow (:M:lrch 1990) titled "Arts
Without Frontiers" dealt with this subject in length and depth.
The growing
-79-

seeds of the art market, the search for further good works and artists, the
growing influence of communication systems and facilities, the information
flow, the need for exploring new inspirations and experiences, the production
of art works all over the world are the reasons of this expansion.
The recent
political changes also contribute to it.
As curator in a peripheral country, I was observing and expecting the
changes in the international exhibitions. <strong>Expanding</strong> our resources and
possibilities, we organized the two biennials (1987,89), and we have also
increased our efforts to communicate with the international art world in order
to participate in the expected change.
Although the biennials are still a part of the contemporary art system,
they are not events of more irrportance than the others which are organized
frequently in many metropoles.
They have lost their one-time irrportance,
because art activities are rapidly spread out through the media.
The
mediators of the art .world tra'V(;;l from c:ountcy to country organizing numerous
exhibitions which are favorite show-offs of the multinational companies.
Biennials are now more touristic and prestigious events, unless they
philosophically or conceptually contribute to the development of contemporary
art. Most of the time, they do not offer a platfo:rm for healthy comparison,
but a high platform for art market and other commercial tendencies. Biennials
are nowadays primarily a showroom of the latest trends in the art world.
The
leading actors are not the artists and their works, but the barons (curators,
museum directors, and gallerists) of the art scene.
Western art (a te:rm created by the Western art mediators), if
considered from the 13th century on, is a part of world art development.
It
is as unique or as composed as other art fo:rms and styles. Twentieth -century
art is a part of this development, which also bears concepts, styles,
-80 -

trends, inspirations consumed from the Asian, African, and other regional
arts. Especially, in the second half of the 20th-century, the artist swept
out all the boundaries and openly borrowed from any kind of art. The cross
fertilization has been so intense and likeable, that we must forget about the
te.rms Western/Non-Western and we must build new terminologies.
In this case
the curator, the mediator, the dealer must discipline himself, to look at
diverse cultures as part of the 20th-century entity. The mixture in the
international exhibitions should be made according to the concept and the
quality of the artwork, and not according to the old-fashioned segregations.
An interesting and appealing international exhibition, nowadays, will only
emerge out of the close inspection of this cross fertilization.
Multicultural diversity is an irrportant fact in the realm of the
conterrporary art. This creates difficulties both for the theoretical works
and for selection. But, at the same time, it is in the content and structure
of the artwork itself.. The coordinates of the multiculturality follow in one
direction (national-regional) and environmental diversities, in the other
direction national-universal art history and tradition. This undeniable
multiculturality must be expressed, and the concept and aim of the exhibition
should be organized by a committee of curators selected equally from the major
and the peripheral sites who should co:rrmunicate with each other throughout the
whole year.
The exhibitions should not be staged at already saturated major
sites but in other areas.
A perfect integration between the clearly defined concept of the show
and the selection of the artists and artworks, is the most sought-after
quality of the international exhibitions, which should not diminish under
market influences and prejudiced decisions. The mega shows will continue in
-81 -

the future, but the real need of the art public is to look at the artist's
work in depth, to follow his development and change through his work.
The
parallelisms and the coincidental similarities observed in the works of many
artists, specifically in the '80s, require more detailed definition of their
entire production.
The audience both in the major sites and the periphery is
still to be educated through exhibitions. The prejudices are not yet broken
down.
Alongside the exhibitions, conferences and seminars are most effective
activities in generating cultural exchanges.
But nothing can be more
effective than a television network reserved solely for contemporary art,
spreading around information, ideas, concepts, and art news to the world
without making a discrimination between Western and Non-Western art.
-82 -

Jean-Hubert Martin
/ Director
MUsee National d'Art Mbderne
Centre Georges Pompidou
Paris, France
There are two words whose literal meaning creates problems in today's
visual arts world: international and contemporary.
They have been used most directly in the making of the "Magiciens de la
Terre" exhibition.
I do not understand how exhibitions which define
themselves according to these terms can be systematically passed on to
non-western cultures. A certain number of art world professionals could not
wait for the recent political developments to implement these simple ideas.
From this point of view, the '60s were much more international than the '80s
have been.
Art has always transcended barriers, political ones in
particular. This is not a good reason, however, to condemn exhibitions such
as the Venice Bienniale which is founded upon international themes inherited
from the 19th century.
In fact, the Venice Bienniale, up till now, gives
countries excluded from the dominant arts circuit a chance to show their work
through exhibits such as "Documenta, " insofar as these countries benefit from
having a pavilion.
There are needs other than curiosity of intellectual honesty to promote
an interest in other cultures. After "Magiciens de la Terre," every
exhibition organizer nowadays is obliged to define his position in relation to
other cultures, while before he could in an arrogant manner, state that
"besides ours, no other interesting artistic manifestations exist."
-83 -

it is this desire to transgress "the forbidden" that led me to organize
"Magiciens de la Terre." The same desire that does not let one put aside
artists of different cultures.
And why don't we make choices in other cultures as we do in our own
It is this desire to show "tendencies" that again and again has suppressed the
individual eccentricities of Third World artists.
If there exists, outside our own culture, important artistic
exhibitions, it is highly desirable to showcase them, regardless of how big or
small the exhibit is.
-84 -

Gerardo MOsquera
Cuarta Bienal de la Habana
Havana, Cuba
"International art, " to a great extent, means only what is produced in
New York and in very few other hegemonic metropolises, "internationalized" by
the most powerful circuit of museums, galleries, biennials, and publications.
If Chicago and even Paris are discriminated against -- what can we expect for
the Third World!
This selective distribution -- in fact a cultural apartheid
-- needs to be democratized to benefit not only the excluded, but also the
excluding ones, and most of all the public who loses the richness of diversity.
A pressure from the public and the artistic community is needed to open
up to the world these greater circuits. And also indispensable is the
creation of new spaces and events, specifically aimed at truly
"internationalizing" the "international artistic scene. "
There should be an
atterrpt to form independent, international groups of artists, critics,
curators, with private and public funding, to work on exhibitions, meetings,
publications, and information exchange.
The cultural differences, far from being an obstacle, may provide a
mutually enlightening pluralism. But for a better understanding, it would be
advisable for there to be development of more sophisticated curatorial work
based on a discussion of ideas among and participation of specialists of the
different regions of countries, instead of organizing "bazaar" exhibitions.
This would also avoid visions with exotic tendencies, typical from the West
searching for the "unusual." Also of utmost importance is the organization of
-85 -

symposia, artists' workshops, and meetings of all kinds, simultaneously with
the exhibitions, to encourage dialogue and understanding.
The above refers to contemporary art produced for exhibition.
Traditional art, whose meanings and purposes differ, poses specific problems,
not yet solved.
But it is precisely contemporary art from the "South" that
needs to be "internationalized, " erasing the vision of the Third World as
traditional or whose contemporary art is disqualified because it resembles the
art of the (international) centers (meaning it is not picturesque or
"primitive" enough), while disregarding its specific contributions as
contemporary art.
The real "internationalization" of the artistic scene cannot be
postponed, but the efforts towards this goal should not distract Third World
artists from their aim to satisfy the needs of their own situation. I believe
that today' s culture should be more and more local -- serving as a solution to
local problems ....... and at the same time more intemCitioDeil, that is, with a
knowledge of the whole and an aim for communication among all.
-86-

Bernice Murphy
Assistant Director and Chief Curator
Museum of Contemporary Art
Sydney, Australia
The theme of international exhibitions interests me greatly, but of
course, I take a somewhat different approach from that of curators or
"exhibition makers," as the Germans call them, working in centers of
international art, and working out from a centrist approach.
That approach is
impossible to sustain, in my experience, if you attend to contemporary culture
in all its potential fonns, from international to local, and respecting both
ends of this spectrum (which means not being content with merely
internationalist or merely parochial conditions, but taking a more alert,
exploratory and inquiring attitude to contemporary culture in all of its
productive conditions) .
There are problems in attempting to tie art works and artists into
national configurations, when the processes of constituting work develop
according to dialectical operations of mind and experience that reach beyond
questions of nationality or geographic location. At times, when confronted
with the striking international connections and interactive influences that
may prosper in art, one is tempted to abandon the distinctions of nationality
altogether as too limiting or falsifying.
And yet, in this late-20th-century world that has in recent decades
been arrogantly mythified as a "global village," the more one works in
different parts of the world, even the Western world, the more one may
penetrate the insistently shaping powers of local traditions, local languages,
local decisions, and local priorities.
-87 -

We may watch the same satellite news footage on television, but the
moment this material enters our minds and conversations, it enters the field
of restricted, particularizing experience. At the point of entry, or
insertion, into any cultural situation, it is already negotiated through the
first transition into the field of language, and in that moment abandons its
international or trans-national character and begins the conversionary passage
into the more particular, regional, even local. In this ongoing process of
negotiation of meaning, it must also meet the forces of local resistance,
alongside those of local reception.
The discourse of the margins or periphery (which can be treated as one
kind of discourse) is somewhat different from the discourse of the minority.
The discourse of the periphery, as constituted from the periphery, assumes the
center as a place of surfeit and plenitude. And yet other, differently
resistant discourses arise within and find a transit through the space of
so-called centers of culture ..
Spaces of surfeit and stringency jostle, co-exist, fight for
signification, or fold into one another, at the center, at the periphery, even
in the hinterland or interstices. In fact, the geographical stability of our
speech is often far too static, reflecting an agrarian economy of mind that
still shapes our thought, often in contrast to the technological fluidity of
much conterrporary social experience.
So the binary oppositions raised by the discourse of the margins and
periphery (and even that of the minority) need revision and resistance in
order to reach a more workable grasp of real circumstances, of the
specificities of both interaction and difference. The problem of
monopolization and dogmatism of values arising in centers has to do more with
-88 -

the atrophying configuration of many (but not all) established institutions,
info:rmation systems, and circulation of judgments within the territory of "the
center," rather than any automatically shared character and existence of
institutions, texts, or artworks in such territory.
The value of the metropolis as a site to receive, test, accommodate,
and defend difference is often undervalued in the more defiant (sometimes
narrow and arrogant) strains of the discourse of the periphery or region.
The
metropolis, while on the one hand being the site of consolidation of values,
is also the likely site for the exchange and negotiation of difference -­
while the periphery may be less tolerant of disparity, more obstinate in
refusing the possibilities of divergence.
The binary notions of cultural process, expressed and recycled
continually in the regular oppositions of such terms as periphery/center,
region/capital, village/metropolis, east/west, rural/urban, colony/imperial
power, need a radical restructuring -- in fact, to be exploded open -- to
begin to accommodate the more complex conditions of a vast variety of
circumstances in contemporary cultural experience.
The cartography is too
static. The sense of power structures is too stratified and rigid. The
notion of cultural influence and process is too immobilized, canalized and
sanitized in such antinomies.
To our institution, it is idealogically irrportant to link up with
"international" dialogue and activities elsewhere, but also to attend to
issues and contexts that the internationalist world generally does not care
about, unless it can present itself as "exotic " to a European occidental gaze
and its descendant discourses and traditions. We are developing projects with
groups in Chile, Peru, New Zealand (including Maori artists), China, and
elsewhere.
However, we would never want .to do a "Latin American" show, for
-89 -

instance -- federalizing twenty different countries under a unifying view of
Latin America.
We are also interested in the effects of colonialism on
indigenous cultures in the Pacific. This gives us a whole range of other
cultural agendas with which to work.
I have to confess also that I am increasingly impatient with
19th-century cultural concepts continually reconstituted in the form of
"Zeitgeist," "La Grande Parade," "Zeitlos," "Einleuchtung," and so on:
exhibitions which keep re-producing a spectator envisaged as without language,
gender, nationality, history, ethnicity, or any specifying conditions at all.
I can't believe how widely such constructions are accepted without more
critical challenge, not only of what is in such exhibitions (which, of course,
involve some wonderful works, and also remarkable omissions of other
possibilities), but of the very constructs themselves, the erasing structures
of "unity" under which many international exhibitions are constituted.
I hope
I don't present tms too aggressively.. It .. is .just. that thei:'e a+e mqr}y ot11~r
possibilities to open up and work with, and museums are still ignoring so much
of the expanded potential opened up by the theoretical work on culture,
history and language since the ' 50s.
I think that there is a point where the exhibitions start to do a
serious disservice to the meanings and experience of the art they are showing,
and at that point, things need to change.
The ambitious challenges and
subtlety presented by many different kinds of work should not be continually
erased in competitive exercises in mis-en-s~e,
in a culture of spectacle
that is increasingly producing an audience of frustration. That is such a
loss for the potential of art to express difference and particularity of
experience.
-90-

David A. Ross
Director
The Institute of Contemporary Art
Boston, Massachusetts, USA
The issue that seems most central to our discussion of the cultural
ramifications of expanding internationalism is the pivotal notion of
nationalism itself. It is clear that, in a time characterized by global
shifts in population, radical transformations of national ideological
character, and postcolonial politics, the notion of a "pure" national cultural
identity has become especially problematic. Clearly, there is a renewed
interest in reading a new nationalist narrative into the work of individual
artists. But what do we mean by nationalism at this point Racial identity
Cultural pride Nostalgia
It is ironic that this reconsideration should occur at a time when the
moral force of the artist is more easily recognizable than that of the state.
The question follows, then, in whose interest does this new nationalist
narrative function Can a dialogue about the hierachical nature of "high and
low" art, the relative positions of First and Third Worlds, or the impact of
recognition of the self and the other, help us to better understand
nationalism and subsequently construct a new internationalism Or is
internationalism fated to remain a "feel-good" extension of the standard
hegemonic modernist enterprise -- a ploy to avoid recognizing the problems
implicit in stale, reductive exercises in comparative cultures And finally,
can a reformed internationalism avoid the sentimentality inherent in the
mythology of the individual versus the nation-state
-91 -

For many artists, the re-emergence of suppressed national cultural
identities is the literal signifier of freedom and independence.
As such
a"pure" cultural identity is invested with the passion and consequentiality of
the hard-won new order.
Operating in the traditional mode, the national
culture functions as flag and forum -- as a narrative of history and promise.
And yet, wrapping art in the flag can be a very dangerous thing indeed.
While
art can give voice to the struggles of a people, or the history of a place, it
can also unwittingly support (and mask) the very conditions supressing
marginalized national cultures. While art can veil the state's crisis of
legitimization, it can simultaneously signify resistance to the dominance of
the state's voice, and the false narrative of state history.
It is easy to romanticize the role of the artist as a politically
potent force aware of his or her role in the progress of national and
international relations. In this moment when political content seems so nruch
more enpowering than an art. of mere individual exp:r:-e$$:Lon or private
obsession, we need to be e$pecially wary.
<strong>Expanding</strong> internationalism and the notion of nationalism it embraces
reveals the extreme difference between artists whose work actively engages
their national identity in an international forum, and those to whom national
character is largely or totally irrelevant. Not that the nation-states cannot
make use of the myth of the "pure" individual -- in the late 1950s the U.S.
proudly presented Abstract Expressionism in Eastern Europe to symbolize a free
and open culture. At this time, however, we nrust question a cultural dialogue
among nations which insists on a totalizing discourse -- a discourse in which
the individual voice is only valid when it stands for something else,
something larger and more important than the voice of a single, independent
artist.
-92 -

Art is not a competitive sport, and it should not become an extension
of politics by other means.
To me, it is saddening to see art continually
misused in pointless international competitions. But even when the stakes are
more serious -- building international understanding or exploring the
complexities of national character and civic destiny, art suffers when it is
forced to conform to extraneous agendas.
Art can do these things, though we
distort its function at our collective loss.
When considering potential forums for the new internationalism,
therefore, it should be sufficient to simply construct opportunities Which
allow the artists' unfettered voice to be clearly heard.
Each artist should
decide the extent to which his or her social contract should frame or reflect
their work.
At the core of what I would consider a worthy internationalism
are ideas that boldly embrace difference, strongly demonstrate a healthy
disrespect for the overly reverent, and convey a concern for truth -- mystical
or othe:rwise.
-93 -

-94 -

Ryszard Stanislawski
Director, Muzeum Sztuki
,.L6d.Z, Poland
I believe that because of their peculiar character, large-scale
international exhibitions are among the characteristic symptoms of the
present. They are the most drastic manifestation of what I would call the
"highway syndrome."
On a highway, there are no obstacles, no change, no
unexpected views, no clear air. The highway is all about overtaking and
keeping to the road.
The highways of art, in other words the hierarchy of prestige, success,
and obedience to the marked-out direction, amount to a race of popularity,
plus adaptability, even at key junctions where roads diverge in various
directions at various azimuths.
It is my personal opinion that what topography and art alike know as
"byways" is likely to offer much more surprise and prorrpt sense of contact
with an environment more independent of the system of authorities. Away from
exhibitions at which these authorities are sanctioned, the byways may provide
interesting material for analyzing the credibility of both artists and critics
who have declared themselves in their favor.
I am not speaking on behalf of forgotten, naive artists. Moreover, I
am not selling artists active outside the centers as opposed to those with an
established prestige because there is no such opposition to their work.
What
I want is to point out the losses that culture is likely to suffer if access
to unexpected values is blocked.
These may scatter somewhere in South
America, or Central Europe, or Japan, or elsewhere.
-95 -

I fear that the wealth of contemporary cultures, those within and
without the "Western" frame, may not figure in the 20th-century balance sheet,
thus making it untrustworthy, unless we are given access to it. To prevent
harm-- and what is at stake is the universalism of the culture of our planet
-- we should prepare many surveys in many arrangements (not only ones
dominated by commercialism and established authorities) so as to turn this
wealth into common property and make it generally assimilated.
I am not
suggesting giving excessive publicity to the exoticism of cultures known as
marginal.
I am thinking of an option likely to make us understand the need to
accept values off the main arteries crossing the map.
By "us," I mean those
intent on sustaining the favorable climate for alleged regional discoveries,
like the work of Moscow artists. Geysers of remarkable personalities spring
heedless of diagrams drawn by experts.
I believe this fact to be of essential inportance to international
surveys, ··especiallytothem;. As a r~sultr·their.fo.rmula~.maybe .. enriched, not
just broadened geographically.
I consider these problems worthy of our prompt
discussion.
-96-

"What is International"
by
Vladimir Vajda
General Manager
Festival Ljubljana
Ljubljana, Yugoslavia
We have always thought that for an event to be international, it must
comprise work from many countries and, especially for us in Europe,
collaboration with some non-European countries.
Thus, the definition has been more geographical than not. Actually, it
is only quite lately with the changes in Eastern Europe, people on this side
of the globe have started to think "internationally" in the philosophical
sense of the word.
political meaning.
<strong>Internationalism</strong> had in past decades a great deal of
(Do not forget Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, and
others -- Biafra, Angola, Vietnam.)
'Ihis type of international "help"
superseded the friendlier sense one might have of the meaning of
internationalism.
We know that money has been always the basis of governing the world.
It has also been an important factor in determining how countries, peoples,
and cultures come to know one another.
Some individual curators have made
significant efforts to widen the spectrum.
But even these efforts have often,
been one-sided.
Biennials have always been of great importance to the environment they
are placed in and to their organizers. There has been, however, a problem of
selection and of presentation. The principle of literal geographical
-97 -

internationalism unfortunately seems to have triumphed over the ideas of those
who understand things or events differently. Maybe those who say that all
biennals have become only prestigious and self-aggrandizing events are right.
Very rarely, a few lesser known artists from the Third World spring up among
well-known ones from politically and economically powerful countries. Of
course, there must be competition, meaning that among the best (or already
well accepted) the new ones must fight their way to the top. Again, the
selection of such artists has been difficult in recent decades because of
burdensome political and economic restrictions in the East and in the Third
World.
Presentations of non-Western artists at so-called "solo" exhibitions
may seem "special" or even innovative, but trying to think internationally, I
believe there is only one chance for all of us: we must compete on an equal
basis. It is the quality of the work that is important.
National exhibitions
or presentations eertainly ··ar€' o.f .. int@rest fo.r. visitors. and for .artists, .but
to present one's best, only the quality of the artist's work counts and only
through that and through equal standards will the best artists arise and
obtain international position.
As to staging international exhibitions, I should think that galleries
are suitable, but people like to gather elsewhere, too.
organizers mostly work on their international exchanges.
International
As for the
governmental exchanges, there are normally some "official" and verified (or
sponsored) exhibitions, but there are some exhibitions that claim an
international scope that they do not actually have.
Of course, there are well-known art centers in the world that over time
have become international venues.
It would seem inappropriate to change
-98 -

venues just for the sake of it, but, on the other hand, a new type of expo
center for cultural events (as Olympic games of art) might be made possible.
There are a number of festivals (music, drama, etc.) around Europe and the
world, and it would seem natural to connect the diverse forms of the arts-­
including visual arts--at these events.
The combination of several events on
several stages of creativity makes the event more popular, more comprehensive,
and even more international, both geographically and philosophically.
Mbre effective ways of exchanging contemporary--or classic--events and
works are within our reach.
international arts events.
It is not necessary to only emphasize existing
There are numerous regular events in almost every
part of the world (e.g., trade fairs, tourist exchange markets, anniversaries
of world importance) where the arts must play an important, international
role. Opportunities to combine interesting events from other fields with
large biennals must be sought.
One should not be afraid to go where the
people are..
To underestimate the cultural level of others means to lower
one's own standards.
-99-

-100-

SlMWUES CF ROONDTABIE DISCUSSICNS
-101-

-102-

MULTICULTURALISM
What Role Does MUlticulturalism Play in International
Exhibitions Today
Moderator:
Panelists:
Kinshasha Holman Conwill, USA
Aracy Amaral, Brazil
Guy Brett, Great Britain
Nonthivathn Chandhanaphalin, Thailand
Bruce Ferguson, Canada
Suzanne Ghez, USA
Marina Grzinic, Yugoslavia
Jean-Hubert Martin, France
Tomas Ybarra-Frausto, USA
Catherine de Zeghere, Belgium
The session on multiculturalism and the role it plays in international
exhibitions included a broad discussion of the following major areas: (1)
the meanings of multiculturalism in a world context; (2) the examination
of notions of the "mainstream, " the "margin, " "quality, " and other
totalizing concepts; (3) an exploration of the relationships of money and
power to the organization of international exhibitions; (4) questioning of
standard practices for organizing, determining, funding, and critiquing
international exhibitions; and (5) exhortations for new models of
cooperation and reciprocity. A summary of discussion on the five areas
follows.
The Meanings of Multiculturalism
Early on it became clear that the very term "multicultural" had a
different set of meanings in an international context.
In the United
States, the inclusion of African-American, Latino, Asian-American, and
Native American artists in international exhibitions was contrasted with
-103-

the concern in canada for the representation of French-speaking artists or
in Belgium for the representation of Flemish artists. The much-discussed
exhibition "Magiciens de la Terre" raised other issues. 'While it was
deemed multicultural for its inclusion of African, Asian, and Latin
American artists, it was also criticized for the lack of inclusion of
multicultural artists from the United States.
The "mainstream" and the "margin" and the "quality" issue
As the discussion went deeper, the division of mainstream and margin
-- whether accepted or questioned -- emerged as the accurate description
of the parameters of the construct that formed the basis for organizing
international exhibitions as we know them.
Western Europe/the United
States (and sometimes Canada) as "center" ~+=:~"Ll~
.M:£!

of other cultures and how such notions serve to constrain what is deemed
to be acceptable from those cultures in an international context.
Some
participants assailed the totalizing nature of concepts like the
mainstream and other dichotomous models as passe and suggested different
models of parallel cultures and multiple "streams."
(The experiences of
multicultural organizations in the United States as well as those of Latin
American and Eastern European organizations were cited as models for the
development of alternative critical concepts and language.)
Money and Power Matter(s)
Mbst participants felt it impossible to discuss multiculturalism
without examining the role of money and power.
One participant asserted
that the issue. of incl1J$ion for powerful gount::r::-!~§ .. (i.e., the U.S.,
Germany, France, Japan) is a foregone conclusion in international
exhibitions, even when the art from Third World countries may be more
creative. It was further asserted that the very real economic and
political barriers that exist in some countries make it difficult if not
impossible for them to organize international exhibitions.
In a
self-per]etuating cycle, more powerful countries define and organize
exhibitions, their decisions then form the basis for the ongoing
organization of new exhibitions. The relative visibility of artists and
cultures was also seen as part of this cycle. The artists of less
powerful nations are rendered invisible by the lack of privilege and
-105-

prestige of their countries/cultures /institutions. Thus, when power
dictates access, what is irrportant equals what has access equals what is
visible. Alternative models -- from making the Venice Biennale a world
art lottery to developing systems of reciprocity and exchange -- were
suggested as ways to reconcile or mediate current power relationships.
The National l'v1odel:
An idea whose time has come and gone or a necessary
evil
Whether or not the Venice Biennale becomes a lottery, it was clear
that the national model for organizing international exhibitions which it
represents is problematic.
There was no consensus on the legitimacy of
the national construct. Most found it insufficient, but few were willing
to see it tossed out.
In countries like Brazil,,,such,,,nationally
determined exhibitions as the Sao Paulo Bienal -- with all its problems
provides a forum for international art that might otherwise not exist.
This year' s Venice Biennale offered an unprecedented opportunity for
Nigerian and Zirnbawean artists to have exposure that is not currently
available on the African continent.
(That their exhibition was organized
by an African-American museum in the U.S. for the Italian pavilion is yet
another measure of the limits of a strict national model) .
On the other
hand, national models of organizing exhibitions lead to contentious
assurrptions about the "national" character of art of a particular
country.
Such models can homogenize or exoticize art or render the
individual artist invisible. Participants spoke of artists who resist the
-106-

labels "Brazilian" or "Flemish." Others were concerned about monolithic
notions of what constitutes "authentic" art from a particular country and
the concomitant stereo-typing of that art. It was felt by some that given
the diversity of cultures within countries, it is impossible to speak, for
example, of American or Yugoslavian art in an all--encompassing way.
New Models
Surely some of the most lively parts of the discussion, both throughout
the day and at day's end centered on new models for addressing
multiculturalism in particular and international exhibitions in general.
Mbst participants felt that existing models could benefit from some new
approaches and alternatives. Key among the recommendations were the
following: (1) ongoing dialogue to keep avenues of communication broad and
open through forums like this conference; (2) rE;ciprocity and exchange to
break the cycle of Western dominance and allow for both the "import" and
"export" of exhibitions and ideas; (3) thematic exhibitions to allow
artists of different nations to participate outside of the national model;
(4) multiple perspectives to move beyond the notions of the mainstream and
the margin and other dichotomous ideas to new critical language that
embraces parallel cultures and multiple streams.
It is perhaps fitting to end this surrrnary with the analogy of our
colleague from Thailand whose thoughts in symbol and in substance
characterize the goodwill and optimism that were hallmarks of the day.
He
spoke of a garden with many flowers, in many colors and forms, of
diversity in harmony, with each flower being allowed to blossom.
His
artful imagery left us with a vision of an expanded internationalism that
is both a challenge and an inspiration.
-107-

-108-

THE OTHER
How do we represent others and how do we represent ourselves
to others
Moderator:
Panelists:
Catherine David, France
Rasheed Araeen, Great Britain
Piedad de Ballesteros, Colombia
Homi Bhabha, Great Britain
Chris Dercon, The Netherlands
Mark Francis, Great Britain/USA
Gary Garrels, USA
Michael Kirrmelman, USA
Moharrmed Melehi, Morocco
Bernice Murphy, Australia
Moira Roth, USA
Bruno Cora, Italy
In such an international and open context, including so many different
participants coming from such different countries and experiences (artist,
art critic, institution directors, curators), it was very difficult and
ambitious to discuss the idea and the realities of "The Other." It was at
first necessary to precisely define issues and to escape preconceived
ideas and corrmonplace attitudes encouraged by the dominant ideology of the
"global village" and the pretended universal "human rights."
In that respect the brilliant paper given the day before by Homi
Bhabha was a perfect introduction to the debates and made clear some very
ambiguous or frustrating points about what we can consider as an
international strategy of the "corrmon good" which systematically ignores
conflicts, injustice, and alterity. As he pointed out:
"Despite the
asymmetrical relations of geopolitical power, and the appropriation or
annihilation of sites of cultural otherness, we seek a kind of redemptive,
representative corrmonality."
-109-

At first the roundtable was dedicated to the presentation of the
participants, each one trying to synthetize his cultural background and
current preoccupations. Especially complex and significant were the
experiences and points of view developed by Rasheed Araeen (Pakistani
artist living and working in London), Homi Bhabha (Indo-British scholar
living and teaching in Great Britain), Bernice MUrphy (Australian curator
working for a long time with Aboriginal people and so-called cultural
minorities), and Piedad de Ballesteros (Colombian curator insisting on the
emergency of restoring a positive image of Colombian culture now
tragically reduced to political violence, M:=dellin cartel, and drug war) •
Impatient, as many of us, with the multiplication of "international
exhibitions" and the globalizing vision they imply, de Ballesteros
proposed a methodological reflection and a new attention on unexpected
cultural issues and contexts created by diasporic conditions as well as by
nee-nationalistic ones. As she pointed out:
"The binary notions of
cultural process, expressed and recycled continually in the regular
oppositions of such tenns as periphery/center, region/capital,
village/metropolis, east/west, rural/urban, colony/imperial power, need a
radical restructuring -- in fact, to be exploded open -- to begin to
accomodate the more complex conditions of a vast variety of circumstances
in contemporary cultural experiences."
-110-

At that point Araeen criticized the persistent clich~s
and
misunderstandings which are still governing the choices of exhibition
organizers and critics; he mentioned "The Other Story," an exhibition he
organized for the Hayward Gallery in London last spring which showed
postwar works by artists of the ex-Commonwealth area, as an example of a
selection based on folkloristic and neo-colonial criteria and the
inability of the critic to accept "modern" fo:r:ms and discourses coming
from Third World or non-European areas.
I tried to pursue this aspect of
the discussion by introducing a debate on the "Magiciens de la Terre"
exhibition organized at the Centre Georges Pompidou by Jean-Hubert Martin
and Mark Francis last year.
Mark Francis stressed the new context created in the museum world and
practices by the show and the unP.voidcit)le pragmatism of the choices. He
spoke of the juxtaposition of works in an open world characterized by the
more or less pacific coexistence or confusion of many different traditions
superficially mixed (or annihilated) by the so-called post-modernity.
He
also underlined the perhaps only unquestionably positive aspect of the
show:
the choices were made entirely without diplomatic or nationalistic
concerns.
-111-

Chris Dercon (Director of Witte de With, a new contemporary
exhibitions space in Rotterdam) , Gary Garrels
(Director of Programs at
the Dia Art Foundation in New York) , and Moira Roth (involved with artists
in the U.S. West Coast area) enlarged the debate by mentioning their
experiences or projects with artists coming from non-occidental countries
or local communities.
At this point in the discussion it became clear that the consciousness
and the res}ect of "The Other" (and the others) was closely tied with the
consciousness and the difficult relations we had with ourselves (if we
remember Rimbaud: "Je est un autre"). Discussing the issues of modern
identity (and alterity) , Bhabha insisted on the very important lessons of
French philosophers ( eS}eciall y the ontology of E. I..evinas) and
deconstructi vist theoreticians (J. Derrida) who made us less secure and
confident in the unity and solidity of our self and more conscious of our
unceasing construction in the relation with the other. Difference and
identity are far more complex than the already difficult differences of
culture, race, class, and sex.
Far from any naive or easy consensual
solution, I would like to quote again Bhabha:
"Culture is a painful
process of becoming: as much an uncomfortable disturbing practice of
survival and supplementarity, between art and politics, past and present,
the public and the private, race and sexuality, the known and the
numinous, as its resplendent being is a moment of pleasure, enlightenment,
or liberation."
-112-

INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITIONS TODAY
What contribution do international exhibitions make to
today's contemporary art scene
Moderator:
Panelists:
Lynn Gumpert, USA
Laszlo Beke, Hungary
Lynne Cooke, Great Britain
Helen Escobedo, M2xico
Dawson MUnjeri, Zimbabwe
Fumio Nanjo, Japan
Lars Nittve, Sweden
Maria Elena Ramos, Venezuela
Tom Sokolowski, USA
Ryszard Stanislawski, Poland
The discussion opened with a question as to how international
exhibitions are organized.
One very traditional approach has been to send
a curator to a foreign country -- and often, culture -- to select a show
based on research conducted during one or two visits. Usually these
exhibitions are organized through official connections, i.e. government
agencies.
One alternative was addressed by Tom Sokolowski who briefly
talked about his involvement with "Against Nature," an exarrple of a
"team-curated" exhibition, which drew together American and Japanese
curators to jointly organize an exhibition of contemporary Japanese
artists for the U.S.
This project took four years of traveling back and
forth between the U.S. and Japan.
They also decided to focus on only one
aspect of the current scene rather than a survey, in this case, younger
artists who were coming to grips with the contemporary mixture of the East
and West today in Jap~.
Fumio Nanjo noted that this project began when
-113-

he was still at the Japan Foundation where he organized the initial visit
of a group of American museum directors to Japan.
He suggested that often
official visits are necessary, but, hopefully, through other contacts,
foreign curators can get access to the unofficial scene.
Discussion and
dialogue between curators is crucial. It was also noted that this
exhibition is now circulating outside the context of grand exhibitions,
such as the Venice Biennale, an important consideration allowing freedom
from international political considerations and without the danger of
forcing the exhibition to become neutral so as not to offend anyone.
Lars
Nittve stressed that a bi-national or team approach is important to
provide the framework, and not have the show appear over simplified or
just exotic. MUnjeri, using the example of the exhibition of Zimbabwe art
in Holland, added that it is impossible to escape the notion of "them/us,"
especially with such. cross-cultural ventures, but that a bi-national team
approach and two-way dialogue can hopefully arrive at acceptable areas of
convergence.
In this particular case, every effort was made to show the
contemporary Zimbabwe art in a manner that approximated how it was
intended to be seen.
Laszlo Beke then addressed an inevitable conflict facing all
curators: the desire to promote the art of their country intemationall y
and also show the most interesting and "best" international art at home,
and how those decisions are made.
Lynne Cooke raised the question of how
relevant large surveys are at this particular time of an over abundance of
art fairs and art magazines, as well as exhibitions. She reiterated the
crucial question of determining which artists are even considered for
-114-

international exhibitions and the necessity of presenting one aspect that
marks a contribution to an ongoing debate, keeping in mind both the local
and broader, international audiences.
She indicated that, to take another
view, she now feels that when talking to international visitors about
British art, via the British Council, she advocates being partisan,
presenting a clear picture of what she thinks is the most interesting, in
the hopes that others will do likewise. Ryszard Stanislawski questioned
the very relevance of the terms "national" and "international," noting
that most of these distinctions are artificial, and citing, for example,
the divisions used to delineate the participants in this conference, and
noting as well the irrelevance of the term "Eastern Europe. "
All
decisions of whom to include in an exhibition or in a collection, he
notes, are "critical" decisions. He also observed a lack of criticality,
in the midst of a very comnercial climate, since it is always the same
so-called "international" artists that are represented in all the museums
around the world.
Lars Nittve pointed out that it is erroneous to just blame the art
market for the homogeneous view of international art that now dominates.
He brought up the notion of center and periphery, which the art market
reflects, and which has existed for at least a century. He observes a
loosening of or loss of center that is now occurring, along with an
increased possibility for local or regional dialects, as it were, to exist
within the international art world.
He is interested now particularly in
art that operates in those gaps.
Helen Escobedo raised the question of
what can happen in the future, what type of exhibitions could be
-115-

developed, since the big, world expositions like the Venice Biennale, will
probably continue.
Discussion ensued, again, about the necessity or
importance of a focus for thematic, rather than broader, inclusive
surveys.
Dawson Munjeri discussed an annual exhibition at the National
Gallery in Zimbabwe, where usually only the best-known artists are shown,
and of the importance, especially in international exhibitions, to present
the unknown.
Discussion then turned to notions of "quality." Nanjo observed that
this tenn is not used in Japan.
Addressing the criticism of neo-colonism
leveled at last summer' s "J:.1agiciens de la Terre" at the Centre Pornpidou,
Nan jo voiced his opinion that this was a French exhibition, organized by a
French institution, using French funding, and which was true to their
point of view.
Hopefully, other shows can counter some of the assumptions
raised by differing points of view .... In the Venice. Biennale, however,
there is no dialogue between the countries.
Stanislawski discussed the
bi-national approach used for an exhibition of Polish art shown at the
Centre Pornpidou.
Yet, how does one get out of the problem of just
presenting national shows under the guise of bi-national approaches
MUnjeri discussed an experimental, collaborative effort for 1991 by
nine countries of the South African region to present a thematic
exhibition. Escobedo mentioned another similar atterrpt, called "Esprit de
lieu"' which took place in canada, in which multi-disciplinary artists
came together to respond to that particular site. What is important, she
stressed, is the idea of an ongoing dialogue.
-116-

Discussion then returned to the notion of criteria and the hidden
agendas behind international exhibitions. Sokolowski stressed that a
crucial component, for him, of contemporary exhibitions is that they
should address the moment.
concerns, for example, AIDS.
They should define areas and issues of common
Too often, he noted, it seems more about
certain curators claiming that "they got there first," or the idea of
"discovering" new talent. He prefers "glamourous mistakes" to "safe
successes," since one can learn so much from them.
Cooke agreed, citing
also the Munster "Projekte" of site-specific projects, since it and
"Magiciens" established curatorial agendas which have to be reworked over
and over again from different perspectives.
In both these cases, there
was inevitably a Eurocentric perspective which has to be acknowledged.
Munjeri and Nittve also observed that a principal responsibility of
exhibition organizers is to reconcile how they will represent any given
theme, and to acknowledge their point of departure and their goals. The
now-fashionable stance of looking at non-occidental art is also, Nittve
pointed out, coming from a Eurocentric point of view.
All of sudden,
Europe and and the so-called Western world realize that they are no longer
at the center and are affected by cultures that are not occidental.
The discussion then turned to the question of defining who the
audience is for international exhibitions and whether it is limited to the
very small international art community.
Nittve asserted that it usually
is at least dual: the local community who is attracted to a "hot" show
and the itinerant, contenporary art tourists, who add to the glamour and
decide if it is a success or not. Cooke pointed out a third audience who
-117-

didn't see a show, but knows it through the catalogue, an audience that
grows over time.
Nanjo and Munjeri also noted the difficulties and
realities of budgets.
For example, third world countries have a Im.lch more
difficult time organizing such international extravaganzas and not many
people will get to see them.
Having unilaterally agreed to publishing a
Im.llti-lingual catalogue is in itself a very expensive prospect. Who funds
these international cooperative effort Maria Elena Ramos outlined her
attempts to organize a multi-disciplinary exhibition which deals with the
influence of occidental culture on Japanese art.
Sokolowski returned to the idea of the exhibition catalogue, and the
current issue of censorship for the U.S., which revolves around notions of
gender and sexuality. He posited a potential "obscenity" of catalogues,
the proliferation of them, for example, at the Venice Biennale.
They are
very beautiful; with lots of eolor""plates, but are they, .. he asked., always
necessary Often, he observed, they are repetitious, and the money for
them could be better spent organizing international exhibitions. He
discussed the conterrporary Indian art exhibition he organized which
received very little critical response.
What could he have put on the
walls to orient the viewer One very facile response was that the art
looked derivative of Western art -- a problem for all non-Western artists
using the accepted "international" art vocabulary which has been defined
by and limited to Europe and North America.
Nittve posited that, for him,
the "derivative" was actually the most interesting aspect of contemporary
art, and the most pertinent question in terms of global languages,
especially in light of the unification of Europe.
It is similar yet
-118-

different, and it is precisely that gap that is most interesting. Swedish
art, for exarrple, has been derivative for most of the 20th century, having
been close to the center but with a different culture.
Beke, noting the circularity and theoretical nature of the
discussion, proposed a practical game of each sending a work of art via
the mail, and then traveling the assembled objects to different nu.1seums.
Cooke pointed out that conceptual art was international in a way that no
other movement of 20th-century art was.
In the '90s she noted, we are not
discussing "internationalism" but rather "nu.1lticulturalism."
In the '60s,
there was the notion that everybody could play the game or was considered
inhibited or prejudiced. Once playing, it was assumed that they would not
be bringing along cultural baggage.
Beke reiterated, in response, that it
is still his fundamental belief that the meaning of objects change as they
travel.. Still, the realities of funding remain.
Nittve noted that it is now the policy of the Swedish government to
send out Swedish art to places where it is least expected, but where there
might be trade or economic connections.
This is not appreciated by the
artists since they feel that the intent of their work is not understood.
However, what is not known is if it is an interesting experience for the
recipient, the viewer.
Beke asked what, in Nittve' s opinion, was the aim
of the Swedish artists. Was it to show their work in as many contexts as
possible, or only in the "best," i.e., most prestigious contexts Nittve
countered that many of the Swedish artists he has talked with tend to work
in an odd way, along the border line of language.
They hope to find
someone who understands and with whom they can communicate.
The chances
-119-

for this are better in their own culture. Escobedo noted that the main
goal of artists, generally speaking, is to co:rrmunicate.
How the art work
is manipulated by a government is another question.
Gumpert noted that, throughout the discussion, there had been a
shifting back and forth between the ideal and real, what was desired and
what was practical. Sokolowski noted that, for example, in Jenny Holzer's
presentation in the American pavilion, the very sumptuous materials used
reflected that the funding needed for it was available. We have to look,
he observed, at both the packaging and its contents. Cooke noted that in
this case, it is a woman artist who could get it all together to present
such a persuasive and technological presentation, and that underlaying all
the comments about the United States and excessive funding was perhaps
unformulated, subconscious amazement that, again, it was accomplished by a
woman artist who is doing precisely .what women. are nQt~IUE~.Cll}t
tq {)e cioing.
How does one create a demand, Escobedo, asked for information about
art from Latin America
How international, coming back to the
practicalities, Gumpert asked, can we all be How much can we travel
New centers, Escobedo, countered, are needed.
Stanislawski observed that
the Venice Biennale is not of interest to most Venetians.
After the
opening, there is very little attendance.
The thousands of tourists who
come, he noted, do not attend. The discussion ended with the perennial
question of audiences and marketing.
What then, again, is the hidden
agenda of the exhibition organizer; what are their goals; who are they
trying to reach These questions, Cooke noted, are not applicable only to
the visual arts, but all forms of conterrporary art practices. To what
-120-

extent, Nittve asked, do the artists themselves think of the audience when
they make their work.
Should we be concerned about the lack of mass
audience for art exhibitions, he asked.
And the worth of the art work,
Cooke warned, cannot be measured by the numbers attending. Nan jo
concluded the discussion on a more positive note, wondering if an
international fund could be developed that would be potentially available
for any country that needed it to stage international exhibitions.
-121-

-122-

INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITIONS AND THE HOST COUNTRY
How can international exhibitions be made more effective
for the host country, particularly when they occur
outside major western centers
Moderator:
Panelists:
Paulo Herkenhoff, Brazil
Rosemary Andrade, Swaziland
Nemesio Antunez, Chile
David Elliott, Great Britain
Claude Gosselin, Canada
Jorge Helft, Argentina
Katalyn Neray, Hungary
Felix Padilla, Philippines
Cesar Trasobares, USA
Vladimir Vajda, Yugoslavia
Paula Latos-Valier, Australia
Patricio Munoz Vega, Ecuador
Either a tree or a television network might be the new space needed
for art to reach its audience, according to the present cultural standards
of a particular society. Each host country is unique and should be
treated as such, for expanding inteJ:;n~tionalism should not mean the
destruction of diversity. In Africa, for instance, a tree might be an
important space for the direct contact between the artists, a work of art
under its shadow, and the community.
The group chose to reflect on pragmatic aspects, deciding that other
groups were dealing with some more conceptual aspects of the expanding
internationalism. The participants chose to look at the different
international exhibitions in regard to the role of the host countries, and
to consider the basic question of how international exhibitions be made
more effective for the host country.
-123-

The international exhibitions should address the local need for
contemporary art. However, each host country should begin by clarifying
its needs.
Local needs should be broadly seen as those of the general
public as well as those specific to artists, curators, and historians.
They should be understood as a correct insertion into the concept of such
shows.
And then, there is always room for an unexpected enriching
dialogue.
But they have to be stated case by case, because the dialogue
is more crucial in certain areas where it does not happen naturally.
Host countries should be viewed without any paternalism. What are
their own responsibilities in a process of expanding internationalism that
necessarily generates and calls for mutual responsibilities
Host countries have the task of preparing themselves for this
function.
They should neither be passive nor proceed without an
understanein9 · of. things. The first step is tQ QE;Y§:l,Qp working know ledge
both of the international contemporary art movements and of the local
needs.
This is a prerequisite for establishing a capacity to choose or to
influence the choices of exhibitions to be received or organized.
This is
true for both biennials staged by the country and shows traveling to it.
Host countries should make efforts to develop less fragile
exhibition-organizing institutions with greater stability in their
organizational process, professional performance, and technical capacity.
Continuity is not the mere repetition of events. A biennial should not be
treated as an isolated event in time, but rather as a continuous process
of knowledge and ongoing dialogue with the international art scene.
This
notion should be at the very heart of the institutions, ensuring their
-124-

stability. However, in many cases, trustees do not duly perform their
tasks as in some other countries. Very often, government either lacks the
respect for professional curatorial work and even for art, or is unable to
correctly detect true local needs, rather acting under political or
diplomatic compromises.
Moreover, the technical handling of art has
universal standards that are expected from any country, but cannot always
be fulfilled.
In a world that seeks integration, the international exhibitions, and
curators and institutions involved with them as well, have the task of
helping to overcome confinement of artists, the public, specific social
groups, regions, countries, and even continents.
Internal colonialism,
that so often occurs within many countries, is also to be challenged. A
deep understanding of the existing forms of confinement is necessary to
overcome them..
There are many barriers whose impact consequences have led
to a sense of confinement:
geography, distance, and isolation; history
and marginalization; ideologies and political regimes; exploitation,
poverty, and the lack of funds for education and culture, etc.
The present challenge of fully absorbing the Eastern European
countries into this expanding internationalism, should not interrupt the
previous dialogue among other regions of the world, especially regarding
the so-called Third World.
Third World countries face a crucial challenge
in dealing with their biennial shows.
On the one hand, they face the high
costs and complexity of preparing work for exhibition, and the difficulty
of grasping an overview of contemporary international production. On the
-125-

other hand, such exhibitions are their major contact with international
art and, therefore, their suspension or longer intervals between would
increase their isolation.
Such Third World biennials were born as a sign of modernity and they
are an answer to the need to keep abreast of world artistic production.
They also allow for an internal look at one's own art. They are a
showcase for the national production, as they constitute a special moment
of international exposure.
These biennials require an enormous community
effort and involvement.
However, it is necessary to further develop
efficient organization for such events so that they may respond to the
present needs of the local artistic community and the public in keeping
with international dynamics and perspectives. The aspect of frequency (is
a biennial event adequate) should be put on the agenda for future
discussions.
The irrpact of a biennial has several positive aspects.
It enriches
the debate, either through influences or dialogues among artists. The
general public has access to the art of other countries. Even the
artistic community of neighboring countries profit from these
exhibitions. Therefore, the host countries should increasingly take this
latter, regional aspect into consideration. There is also a need for the
development of other types of thematic exhibitions, clearly determining
first their objectives. Biennials should not become bigger and bigger, as
they will never cover all the issues, but other formats of exhibitions
should be developed to address these subjects and current concerns.
-126-

Exhibitions alone might not be enough any longer since at some levels
they become only a reference point. The universal need to enlarge the
audience for art also brings with it the assumption that exhibitions have
a responsibility to provide the public with education and information.
This is necessary in order to develop an understanding of art and a
critical eye.
Each day it becomes more essential to the fulfillment of a
higher quality art/community relationship that educational materials
exist. Eve.ry effort is needed to make art more accessible, as art might
be a confrontation with the new, but also can be linked with other aspects
of life. It is urgent also to encourage cooperation between the
municipality and the environmental or scientific community to avoid being
just a sanctum.
Art should not be isolated from other forms of cultural manifestations
in its search for new audiences.
The need for a stronger presence of art
in the media, in addition to the specialized art magazines, should be
stressed. The large educational role of television is also critical with
its potential to efficiently reach large parts of the population.
However, television should deal with art as a symbolic universe and not
only as a journalistic fact.
From any point of view, and especially for the host country, art is
more than seeing.
The international exhibitions should be an opportunity
to develop critical interpretation and knowledge, so that art may become a
true education for liberty and equality.
-127-

There is a need to establish a dialogue between curators of different
countries so that the preparation of exhibitions is collaborative and
correctly aimed to the local audience.
Of course, it is important that
foreign curators study the art of the non-Western countries, but this
should not exclude the involvement of local curators in these countries.
Otherwise we will see a monopoly on curatorial work that excludes
non-Western curators. This is occurring as part of a worldwide trend to
open up space for showing the art of non-Western countries, namely through
the many recent exhibitions of Eastern European and Latin America art.
But in these instances, institutions seem more open to saying that
non-Western countries produce art, than that they can curate their own
art. Again, there is no need for paternalism, but rather the exchange and
confronting of curatorial ideas. The rna jor countries should open up
opportunities for training curators .. from host .non:-::'We~tern ~Q91JI1tr~es,
otherwise, theirs will remain a voiceless art.
Certain international exhibitions, involving art from all over the
world, might be only a disguised way of reinforcing the centers of the art
world and the statute of the marginal areas. This is true on conceptual
levels, as well as on the aforementioned political level of the monopoly
of the curatorial work, and even of the circulation of ideas.
How to make ideas spread around the world An exhibition would reach
a universal audience if its catalogue is made available to the libraries
of the main art institutions on all continents. How can an exhibition
really be international if its catalogue does not even circulate
properly In the Third World libraries are the major source of
information about international contemporary art available to the public.
-128-

Many non-Western countries are confined and limited to the exclusive
role of being a host and not an active participant in shaping the event.
They remain as if they were still the "jungle, " in the Hegelian sense of a
place with no history, and not as an ecological sanctuary.
Writing
history, including the process of curatoring exhibitions, is an instrument
of power in the art system.
Sometimes the art of those non-Western
countries is excluded from some international exhibitions because they are
considered marginal to history (i.e., they have not been treated in texts,
exhibitions, and collections) .
In a world of inequalities, it is true
that marginality feeds marginality.
-129-

-130-

NEW FORUMS
How can we address the need for an
expanded international forum
Moderator:
Panelists:
Milena Kalinovska, USA
Emmanuel Arinze, Nigeria
Anthony Bond, Australia
Kellie Jones, USA
Ulli Lindmayr, Austria
Beral Madra, Turkey
Thomas M2sser, USA
Roald Nasgaard, Canada
David Ross, USA
Anda Rottenberg, Poland
This panel of curators and critics aimed to answer what kind of new
forums, in the context of expanding internationalism, would be effective
and benefit a broad variety of artists from a number of different
backgrounds and countries. We understood that we were brought together
precisely because our breadth of experiences, according to which part of
the world we have worked in and that what we have been individually
concerned with would differ. Yet, the corrplex interests of our small
group perhaps reflects to some extent the complexity of issues that are
associated with the current understanding of what contemporacy
international exhibitions--sometimes labeled global--entail. We indeed
talked predominantly about exhibitions since they are where contemporacy
art is made public and validated.
It has also been clear to us that the
question of the "Other" and its role in international shows, vecy much
debated recently and particularly addressed in Western Europe since the
second part of the '80s, had motivated the U.S. organizers of this
conference.
The notion of the "Other" thus presided over our discussion
as it progressed.
-131-

We also kept in mind and touched on the fact that political factors,
for instance, current encouraging changes in the global situation, namely
in South Africa or Eastern Europe, as well as wide economic imbalances
between highly developed and developing countries, play a role in
determining the fluctuating concept of international exhibitions and their
location. While artists from new situations will be entering and helping
to re-shape the nature of these shows, the larger part of the world will
continue to be left out of these dialogues.
* * * * * * *
"... the art market system, the Biennial system, exists in a way that
even if there is no more art, the system would invent art ..• And this is
not a nice thing at all. We are so Im.lch connected with our Western
Civilization system because it is linked to our . infq:rmation system, and we
have to break it." Jean-Christophe Ammann.
"As the best, and worst, shows of the past 30 months attest,
authoritative curatorial statements are required not only to make sense of
the plethora of work currently produced but to engage the audience with
significant issues or questions instead of pandering to a desire for
entertainment." Lynne Cooke
These two quotations were among those that o:pened our debate.
The
first is from the BBC "Kaleidoscope" program reviewing the "International
Exhibitions Now" conference held at the Riverside Studios in London in
1985. The second quotation is from an essay "Exhibition Tracking: The
Late I 80s" written for the carnegie International catalogue in 1988.
-132-

These voices fairly well illustrate concerns representative of the
initiating side of the conference. What they pinpoint is that those
working in dominant post-industrial and postmodern societies are
dissatisfied with the current state of affairs in general. On the one
hand, the feeling of exhaustion and, on the other hand, hope that the old
world is disappearing, is what activated our discussion.
In this context we addressed:
I. The curators' role, national, bi-national, thematic, issue-based,
small- and large-scale international exhibitions and programs, as well as
artists' residencies.
oWe agreed that the position of the curator, who determines the context
and selection process of the exhibition, is critical. What kind of a
curator should be in charge Should there be a curator from the
initiating country or should the choice of the cr_it§±"i§. for the
selection of artists be made by a curator from a country from which
the work originates The prerequisite which we agreed on was that the
curator (not a committee, though a collaboration between several
curators was seen possible) should be free from any kind of state
policies. The divorce should be clear so that an independent curator
can deal with the work effectively and contextually.
o National, bi-national, or thematic exhibitions were perceived as
dated. Especially "export"-oriented national shows were seen as
incapable of corrmunicating the identity of the artists and in their
extreme may be racist. Their "packaging" tends to misrepresent.
Yet
some national exhibitions around a specific burning topic, for
-133-

instance censorship in the arts in the U.S., can create opportunities
for artists and shed light on issues argued in their context and of
interest elsewhere.
o Large-scale international shows, such as Venice Biennial, are indeed
problematic.
The Venice Biennial, in particular, through its pavilion
structure is based on a false concept of national art and lacks any
other unifying concept.
It is an "Olympic Games of Art" involving
bureaucrats and governments.
Furthermore, it is rooted in a
19th-century concept of international exhibitions.
It reflects the
political and economic power structure, meaning that to varying
degrees those without power are not heard and those without money are
not seen.
o Smaller-scale, issue-based international group shows were considered
of interest. The question, rather~
was what" were the resow::-ces
available to curators for selecting artists for these exhibitions if
they or their countries are not actively visible on an international
art circuit. In this context artists' residencies and other relevant
programs, for curators, too, were felt to be productive.
II. A specific set of problems inherent to the countries with
multi -cultural dimensions, with short "contercporary" traditions, and with
limited exposure to art from abroad and at home.
o How can artists of Asian, HiSPanic, and black American backgrounds,
for example, be internationally recognized in larger situations, such
as in the U.S. What are their chances of being included in visible
-134-

exhibitions both at home and when shown abroad Would touring
national group or biennial exhibitions based on regional/local
interests offer a solution of some kind Creation of yet another
international exhibition in an already highly politicized art world
did not seem to be one of the solutions.
o What work should be presented in countries that have a limited
exposure to work from outside Questions concerning context, the
absence of knowledge, and a clearly articulated aim were discussed in
the same breath as the need to understand the audiences.
o How do we select artists for productive international exhibitions Is
quality a valid criteria or is there some other intellectual discourse
more effective here
o The reality of expenses and time involved in selection of a work and
its eventual ... p:r:esentation is another major i$S}Je !. WJ}~y~;-.EC1YS for
the exposure of work will also indirectly determine what will be shown
and where.
III. New forums that, on the one hand, would open doors to the "Other"
and, on the other hand, utilize existing resources to create meaningful
opportunities for the artists and meaningful experiences for a variety of
audiences.
The following concepts appeared at the top of the list when we
considered a productive east-west-north-south (rather than just
north-west) dialogue:
artists' residencies, "laboratory" shows, and
focused major international exhibitions.
-135-

o International artists' residencies involve a longer-term commitment on
behalf of the host and present for artists rare opportunities. They
may have the possibility of spending a period of time in a fresh
environment that may help them to examine their work anew as well as
to work uninterruptedly.
They may be invited to develop a project for
a particular space or a community.
Face-to-face communications with
colleagues elsewhere, personal relationships, and also participation
in new circumstances are all partly responsible for changing cultural
situations.
o "Laboratory" shows (smaller projects) in internationally oriented
programs such as the ICAs, Kunstverein, Kunsthalle, other museums or
situations outside of museums also make sense.
Sometimes taking the
form of · site-speci,fic ,shews ·sma,ller in scale, they, .. are .. ~highly. t.apical,
concentrated, and dynamically varied. They are known to have given
impulse to some of the most talked about or influential large-scale
exhibitions, such as ":Magiciens de la Terre." It is here where ideas
are allowed to grow and where artists' decisions matter.
o We seemed to agree on a focused international exhibition that would
take into account the diversity of situations and that would be
selected for a particular country on the basis of a particular need.
We talked about sensitivity to history, environment, and the interests
of the artists and audiences.
We liked the fact that, if necessary,
such an exhibition can make use of those resources offered to it by a
particular situation; it could respond to the cultural heritage of a
-136-

place.
To make creative use of exhibiting possibilities outside of
established or known forms, such as historical or other relevant sites,
was coupled with a desire to make a difference to the cultural scene
wherever it may be.
-137-

-138-

PARTICIPANTS
-139-

-140-

I. AFRICA
Morocco
Mohammed M=lehi
Directeur des Arts
Ministere de la Culture
Rabat, Morocco
tel. 21 27 66554
fax 21 27 68814
Nigeria
Emmanuel Arinze
Director
National Commission for MUseums and Monuments
National M..lseum
P.M.B. 12556
Onikan Lagos, Nigeria
tel. 234-1-632-844
Swaziland
Rosemary Andrade
Swaziland National MUseum
P.O. Box 100
Lobaffiba, Swaziland
tel. 268-611-78/9
Zimbabwe
Dawson Mun.jeri
Deputy Executive Director
National MUseums and Monuments
P.O. Box 8540 causeway
Harare, Zimbabwe
tel. 263-707-202
II. ASIA/PACIFIC
Australia
Anthony Bond
Curator of Contemporary Art
Art Gallery of New South Wales
Art Gallery Road, Domain
Sydney, New South Wales
Australia 2000
tel. 61 2 225 1700
fax. 61 2 221 6226
-141-

Paula Latos-Valier
Director
Art Gallery of Western Australia
Perth Cultural Centre, Perth 600
Western Australia
tel. 61-9-328-7233
fax. 61-9-328-6353
Bernice Murphy
Chief Curator
Museum of Contemporary Art
Circular Quay West
P. 0. Box R1286
Sydney 2001
tel. 61-2-252-4033
Japan
Fumio Nanjo
Nanjo & Associates
30-8 Sarugakucho Twin Building
Daikanyama, Shibuya-ku
Tokyo 150, Japan
tel. 81-3-780-0491
fax 81-3-780-0753
Philippines
Felix Padilla
Director
Conterrporary Arts Museum of the Philippines
Fourth Floor, Cultural Center
Roxas Blvd.
:tv:etromanila, Philippines
tel. 832-1125, ext. 227
Thailand
Nonthi vathn Chandhanaphalin
Director
Silpakorn University Art Gallery
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
tel. 66-2-223-8556
fax 66-2-225-7258
III. MIDDLE EAST/EASTERN EUROPE
Hungary
Laszlo Beke
Curator
Hungarian National Gallery
4250 Buda}est, P .0. Box 34
Hungary
tel. 36-1-175-8989
-142-

Katalyn Neray
Venice Commissioner and Director
Palace of Exhibitions/MUcsarnok
P.O. Box 35
140 6 Budapest, Hungary
tel. 36-1-424-145
Poland
Anda Rottenberg
Ministry of Kultur Sztuki
Krakowskie Przedscie 15/17
00-950 Warszawa, Poland
tel. 48 22 26 00 58
Ryszard Stanislawski
Director
MUseum Sztuki, Lodz
ul. Wieckowskiego 36,
90-734 LOdZ, Poland
Turkey
Beral Madra
Director
Galeri Bf:-..1
Akkavak Sokak 1/1
80200 Nisantas
Istanbul, Turkey
tel. 90-1-131-1023
fax .• (same)
Yugoslavia
Marina Grzinic
Cultural Secretary for Slovenia
Marksisticni Center
M::: CKZKS
Beethovna 2
Ljubljana 6100, Yugoslavia
tel. 38-61-210-036
fax 38-61-215-855
home: Cesnikova 12
Ljubljana 61000
or: Slovenian Esthetic Society
Sazu
Novi TRG 4
Ljubljana 6100
Vladimir Vajda
Director
Festival Ljubljana
Trg rancoske revolucije 1-2
Ljubljana, Gaspersiceva 7
Yugoslavia
-143-

IV.
NORTH AMERICA
Canada
Manon Blanchette
Chief Curator
MUsee d'art contemporain de MOntreal
Cite du Havre
MOntreal, Quebec
H3C 3R4 Canada
tel. 514-873-2878
Bruce Ferguson
Independent curator and critic
Apt. 4S
12 East 12th Street
New York, New York 10003
tel. 212-645-8850
Claude Gosselin
Director
Centre International D'Art
Contemporain de MOntreal
C.P. 760 Place du Pare
:Montreal H2W 2P3, Quebec
tel. 514-288-0811
fax. 514-288-5021
Dr. Roald Nasgaard
Chief Curator
Art Gallery of Ontario
317 Dundas Street West
MST 1G4 Toronto
tel. 416-979-6627
~ico
Helen Escobedo
Sculptor
Av. San Jeronimo 162-A
~ico D.F., 20 01010
~ico
tel. 905-548-3290
United States
Kinshasha Holman Conwill (moderator)
Executive Director
Studio Museum in Harlem
144 West 125th Street
New York, New York 10026
tel. 212-864-4500
fax. 212-666-5753
-144-

Mark Francis
Curator of Contemporary Art
Carnegie Museum of Art
4400 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
tel. 412-622-3273
fax. 412-622-3112
Gary Garrels
Director of Programs
Dia Art Foundation
155 Mercer Street
New York, New York 10012
tel. 212 431 9232
Suzanne Ghez
Director
The Renaissance Society
The University of Chicago
5811 S. Ellis Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60637
tel. 312 702 8670
fax. 312-702-9669
Lynn Gufn.pert (moderator)
Independent Curator
151 West 28th Street, Apt. 4E
New York, New York 10001
teL .. 212-563-7893
fax 212-643-0069
Mary Jane Jacob
Independent Curator
707 West Junior Terrace
Apartment 10
Chicago, IL 60613
tel. 312-348-3353
fax 312-348-0647
Kellie Jones
Independent Curator
39 East 17th Street #2J
Brooklyn, New York 11226
tel. 718-826-0061
Milena Kalinovska (moderator)
Independent Curator
905 French Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
tel. 202-332-3585
fax. 202-898-0445
-145-

Michael Kirrmelman
Critic
New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036
tel. 212-556-1234
Thomas Messer
Director Emeritus
Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation
527 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022-4301
tel. 212-371-6683
David Ross
Director
Whitney Museum of American Art
945 Madison Avenue
New York, New York, 10021
tel. 212-570-3600
fax 212-570-1807
Moira Roth
Professor
Art Department
Mills College
5000 MacArthur Blvd.
Oakland, california 94613
tel .. 415-430-2117
Thomas Sokolowski
Director
Grey Art Gallery
New York University
33 Washington Place
New York, New York 10003
tel. 212 998 6780
Cesar Trasobares
Independent Curator
1214 SW 12 Court
Miami, Florida 33135
tel. 305-856-5239
Tomas Ybarra-Frausto
Associate Director for Arts & Humanities
Rockefeller Foundation
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
tel. 212-869-8500
fax. 212-764-3468
-146-

V. lATIN AMERICA
Argentina
Jorge Helft
Director
Fundacion Antorchas
Chile 300
1098 Buenos Aires, Argentina
tel. 54-1-331-9905
fax 54-1-331-5673
home: Defensa 1364
1143 Buenos Aires, Argentina
tel. 54-1-334-7157
Brazil
Aracy Amaral
Art critic
Almeda Jau, 901 - ap. 5
Sao Paulo 01420 SP, Brazil
tel. 55-11-287-51780
Paulo Estellita Herkenhoff Filho (moderator)
Curator
Museu de Arte de Sao Paulo
Av. Paulista 1578
Sao Paulo, Brazil
tel. 55-11-251-5644
Chile
Nemesio Antunez
Director
Museum of Fine Arts
Bellas Arts Parque Forstal
home: carlos Casanueva No. 0354
Santiago, Chile
tel.56-2-232-0341
Colombia
Piedad de Ballesteros
Director of Plastic Arts
Colcultura
Calle 8 No. 6-97,
Bogota D. E. , Colombia
tel. 57-1-242-20-35
Ecuador
Patricio Munoz Vega
President
Bienal Intemacional de pintura
Cuenca, Ecuador
tel. 593-7-831-778
Paucarbamba 4-88
-147-

Venezuela
Maria Elena Ramos
Director
Museo de Bellas Artes
Plaza Mbrelos Mbrfi DS
Los Cadeoa, Caracas 1050
Venezuela
tel.58-2-571-01-69 I 571-21-19 I 573-40-35
VI.
WES'IERN EUROPE
Austria
Ulli Lindmayr
Independent curator
A-1070 Wien
Schotten feldgasse 4014
Austria
tel. 43-222-931-9933
Belgium
Catherine de Zegher
Kanaal Art Foundation
Erasmus Laan 32
8500 Kortrijk
Belgium
tel. 32-56-22-45-63
tel. (weekend) 32-56-20-38-44
fax 32-56-22-69-50
England
Rasheed Araeen
Editor, Third Text
120 Greencroft Gardens
London NWG 3PJ
tel. 44-71-435-3748
Homi Bhabha
Critic
20 Highbury Crescent
London NS lRX
England
tel. 44-71-226-2216; 44-71-609-4437
Guy Brett
Critic and Independent Curator
38 Archbishops Place
London SW2 2AJ
England
tel. 44-81 674 8416
fax 44-71-240-5958
-148-

Lynne Cooke
Art Critic
42 Brecknock Road
London N7
England
tel. 44-71-607-3553
David Elliott
Director
M..lseurn of Modem Art
30 Pembroke Street
OX1 1BP
England
tel. 44-865-722-733
fax. 44-865-722-573
France
Catherine David (moderator)
Curator
Jeu de Paume
20, rue Royale
75000 Paris
France
Tel. 33-1-4260-6000; 4543-1861
fax. 33-1-4260-3905
Jean-Hubert Martin
Director
Mls~ National d'Art M::xieme
Rue Beaubourg
19, rue Renard
75007 Paris
France
tel. 33-1-4277-1233
fax. 33-1-4277-2949
Germany
Kasper Koenig
Director
Portikus
Schone Aussicht 2
D-6000 Frankfurt M[
Federal Republic of Germany
tel. 49-69-60-500-830
fax 49-605-008-66
Italy
Bruno Cora
Art critic and curator for the
Incontri Internazionali d'arte
Via Val d' Ala 36
Roma 00141, Italy
tel. 39-6-679-8006/810-3384
-149-

Netherlands
Chris Dercon
Director
Center for Contemporary Art
Witte de With Street
3012 Br Rotterdam
The Nether lands
tel. 31-10-411-0144
fax 31-10-411-7924
Sweden
Lars Nittve
Director
Rooseum
Box 6186
S-20011 Malmo,
Sweden
tel. 46-40-121-716
fax 46-40-304-561
-150-

Invited Participants Unable to Attend
Ms. Leila Al-Attar
Director General of Culture and Arts
Saddam Art Center
Ministry of Culture and Information
Baghdad, Iraq
Carmen Alborch
Director
IVAM Centre Julio Gonzalez
Avda Carrpanar 32
46015 Valencia, Spain
Ebrahim Alkazi
Chairman
The Center for International
Conterrporary Arts
724 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Ms. Roshan Alkazi
Director
Art Heritage Galery
Tri veni Kala Sangom
209 Tansen Marg
New Delhi 110.001
India
Jean-Christophe Ammarm
Director
Museum fur :M:x:lern Kunst
Schaumainkai 35
6000 Frankfurt
Germany
Wieslaw Borowski
Galeria Foksal
ul. Foksal 1/4
Warsaw, Poland
Michael Brenson
New York Times Culture Department
229 W. 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
-151-

Omar Bwana
P.O. Box 40658
Nairobi, Kenya
Germano Celant
Curator
Guggenheim Museum
1071 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10128
E.S. Challi
Executive Secretary
National Arts Council
P.O. Box 4779
Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania
Maria de Corral
Director
Sala des Exposiciones
Fundacion Caja des Pensiones
Serrano, 60
28001 Madrid, Spain
Ms. Mircea Dinescu
The Writer's Union
Calea Victoriei 115
Bucharest
Runa.nia
Gary DuFour
Curator
Vancouver Art Gallery
750 Hornby Street, Vancouver BC
V62 2H7 Canada
Jean-Louis Froment
Directeur du CAPC - M.lsee d'Art Contenporain
Entrepot Laine
rue Foy
33000 Bordeaux
Rudi Fuchs
Director
Haags Gemeentemuseum
Stadhauderslaan 41
P .0. Box 72
2517 HU Den Haag
Netherlands
-152-

Christina Galvez Guzzy
Director
Rufino Tamayo Museum
Paseo de la Reforma y Gandhi
Bosque de Chapultepec
C.P. 11580 Mexico, D.F.
camen Gimenez
Curator
Guggenheim Museum
1071 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10128
'v
Guillermo Gomez-Peria
852 Eighth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Nikolai N. Gubenko
Minister of Culture
Ministry of Culture
ul. Kuybyfheva 10
Moscow, U.S.S.R.
Nikolai N. Gubenko
Minister of Culture
c/o Alexsandr Potemkin
Cultural Attache
1125 16th Street NW
Washington, OC 20036
Ms. Grazia Gunn
Director
Australian Centre for Conterrporary Art
Dallas Brooks Drive
The Domain, South Yarra
Victoria 3141, Australia
Willard Holmes
Director
Vancouver Art Gallery
750 Hornby Street
Vancouver BC
V62 2H7 Canada
Jan Hoet
Director
Museum van Hedendaagse Kunst
Citadel park
9000 Ghent
-153-

Director
Taipei Fine Arts Museum
181 Chung Shan N. Road Sec. 3
Taipei, Taiwan R.O.C.
Ousmane Sow Huchard
Comisar for Overseas Art Exhibitions
8A Rue Camot
Dakar, Senegal
Mr. Syed Arrmad Jamal
Director
National Art Gallery
1 Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin
50050 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Angel Kalenberg
Director
Museo Nacional de Artes Plasticas
Parque Rodo
Montevideo, Uruguay
Mrs. Helen Obiagelli Kerri
Chief curator
National Commission for Museums and Monuments
P.M.B. 12556
Onikan, Lagos, Nigeria
Jacob Klintowitz
Curator for the San Paulo Bienal
Bienal Office
Parque Ibirapuera CEP 04098
San Paulo, Brazil
Ingrid Klussmann
Coordinator of the Juannio Festival
16 Calle 5-30
Zona 1
Guatemala City, Guatemala
Shinji Kohmoto
Curator
National Museum of Modem Art
Okazaki Endhoji
Sayo-Ku
Kyoto 606, Japan
Thomas Krens
Director
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum
1071 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10128
-154-

Susanne Landau
Curator
The Israel Museum
P.O. Box 1299
Jerusalem 91012
James Lingwood
Curator
ICA
The Mall
12 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y SAH
England
Ms. Usha Malik
Program Director
Indian Council for Cultural Affairs
Azad Bhawan
Indraprastha Estate
New Delhi 110 002
India
Declin MCGonagle
Director
Irish Museum of Modern Art
Dublin, Ireland
.... Jose. Mindlin
Director-Presidente
Metal Leve S.A. Industria e comercio
Rua Brasilia lue 535
Santo Amaro 04746
Sao Paulo, Brazil
Gerardo Mosquera
Animas 359 No. 2
La Habana 2, Cuba
Paul Nakitare
Director of Culture
Ministry of Culture and Social Services
P.O. Box 67374
Nairobi, Kenya
Dr. Ahmed Nawar
Chairman of Ministry of Culture
National Center for the Plastic Arts
Planetarium Building
Gezira Fairgrounds, Cairo
-155-

Mrs. Tisa Ng
Deputy Director, Festival of Arts
Ministry of Community Development
512 Thomson Road
15th Storey, MCD Building
Singapore 1129
Al Nodal
General Manager
Cultural Affairs Department
200 N. Spring Street
Room 1500, City Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Julie Okupa
Assistant Director
Center for Black and African Arts and Civilization
National Theatre
Onikan Lagos, Nigeria
Kyung-Sung Lee
Director
The National Museum of Contenporary Art
San 54-1
Makgye Dong
Kwachon-Si, Kyungki-Do
171-11/Seoul, South Korea
Cyril Rogers
Director
National Gallery of Zimbabwe
Julius Nyerere Way
Harare, Zimbabwe
Mr. Jerzy Ryba
Visual Arts Department
Ministrie Kultur e Sztuki
Krakowskie Przedscie 1517
Warsaw, Poland
Mr. Jiri Setlik
Lopatecka 7
147 OOPrague 4
Czechoslovakia
Linda Shearer
Director
Williams College M..lseum of Art
:Main Street
Williamstown, MA 01267
-156-

Alexandre Yakimovich
Salvador Aliende Street 7-59
Moscow 125252
-158-