Collectivism after Modernism - autonomous learning - Blogs
Collectivism after Modernism - autonomous learning - Blogs
Collectivism after Modernism - autonomous learning - Blogs
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
224 Okwui Enwezor<br />
collective imaginary has often been understood as essentially political in<br />
orientation with minimal artistic instrumentality. In other instances shared<br />
labor, collaborative practice, and the collective conceptualization of artistic<br />
work have been understood as the critique of the reiWcation of art and the<br />
commodiWcation of the artist. Though collaborative or collective work has<br />
long been accepted as normal in the kind of artistic production that requires<br />
ensemble work, such as music, in the context of visual art under which the<br />
individual artistic talent reigns such loss of singularity of the artist is much<br />
less the norm, particularly under the operative conditions of capitalism.<br />
Over the centuries there have been different kinds of groupings of<br />
artists in guilds, associations, unions, workshops, schools, movements. However,<br />
each of these instances always recognized the individual artist as the<br />
sine qua non of such associational belonging. In fact, the idea of ensemble<br />
or collective work for the visual artist under capitalism is anathema to the<br />
traditional ideal of the artist as author whose work purportedly exhibits the<br />
mark of her unique artistry. The very positivistic identiWcation of the artist<br />
as author leads to a crucial differentiation, one that represents the historical<br />
dialectic under which modern art and artists have been deWned: the former<br />
on the basis of originality, qua authenticity, of the work of art and the<br />
latter on the authority and singularity of the artist as an individual talent<br />
and genius. To designate a work as the product of a collective practice in a<br />
world that privileges and worships individuality raises a number of vexing<br />
issues concerning the nature and practice of art.<br />
To the extent the discourse of collectivity has been circumscribed<br />
by the above issues, debates on today’s collective artistic formations and collaborative<br />
practices tend to be unconcerned with the questions of “who is<br />
an artist?” 1 and “what is an author?” 2 The current positive reception of collectivity,<br />
in fact its very fashionability, may have something to do with the<br />
historical amnesia under which its recent revival operates. While collectivity<br />
portends a welcome expansion of the critical regimes of the current contemporary<br />
art context that has been under the pernicious sway of money, a<br />
speculative art market, and conservative politics to make common cause with<br />
its counterintuitive positionality and therefore avoid participation in the<br />
cooption and appropriation of its criticality, it is important to connect collectivity<br />
today to its historical genealogy. This may mean going as far back<br />
as the Paris Commune of the 1860s, the socialist collectives of the Russian<br />
Revolution in 1917, the subversive developments of Dada, the radical interventions<br />
of “neo-avant-garde” movements such as the Situationist International,<br />
and activist-based practices connected to issues of class, gender, and<br />
race. The nature of collectivity extends also into the political horizon constructed<br />
by the emancipatory projects of the liberation movements of the