Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

discurs critic (social, politic, de exemplu cu referire la mediul de origine) sînt evidentdezirabile, însæ potenflialul lor critic va fi, prin modul de expunere, estompat,pînæ la suprimare. Intervenflia curatorialæ nu mai poate fi privitæ ca fiind o mediere,dar nici ca o reinterpretare, negenerînd un suplimentar registru conceptual de circumscriereanaliticæ a lucrærilor.În critica postcolonialistæ a anilor ’90 6 , accentul se deplaseazæ pe practici øi procesesociale øi imaginative, în detrimentul unor formule fixe, prestabilite de operare. Înacest context, Hal Foster descrie, în The Return of the Real, cum fanteziile primitivistedespre alteritate sînt absorbite, în anii ’90, într-o paradigmæ realistæ, prin care„alteritatea este privitæ ca fiind de-adeværatelea“. 7 În imaginea celuilalt vor fi proiectatecoordonate politice contemporane, ceea ce are consecinfle ce depæøesc codareaclasicæ automatæ identitate-alteritate. Hal Foster vorbeøte despre apropriereaalteritæflii în postmodernism: explorarea alteritæflii se realizeazæ mai curînd prinvechea formulæ a ceea ce Foster numeøte „to other the self“ decît prin „to selvethe other“, care ar fi putut face, afirmæ Foster, posibilæ diferenfla. Nevoia de a exotizasinele, de a se autoprezenta printr-o oglindire în alteritate, are drept consecinflænu numai idealizarea alteritæflii (chiar dacæ va fi ancoratæ în politic øi social), ci øi nevoiade a o consuma, anihilîndu-i diferenflele determinante. Referindu-se la politiciidentitare din domeniul artei contemporane bazate pe aceeaøi reprezentare ego(artistul în acest caz)-alteritate (teritoriul în care opereazæ), Hal Foster descrie dezvoltarealor printr-o reciprocæ invocare a autenticitæflii celuilalt, ca garant al autenticitæfliiproprii.Expunerea lui H. Foster pare a fi paradigmaticæ pentru HKW, unde lucrærile sînt prezentateca substitute ale unor culturi, înscenate ca „tematici culturale“, modelatesæ devinæ, prin expunere, coincidenfla unui cotidian exotic cu unul local, nu mai puflinfictiv. Polifonia unor circumscrieri precum spontaneitate socialæ sau individualitate,rezonantæ cu lucrærile în sine, dar invalidatæ prin transferul asupra unui „general“ proclamatartificial, devine contemplare narcisistæ, chiar cînd este reatribuitæ de cætre institufliepropriilor practici din cadrul programelor curatoriale.Tot astfel, titlurile expozifliilor – Spaflii øi umbre, Vis øi traumæ, Apropiere îndepærtatæ– rezoneazæ mai curînd cu un registru livresc næscut într-un birou HKW decît cuo lucrare importatæ de peste Ocean. Titlurile învæluie sonor obiectul expus, mitizîndu-l,obscurizîndu-l, pînæ la pronunflarea unui sine, surprins în neastîmpærul parcurgeriiunor succesive alteritæfli.Note:1. Comunicatele de presæ pot fi consultate pe pagina web www.hkw.de. Expozifliile implicæ øi manifestæri colaterale(de ex., petreceri inaugurale cu DJ, concerte, dans sau serii de conferinfle), pe care nu le voi analiza îneseul de faflæ, rezumîndu-mæ la expozifliile de artæ organizate de Departamentul pentru Artæ Plasticæ, Filmøi Medii al HKW.2. De ex., practicate la „Art of the Fantastic“ – 1987, Indianapolis Museum of Art; „Magiciennes de la Terre“– 1988, Centre Pompidou, Paris; „The Decade Show: Frameworks of Identity in the 1980s“ – 1990, Museumof Contemporary Hispanic Art, New York.3. Alæturi de Shaheen Merali, expoziflii øi programe adiacente sînt curate øi de Annette Bhagwati, Ackbar Abbas,Lydia Hausstein, Christopher Phillips, Geeta Kapur etc.4. Nu mæ voi referi aici la contribufliile academice prezentate la seriile de conferinfle organizate de cætre HKW,în paralel cu fiecare expoziflie.5. Marius Babias, „Subject production and political art practice“, in Afterall, nr.9, The London Institute, London,2004, pp. 101–110.6. Demaratæ, de ex., prin James Clifford, The predicament of culture, Cambridge, 1988; Robert Young, WhiteMythologies, London, 1990; E. Sprinkler (ed.), Edward Said. A Critical Reader, Cambridge, 1992.7. Hal Foster, The Return of the Real, Cambridge, London, 1996, pp. 172–203.ness is seen as real” 7 . In the image of the other, political contemporarycoordinates will be projected with consequences that surpassthe automatic classical encoding in identity – otherness. Hal Fostertalks about the appropriation of otherness in postmodernism:the exploration of otherness will rather be done through the old formulathat Foster calls “to other the self” than through “to selve theother”, which, according to Foster, could have made possible the difference.The need to make the self exotic, to self-present throughthe other has for consequence not only the idealization of otherness(even if rooted in political and social issues) but also the need to consumeit, annihilating its defining differences. Referring to identitypolicies in contemporary art, based on the same paradigm ego– otherness (here, artist – territory), Hal Foster describes their developmentthrough a mutual reference to the other’s authenticity asa guarantee of their own authenticity.H. Foster’s demonstration seems to be paradigmatic for HKW, wherethe works are presented as substitutes of cultures, stages as “culturalthemes”, modeled to become the coincidence of an exotic anda local, no less fictitious, day-to-day. The polyphony of descriptionssuch as social spontaneity or individuality, the echo in the works assuch, but invalidated through the transfer on something “general”proclaimed as artificial, becomes narcissist contemplation even whenit is redistributed by the institution to the in-house practices of thecuratorial programs.In the same way, the titles of the exhibitions – Spaces and Shadows,Dream and Trauma, Far Closeness – resemble more the bookishstyle of the HKW offices than a major work from across the ocean.The titles embrace in sound the exhibit turning it into myth, hiding itto the uttering of a self, caught in the restlessness of crossing successiveothers.Translated by Izabella BadiuNotes:1. The press releases are available at www.hkw.de. The exhibitionsare accompanied by collateral events (i.e. opening parties with DJ,concerts, dancing or series of conferences) that I am not analyzingin this essay as I only discuss the art exhibitions organized by theFine Art, Film and Media Division at HKW.2. For example at “Art of the Fantastic” – 1987, Indianapolis Museumof Art; “Magiciennes de la Terre” – 1988, Centre Pompidou, Paris;“The Decade Show: Frameworks of Identity in the 1980s” – 1990,Museum of Contemporary Hispanic Art, New York.3. Alongside Shaheen Merali, adjacent exhibitions and programs arealso curated by: Annette Bhagwati, Ackbar Abbas, Lydia Hausstein,Christopher Phillips, Geeta Kapur, etc.4. I am not referring here to the academic contributions presentedin the series of conferences organized by HKW in parallel witheach exhibition.5. Marius Babias, “Subject production and political art practice”in Afterall, no. 9, The London Institute, London, 2004, pp. 101–110.6. Started for example with James Clifford, The predicament of culture,Cambridge, 1988; Robert Young, White Mythologies,London, 1990; E. Sprinkler (Ed.), Edward Said. A Critical Reader,Cambridge, 1992.7. Hal Foster, The Return of the Real, Cambridge, London, 1996,pp. 172–203.100