The Global Market

The major points relayed in our class discussion looked at the artist as a promoter of national ideals or movements. Canclini refers to this as the “art of nations”, or the nation as a vehicle or mode of legitimizing the organization of art and culture pertaining to a given country within in the western world. One can think of “French Baroque”, “Italian Futurism” or “Russian Constructivism” in terms of the modern art discourse. In can be said that some modern movements did attempt to amalgamate a unified aesthetic, two examples are The Bauhaus and De Stijl, both of which sought to spread their idealistic precepts in the form of simple geometric and highly refined designs. This “international style” however was still grounded in the western concepts of art and design. And this fact may have led to its eventual demise as Charles Jencks proclaimed the death of the “International Style on July 15th 1972 as the Pruitt-Igoe housing development in St. Louis, Missouri, a prize winning complex designed for low income people, was dynamited as uninhabitable. Actually, the exact time was 3:23 pm.
Just as post modern architecture offered the new vernacular of an emphasis on the local and particular as opposed to a modernist universalism (albeit with an irony and pastiche) so too can we think of today’s artist as now transcending local, national and transnational boundaries. In our newly globalized world, with its highly advanced communications structure and ever open transversive network, that of human traffic crossing from boarder to boarder and continent to continent, one wonders if the idea of a national, or the artist exemplifying national ideas can substantiate a sum of validity. Now a days it seems that artists must think in a transnational mentality. To bring things closer to home, can you and I really define what makes an artist or designer Canadian? When I think of a distinct “Canadian” art my mind instinctually, due to years of in class slide shows, goes right to The Group of Seven or Emily Carr, which is still heavily promoted by contemporary museums in Canada. (Emily Carr at the Glenbow.).) These examples are undoubtedly outdated, yet they still command a presence amongst perhaps a more commercial stratum of our society. This belies the question of the national and international sensibility. While western art has followed the cannon of art production in a liner sense of history it has taken the paradigmic sense of meta-narrative as a structure in its on going development. I think artists for the most part are working in the realm of the transnational, there are no borders, or at least they are slowly being delimited.
The question of whether the “universal is ours, the local is yours” is very open to several means of analysis. In the class discussion it was said that the universal is owned by the Western societies, and that the local is everything or everyone else. This may be true but also if one looks at how a non-westernized society sees the same question in terms of art and artists coming into there society, it could be seen in the opposite way. If an artist chooses to take on issues or anything relating to a country other than its own, then it is important that a level of education and understanding should not come across as uninformed or “in the background”. Then the work could be taken seriously when the issues or ideas have been analyzed enough that the work shows an understanding, which then creates more of a connection to the viewer in that specific region.
Cultural identity is commonly attributed to a multicultural paradigm in western societies. We can only identify with the traditions we were individually brought up with, and this results in a loose understanding of one culture as a society. On one hand, a multicultural society promotes tolerance and understanding between cultural groups, but on the other hand can reinforce the differences and stereotypes between the same groups. A case in point is the Venice Biennial where countries are sequestered into pavilions, which indirectly articulate and foment artistic differences and stereotypes. An example is the African Pavilion, which would purport art that is, well African. It would be expected that this art would address African social concerns and polemic issues. And if any of these artist’s attempted to work in a western theoretical framework then they would most likely be labeled as inauthentic.
Going back to the global art market, minorities have a choice of forging the global market alone or conducting group show with other artists within their minority. The unique culture gets to share their identity to the rest of the world. This exposure can also be taken the wrong way as the preconceived idea of difference is reinforced. An example could be “Red Eye” - a First Nations video. http://www.artgallerycalgary.org/exhibits/current.htm#red
Art that originates from non-western societies can be received on the global market with or without the knowledge of their cultural background as a way to contextual their work. This contextualization has its advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that the artist’s concepts are communicated clearly to both individuals from other and inside their culture. For example, a feminist artist working in American may create work that deals with how women are portrayed in the media, while a Turkish feminist artist may deal with work that advocates domestic right for women that are abused by their husband as few laws exist to protect a women’s right to a non-violent marriage. The dis-advantage is that this contextualization may create a hierarchy between artists dealing with similar concepts. Using the same example as above, the American feminist artist may be received as more important because her work relates closer to the issues that women deal with in America.
Art production today truly oscillates amongst an even more fluctuating global market. “Other” art, or art of a non western origin is generally used by institutions or eventually seen by the global market as an object. It is not necessarily considered as an object that talks about art today, never mind about art that talks about travel or about transversing boundaries as is the case with Kuitca Guillermo, who’s beds bespeak of delocalization and global transversion, but this is an odd example of a work that deems such consideration by both critics and academia alike. The “Other” artists of today face an unpredictable challenge, with no easy answers. They are almost forced to use their “local” aesthetic yet must find a way to incorporate contemporary art methodologies and language in order to satisfy the global market and legitimize their work. I t is a challenge however, that continues to be undertaken quite successfully by artists such as James Luna, Yinka Shonibare, Lori Blondeau and many others. Their work truly continues to expand this dialogue of the non western artists place in the world, and also asks the question if such a division is even applicable in our day and age.

-Jeremy Jeresky
Melissa Skowron
Alex Neil
Marta Gorski
Ryan Zacher