Museums of the world

by Gerardo Zavarce

A major Venezuelan channel is presenting the television series “The Museums of the World.”1 The promotional material for the program states, “Great museums of the world. Since man’s beginnings, he has seen the need to preserve his treasures, protecting them from their surroundings and other elements. . . . In this way, the publicity with its intended transparency and pragmatism gives us a short explanation about the reason for the existence of museums: “a shelter for treasures.” Nevertheless, the audiovisual message shows images suggesting and reinforcing codes that place the viewer within a context of the kind of world it seeks to promote. It’s plain who shelters the treasures of the world and it’s plain who “the world”—that is to say, the first world—and therefore the owners of the treasures, is considered to be.

Among the varied programming are also other interesting educational and cultural programs you can enjoy, suitable for the general public: Savage Africa, Columbus and the Discovery of America, The Conquistadors, Savage South America, Ferocious Planet, In Search of the Afghan Girl and Survival of the Fittest. An attentive and sensitive television producer would probably consider it pertinent to add to this unequal imaginary, or imagined, world a program titled Savage Museums and/or Museums of the Other World, with reference to those museums located a ways south of the fascinating ‘museums of the world.’”

It’s important to point out, by using this example, that the programs explaining the so-called globalization process (Mato, 2001) are many and varied. On the one hand are the arguments and practices that take the idea of the global to be a homogenous whole, without any differences or rivalries. This view is characterized by regarding the idea of globalization as a monolith. Globalization as a fetish. Its speech used the singular and its premises are the multicultural and, of course, the politically correct. The world is seen in terms of information flow, financial markets and other aspects such as inequality and differences are considered to be outdated. Its image is epitomized in the popular advertisements of Benetton sports wear, where one sees the “heterogeneous balance” of representatives of different ethnic groups under the slogan of “United Colors of Benetton.”

On the other hand, there are different approaches that take into account the diverse, complex and contextualized aspects of so-called globalization processes (in the plural). Looked at thus, a different analytical perspective is put on the way the modern world works and it is not regarded as a homogeneous bloc. The contextualized character and the interrelation between the actors who produce the economic, political, social and cultural changes are essential in order to understand and produce these dynamics that emerge in the intense negotiation processes, resistances and conflicts. Looking at it from this point of view, culture has its roots in the intercultural and the image defining it is based in the struggle of social movements; for example, that of the Mapuches in Argentina’s Patagonia who resisti expropriation of their lands by the international sports wear firm Benetton.2

The zones of silence

Gerardo Mosquera, a critic and art curator, describes the experience of trying to travel by air between different African countries. Paradoxically, he says, the best way to do it is via Paris. For Mosquera, this fact constitutes the “zones of silence” experience and represents a clear example of how our modernity, characterized by the globalization phenomenon, depends on having “decentralized centers” forming part of the unequal relations as regards centers of power/periphery (Mosquera, 1996).

However, this new flux in relations comprises both a dubious supposition: that everything will change so that everything stays the same, and an opportunity for redefinition by way of dispersal, pollution and resistance, in the relations between the power centers and marginal regions. In this way, the efforts of Western culture to establish itself as the global norm are subverted.

Progressive globalization of European industrial capitalism since the end of the 18th century, with its colonial and neocolonial positions, has up to the present spread Western culture as the norm for modernity, and even as the culture that defines institutions and functions of contemporary life. But every process of large-scale homogeneity, even if it manages to remove differences, generates new differences within itself, like Latin that engenders the Romance languages. This is seen both in how the peripheral regions adapt the dominant culture and in the heterogeneity produced by immigrants in the contemporary megalopolis. (Mosquera, Gerardo. The World of Difference. Notes on Art, Globalization and the Periphery. On line: http://universes-in-universe.de/magazin/marco-polo/s-mosquera.htm 4/5 1995).

Looking at it from this point of view, Mosquera points out, nurturing tastes in the field of aesthetics and the strategies of subversion of the periphery are brought about by the appearances of new analytical perspectives in the field of the human and social sciences: studies on subordination, cultural studies, theories about frontiers, complex thought, etc. Points of view that operate within areas involving the convergence, cross, conflict and accord between different cultures, that is, the intercultural. This way one can discern a new form of making and understanding contemporary art, which would provide a response in relation to dialogue and inclusion, where the elements of convergence with regard to centers-peripheries become established all at the same time, and where cultural cannibalism serves as a process critical of the designs of Western hegemony.3

However, he warns, the emphasis placed on alternative projects advocated by multiculturalism seems to turn into a new form of centralized control of the peripheral. “Western hegemony is always the I, the rest of us are the Other.” (Mosquera, 1996, p. 17) Nevertheless, the cross-cultural tendencies between the regional and the global lead us to highly contradictory and problematic situations. Accordingly, from this standpoint one seeks not only to communicate the discursive referents of the tensions existing between center and periphery, but also to produce a break in one of the links in the logic by which Western meta-culture operates in pursuing a strategy for domination: an authority using mono-logic, or a single line of reasoning.4

Armando and Pablo joined together in modernity

In an article published in the daily El Nacional on November 14, 2004, titled “Armando and Pablo together in MOMA,” the Venezuelan art critic and curator Luis Enrique Pérez Oramas expressed his enthusiasm about Armando Reverón’s La mujer del río (The Woman of the River, 1939) being included in the permanent collection of New York’s Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). Beyond the good intentions and the happiness expressed by Pérez-Oramas, the piece speaks volumes about some cultural practices in the era of globalization.

In the first place, Luís Enrique Pérez-Oramas defines and establishes the space that gives legitimacy to and therefore “glorifies” that which should be considered to be “modern,” expressing it thus: “Since then, the MOMA has contributed, as no other contemporary institution, to establishing the glory of Picasso. How many of us have learned in the classroom that modernity and Picasso are one and the same?” He hastens to note the importance of the place where the work of the artist Armando Reverón has been consigned, the MOMA of course: “At last in the company of his equals, at last housed where lay his hopes as an artist, at last the fulfillment of his destiny.” In this context it is surprising that the author does not reflect critically on the “indeterminate determinism” that establishes that Armando Reverón’s work is destined for the MOMA. So much joy and happiness leaves no space for questioning the idea of modernity characterized by the notion of linear time and progression (defined by the ideal of superseding the past) that comprises an essential dichotomy, which made it possible to divide the world into primitive and modern, savage and civilized, developed and underdeveloped, excluded and included.

Pérez-Oramas’ piece illustrates the manner by which an ethnocentric position is created and reinforced in the cultural process. It assumes a condescending and neocolonial attitude that uncritically presupposes the deep inequalities within the processes of interchange on a global scale. They are not innocent words. Reality is viewed as sterilized and apart from the differences, gaps and inequalities, he tries to unify the various contexts. In conclusion, he indicates: “The luminous presence of Reverón in the MOMA’s permanent collection—a fundamental step in definitively establishing the reputation of our artist in the Western canon of modern art—has been the work of many people; but it owes that presence to, more than anybody, two persons whose sensibility is marked by generosity and intelligence: Patricia Phelps de Cisneros and John Elderfield.” Therefore, “Reverón’s reputation in the Western canon of modern art” is sealed and determined by his arrival at one of the “Great Museums of the World,” and this is brought off thanks to an alliance of expertise (which defines and sanctions) and capital—which defines, sanctions and regularly finances expertise—that is, between the chief curator of the MOMA and the wife of the self-styled “global businessman.”

Using this argument, we surely could justify, for example, the Ethnological Museum of Vienna as the rightful place for Montezuma’s penacho—plumed headdress—and not the Anthropological Museum of Mexico City.5 We could likewise applaud the fact that in the cool, aseptic and well-guarded halls of the “Great Museums of the World,” the great lopsidedness of the world and the egotistic nature of power, as if it were no big deal, are on display. How else could we justify that the archeological treasures of the ancient Greek and Egyptian civilizations are neither in Greece nor in Egypt but in London and in Paris? The logic of power imposes a strategy of domination and control on everything that goes against or subverts the set of values and the patterns of conduct. Given their critical stance and potential for transformation, the arts are normally the target of those who hold power, to exhibit its trophies like the large mounted heads of wild animals in the mansions of the English aristocracy at the end of the 19th century. That is, they are completely removed from their place of origin, depriving them of their critical force and power to transform. In this scheme of things there are no obstacles to controlling and numbing the forces of change, nor any constraints on the capital that only seeks profit, accumulation of wealth and legitimacy as a value in itself giving one status. For the holders of that capital, nothing is impossible. Only this way can one understand that apart from the formal qualities of Armando Reverón’s art, his work hangs on the walls of the MOMA along with that of Pablo Picasso—the criteria for definitively establishing Reverón’s reputation. Fortunately, the work of the master of Macuto has long spoken for itself, even before the MOMA was inaugurated. Armondo Reverón speaks to us about the possibility of mutual understanding and of being in harmony with ourselves and with our surroundings. A transparent landscape that lays bare man’s material and spiritual condition. Basically, Armando Reverón speaks to us, through his experience as an artist and his life, about the possibility of being and of the responsibility and risk that this implies as an exercise of freedom.

Reflection and extension: Dialogue between knowledge and experience

Artist David Palacios’ planned Extension is in line with the way today’s economic, political, social and cultural interrelations work. Operations that some writers have called “globalization processes” and others just “globalization.” Plainly, the term refers to a complex phenomenon and many specialists are endlessly struggling to delimit its meaning. For many people, one of the important defining characteristics of the so-called globalization processes is defined by the accelerated spread of new communications and information technology. For them, the Internet, wireless communications, cable television and the recent development of cultural industries, among others, are giving shape to a new reality on a global scale.
In this regard, Palacios’ strategy has consisted in first establishing a link with the so-called Great Museums through the Internet by accessing their Websites. Then he checks out a chosen museum’s programming to determine a) its upcoming exhibits and b) the date when it opens. Next, he copies the museum’s logo and the image publicizing the show, employing them to carry out its inauguration program at a local site and relating his exhibit to that mounted by the foreign institution. Using this scheme, he has opened several of his shows: Joseph Beuys: Actions, Vitrines, Environments held at London’s Tate Modern was “extended” to Avícola Petare S.R.I. in Caracas; The Aztec Empire held at Bilbao’s Guggenheim was likewise transferred to the Kiosco Artesanía Wuayúu, located on the capital’s Sabana Grande boulevard; Africa Remix: L´Arte Contemporain held at the Paris’ Pompidou Center had its extension at the Peluquería Black and White in Bogotá; Pioneers of Modern Painting: Cézanne and Pissarro 1865-1885 held at the MOMA was reproduced at the Plaza de los Pintores on Av. Casanova in Caracas; and Ana Mendieta: Earth Body, Sculpture and Performance, 1972-85 at Miami Art Museum was represented at the Evanyelin & Pizarro clothes store in Lima.

Each Extension provides a platform for art experts and/or curators to air their views about aspects dealing with the “extended” shows. Finally, the event is recorded on videotape and photographed and sent to the curator in charge of the exhibit to which it refers. Now, one might ask, what does one achieve with this reworking of cultural processes? In the first place, I think it is important to note that Palacios produces his work from the standpoint of globalization as a process and does not exemplify globalization itself. So the intention is to lay bare the global processes of production, dissemination and consumption in relation to the visual arts today in terms of criticism and not of apologia, leading him to produce a documentary record that becomes a piece of information, which in turn allows him to explain and typify a particular cultural reality, not only from the point of view of inter-subjective (symbolic) interchange but also as a reference of historic and contingent political experience.
In this connection, we can make the following assertion: that the activities of daily life and those of specialized knowledge are dialectically intertwined. To put it another way: no text exists without context. So we can affirm that the globalization process has bearing on the areas of specialized knowledge and also finds expression in everyday life through the practice and experience of creative art.

Accordingly, the Extension project, as a living experience in an everyday setting, is implicitly related to recent changes in certain fields of knowledge: a) emphasis on alternatives by dissolution of the subject/object relationship; b) dissolution of boundaries with respect to branches of learning and the emergence of new approaches characterized by a trans-disciplinary methodology; c) including space and time as subjects of analysis in cultural processes (center-periphery, past-present). Just as with the different fields of study, a sharp critical stance characterizes the events creative artist David Palacios has staged, in this case with his own chosen field, the visual arts. That is why his project is not connected with formal artistic creation but offers a critical analysis of the apparatus that makes possible the production, dissemination, acceptance and certification of the visual arts today. It is what we could call d) an exercise in self-reflection in relation to art.

So David Palacios, to carry all this out, draws on a combination of different areas of knowledge and practices: politics, anthropology, ethnography, the Internet, graphic design, art history, social movements, museology, curating. He spares no effort to different people to participate: curators, dealers in handicrafts and in products for animals, workers, mariachi musicians, leaders of social groups, anthropologists, sidewalk painters. By his taking this approach, any method has the potential to set forth a cultural reality that evidently transcends the conventional notion of art.

By mounting his project, David Palacios devises a method that allows him to open a dialogue with what some have called the “Great Museums.” That is, with those institutions supporting the project that promotes Western cultural hegemony. He takes no complacent view of this dialogue, however. It becomes a criticism of the lines and practices of a reductive and ethnocentric character that seeks to represent the world according to its interests, its image and likeness. Each of his events points up an alternate reality that critically addresses a cultural authority. In each of them, one notes different historical periods, different structural approaches, different concepts of the body, of the spirit, of rhythm, of collective and everyday life.

The Extension project does not endorse the Great Museums’ idea of promoting and supporting their branches. On the contrary, Palacios inverts the rationale behind the so-called cultural franchises (Guggenheim). In this regard, the museums’ operation is used by him to underscore differences, from the economical and sociological point of view, as well as that of communications, all of which are key factors in understanding and describing intercultural processes that derive from the so-called globalization processes and that involve diverse relationships between people, practices and institutions (García Canclini, 2004).

Curators (subjects) at such museums (institutions) as the Tate Modern of London; the MOMA of New York, the Pompidou Center of Paris; the Guggenheim Bilbao; the Miami Art Museum have all received the documentary record of each one of the openings that comprise the Extensions experience (practices). This way leads to dialogue. They (the “great museums”) have a chance to break the silence and fill the void by representing the diverse through the channel of the univocal and monologue. That is, take the risk of including other artistic expressions. The difference from the other is revealed to be in experience. This opening to dialogue and exchange is a key element in Palacios’ work, since it is opposed to the idea of an essentialism that seeks to reevaluate peripheral cultures through a kind of inverse ethnocentrism. That is, it is not a matter of approaching dialogue through an endogenous and dichotomous view based on the idea of a false essentialism regarding identity. So that David Palacios centers his work on a relationship with the other; forms part of, has an exchange with, pollutes the other as well as polluting itself.

The Extension project is a space for dialogue: a neutral zone where one sees different realities not covered with their usual garb. This dialogue is based on the notion to expose the contradictions that define and constitute our sociocultural environment and seeks to develop a sensibility whereby we can interpret the different relationships of our world.

Perhaps we will be able to travel from Nairobi to Ivory Coast very soon without having to cross the zones of silence that develop when we fly via Frankfurt or Paris. Perhaps Montezuma’s plumed headdress will very soon not be displayed in the Ethnological Museum of Austria anymore, as a monument to expropriation and domination. Perhaps, very soon, Armando Reverón, used to the Caribbean sun and unaccustomed to the cold walls of northern museums, will decide to come a little farther south to find—alongside his friends—his true destiny.

References

García Canclini, Nestor, Diferentes, desiguales y desconectados. Mapas de la interculturalidad. Editorial Gedisa, Barcelona, 2004:
Mato, Daniel, “Estudios y Otras Prácticas Latinoamericanas en Cultura y Poder.” Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Avanzados-RELEA No. 14, 2001.
Mosquera, Gerardo, “El mundo de la diferencia. Notas sobre arte, globalización y periferia.” Online: http://universes-in-universe.de/magazin/marco-polo/s-mosquera.htm, 1995.
Pérez-Orama, Luis, “Armando y Pablo juntos en el MOMA.” El Nacional, Caracas, Venezuela, Nov. 14, 2004, Section B, p. 18.

Notes

1 VALE TV.

2 http://benetton.linefeed.org/

3 The term “cultural cannibalism” came into use in aesthetics with the appearance of Cannibalistic Manifesto by Brazilian intellectual Oswald de Andrade in 1928. On the basis of cannibalistic rites practices by some Brazilian indigenous groups, Andrade proposed a new set of terms with reference to Western avant-garde movements. In this regard, the term refers to a redefinition of what would become a new artistic expression created in a synergy of Western art and that of indigenous inspiration, and this strategy should be adopted as a way of resisting the hegemonic designs of Western art.

4 For Russian linguist Mikhail Bakthin, the mono-logical line is the expression of a set of rules, a regulatory and unitary system, that through the dynamics of centripetal forces conveys a rationale, a language and a center that acts in detriment of variety and difference. The mono-logical creates a dichotomy regarding language and the reality it expresses; that is, on the one hand, a system with regard to language and, on the other, a group of people who act in accordance with this system.

5 The headdress of Emperor Montezuma Xocoyotzin (1455-1520) is made of quetzal feathers adorned with gold and precious stones, and is in Austria’s Ethnological Museum of Vienna; it supposedly was a symbol of power of the Aztec ruler. It forms part of in the museum’s collection “Treasures of Old Mexico.”