Indigenous or Global? The Poverty of Art-Historical Terminology

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

For decades, expressions like ‘indigenous’ and ‘global’ have been used to refer to very different artworks, practices and artists. Whether justified or not, there are many reasons for this: the bi-cultural versus transcultural conception of culture; the pantheistic/animistic versus atheistic conception of the universe; the cyclical/circumstantial notion of time versus the linear one; affective presence versus market value. Departing from the idea that art (re) frames reality, aids communion (with human and non-human entities), and renders the invisible visible, this article ponders the cultural-epistemic genealogy of ‘indigenous’ and ‘global’ through a close reading of Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun and Ai Weiwei’s work. Placing engineered homogeneity in dialogue with standardised heterogeneity, it argues for a ‘mondialising’ practice which subverts the ‘immond-ness’ (un-world-ness) of globalisation.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)153-165
Number of pages16
JournalLa Revista de Estudios Globales y Arte Contemporáneo
Volume7
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2020

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Indigenous or Global? The Poverty of Art-Historical Terminology'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this