Indigenous or Global?: The Poverty of Art-Historical Terminology

Natasha Lushetich

Indigenous or Global? The Poverty of Art-Historical Terminology

Natasha Lushetich

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

144 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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	153-165
Number of pages	16
Journal	La Revista de Estudios Globales y Arte Contemporáneo
Volume	7
Issue number	1
Publication status	Published - 2020

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Access to Document

Final Published VersionFinal published version, 1.03 MBLicence: CC BY

https://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/REGAC/article/view/32955/32603Licence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{679970a11c934f529288fce4a664ad98,

title = "Indigenous or Global?: The Poverty of Art-Historical Terminology",

abstract = "For decades, expressions like {\textquoteleft}indigenous{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}global{\textquoteright} 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 {\textquoteleft}indigenous{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}global{\textquoteright} through a close reading of Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun and Ai Weiwei{\textquoteright}s work. Placing engineered homogeneity in dialogue with standardised heterogeneity, it argues for a {\textquoteleft}mondialising{\textquoteright} practice which subverts the {\textquoteleft}immond-ness{\textquoteright} (un-world-ness) of globalisation.",

author = "Natasha Lushetich",

year = "2020",

language = "English",

volume = "7",

pages = "153--165",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Indigenous or Global?

T2 - The Poverty of Art-Historical Terminology

AU - Lushetich, Natasha

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

M3 - Article

SN - 2013-8652

VL - 7

SP - 153

EP - 165

JO - La Revista de Estudios Globales y Arte Contemporáneo

JF - La Revista de Estudios Globales y Arte Contemporáneo

IS - 1

ER -

Indigenous or Global? The Poverty of Art-Historical Terminology

Abstract

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this