Arts Collaboratory

Claudia and Marc,
The issues pertaining to the meaning of the title is important, and I do agree with the comments raised by Martinez. I kind of found myself attracted to the title: Adding to histories', since this title doesn't imply ay too ambitious or too oppositional stances, it simply says ours is amongst many other histories. If others find this title, though it is bit 'too neutral' and 'polite' , I am OK with this new title.

Hi Marc,

Good that you bring this issue back to the forum.

For those who weren't in Cairo, a brief catch up with this problem: In the last Arts Collaboratory meeting in Cairo the attendants discussed the Re-writing history theme in order to create a common conceptual baseline everyone could relate to.
One of the most important points of discussion was the meaning of "re-writing" as an action. Jagath brought to the forum the proposal to start an archive collecting the histories of the artist-run-initiatives in Arts Collaboratory, a proposal that is still pending to be realised, and to which we will come back very soon.

Chus Martínez, curator from the Museu d'Art Contemporani in Barcelona, joined the discussions briefly by absolutely chance and was very enthusiastic about Jagath's idea. She warned, though, about the problem she could see in 'Re-writing' as a working title.  She explained that in the past years the artists practice has expanded into re-distributing information and re-imagining history, and mentioned that the power of documents are being challenged by artists who build archives. She warned though that "re-writing"  implied 'being against', a position that leaves you necessarily in the periphery. In that sense, the group agreed that the title for this theme was problematic, and that the right wording was yet to be found.

These discussions were continued in a series of exercises, in which participants were working in groups of three or four people. It was basically agreed that Re-writing means writing again a core history but from an alternative point of view, always in reference to a central one which already exists. Everyone agreed that then it was a bad title because it was confirming the history which is already there. The group agreed that what they wanted to do was just writing history, or rather, writing histories. 'Adding to history' was mentioned as a provisional title, but as Marc explains here, the discussion is open.

During the whole discussions in Cairo the accent in the "plural" was a constant baseline. Maybe the right title should go in that direction then? History in plural?

Claudia

In Cairo we had some interesting discussions on whether we were rewriting (art) history or can we really only be adding to it. Can we change history? That is rather too ambitious!

Some new titles were bandied about for all of us to think about.

I think we should think of a new title to reflect the reality better.

What do we think of

1. Adding to Art History

2. Adding Histories

3. Adding the Plural to History

Your votes and arguments please, also for those who were not in Cairo.

All the best,

Marc ter Brugge Programme Officer Arts Collaboratory

I am writing this to clearly record why I consider Artscollaboratory (hereafter AC) is important to me. I must first say that I see the AC as a forum, where different/differing dialogues can interact making it a space for critical ideas and debates initiated and led by artists-led-initiatives from Asia, Africa, and South America. In that sense AC as a forum acknowledges that what we have to say about art and art practice as artists (not as curators, or art theorists, or art historians) is important. Secondly I also see the AC as a network, since the initiatives and artists we encounter at the AC will naturally acquire characteristics common to a network.

The most important aspect that makes the AC an important development for contemporary art scene of our regions is that it offers us a space/ funding to conceptualize our own art projects, and curate our own exhibitions. I think, at least when looking at the globalized art scene of our regions which is managed/ manipulated or steered/ directed mostly by the 'superior others', this is a major development for the assertion of the agency of the artists.

When I write these thoughts on the AC, I am also aware that any forum/ network has its own limits and constraints. It is true that this is a forum proposed to us by HIVOS-DOEN-MONDRIAN FOUNDATION, and it is also true that these organizations have their own larger goals and aims, and further, it is also true that these institutions are made possible within the state policies of the Dutch Govt. This is a reality that which I accept, and understand. I can NOT imagine of any foundation/institution that is not bound by this reality or a one similar to this. However what is uniquely important is that the AC is clearly a discursive forum, where we make our programs/ projects within broader outlines suggested by the funders. For me 'knowledge sharing' or 'cultural management' as program titles are as wide as the blue skies.

Since AC is a at its early stages, and that, as I see it, has an experimental edge, it needs time to take its form and shape that will fit with its internal dynamics. I hope I have presented my thoughts clearly.

South India is only 22 miles across the Pork Strait from north of Sri Lanka. Archaeologically it can be demonstrated the links and cultural similarities that had existed between Sri Lanka and the southern regions of India, from as early as 6th century BC. The megalithic burials of 6-7th century BC from Sri Lanka shares so many common characteristics with those found in Southern India. However, it can’t be suggested that a single ‘ethnic group’ inhabited Sri Lanka and the southern regions of India from these burial data, as has been argued by some extreme thinkers. Nevertheless, one can surly argue for the fact that there were shared cultural practices amongst the societies/ cultures that inhabited this region in the 6-7 centuries before Christian era. Even without much hard arguments it is obvious, considering the proximity of South India to Sri Lanka the possibility of cultural exchange and human migration between the two geographical zones for millennia. There are all the reasons to believe the existence of a ‘sethusamudra’ – a bridge across the ocean – between the two geographies in the ancient times, both physically and conceptually. However this bridge was conceptually dismantled at a later time distancing the two geographies from each other as imagined proximities; reinventing the neighbor as a stranger
For the majority of Sinhalese today, who make the majority of Sri Lankan population, South India is, conceptually, a distant and an alien place. The Sinhalese believe that they are descendents of the North Indians, who are supposed to be ‘Aryans’, as opposed to non-Aryans of the South of India. Two distinct historiographies have contributed to this popular belief amongst the Sinhalese. The ancient chronicle of the Sinhalese, titled ‘Mahavamsa’ compiled in the 6th century AD, in various ways links the Sinhalese and their royalty with the north Indian civilization and the Gautama Buddha. Thus, I would suggest that the ‘sethusamudram’ was first dismantled conceptually in the 6th century AD by the ancient chroniclers of Sri Lanka. Then the European philologists who developed the myth of Aryans as an ethnic group and incorporated the north Indians in to this mythical straightjacket in the 19th century did a second dismantling of this bridge. The believers of this tradition constitute the Hinduttwa tradition in contemporary Indian nationalist politics.
Now, the ‘Sethusamundram’, the mythical bridge is under physical threat with the scheduled construction of a real bridge linking Sri Lanka and South India on the same place where the ancient bridge supposed to have been and is drawing critical attention from various interest groups, mostly Indian regarding potential or imagined ecological, social, political, and cultural threats that might ensue from the building of this bridge.

Sethusamudram, the art project that Theertha is proposing is envisioning to engage with and address this highly complex and variegated history and emotions surrounding the concept of Sethusamudram and foreground the links, similarities, and shared anxieties, emotions and histories between the two geographical areas.

In many ways, this is a project that can be described as re-writing history, where the notion of re-writing implies that what is already written is the authoritative truth claim of the past, hence of present. Since we are approaching the past to create material that has a baring/ function/ use on the present, from a different epistemological tradition the project becomes a project in writing itself. Because, at close scrutiny, every writing is a re-writing in some form or the other, since writing can be literal, pictographic, or ideogrammatic inscription or cinematic, musical, painterly or sculptural.

Dear Jagath and Marc,

I’m really pleased that you bring the poststructuralist theoretical frame into the discussion.
Let me play however the devil’s advocate until more participants join in the discussions, and have a further question following both your answers:
In your experience (as an artist, as a programme Officer), how can we consider historical documents as subjective narratives and embrace relativity without losing the ability to make claims on reality?

I’m afraid that most of the Arts Collaboratory participants are in their way to Cairo now, as they will be attending the symposium previous to our weekend.
I am looking forward to the discussions on Saturday and Sunday.
In the meantime, I publish here a text submitted by Jimmy Ogonga from CCAEA, Kenya, which I think establishes a reassuring dialogue with what has been discussed so far. Please find it below these words.

Claudia

Re-Writing Art History: Notes from the Continent

Africa, to paraphrase Hegel when he was doing his lecture called “Introduction to Philosophy of History” in 1830, doesn’t belong to art history. By the time this notion was conceived, Europe did not consider Africans (to the exception of Egypt) as being part of any universal cultural or artistic movement. Even the philosophers of the enlightment were considering universality from a Eurocentric point of view. Africa had no text, no physical reflection on those issues, and the notion of art was viewed collectively, contrary to Europe where, from the Renaissance, the signature, which is the individual, became the sole validation of a work of art.

From the beginning of the 20th century, Africans and African-Americans started to develop an endogenous reflection about artistic creation. Thinkers like W.E.B Dubois were instrumental to the establishment of the Harlem Renaissance that was seeking to define the specificity of the “black souls”. Later, in the thirties, the French Caribbeans and the Africans (Aimé Césaire and Léopold Sédar Senghor), continued on the same path and created the Negritude movement, which was going to be instrumental as a process for emancipation of territories that were then colonized.

In the late fifties, another concept started to take shape and is still used today to analyze non-western artistic productions. Stuart Hall, Edward Said and Homi Baba shaped, from different backgrounds, what was to become the postcolonial studies. If those theories played their role, they were limited in the sense that they were more preoccupied in the deconstruction of Western notions of the “otherness”, than to build a theory that would depart from the colonial past and its consequences. The other characteristic of all those theories is that they were not specifically oriented towards art as such, but were coming from the domain of Humanities. They were using sociology, politics or history in order to establish a vocabulary that would enable them to address artistic issues.

In the late eighties, the notion of the African contemporary appeared. The Cairo biennale was already established, but throughout the continent a number of initiatives were set up: the Dakar Biennale, the Bamako Biennale, and the too short experience of the Johannesburg Biennale, helped to get Africa out of the corner where it was confined. Exhibitions of contemporary African art were created and the debate took another level. Today, beside those blockbusters that are biennales or mega-exhibitions like Africa Remix, the short century, artists or individuals in the continent are more and more playing a crucial role. In Douala, Luanda, Cairo, Cotonou, Nairobi, Dakar, Bamako - spaces and events are created, in order to enable the African artists to have homes in the continent and in the same time, to confirm their international presence. These initiatives, as diverse as they may seem in form and modus, seem to be preoccupied by establishing a space in which those arguments about identity can be made and articulated. As Stuart Hall explains, in a 2007 interview “…I am not a liberal Englishman like you. In the back of my head are things that can't be in the back of your head. That part of me comes from a plantation, when you owned me. I was brought up to understand you, I read your literature, I knew "Daffodils" off by heart before I knew the name of a Jamaican flower. You don't lose that, it becomes stronger.'”
On the other hand, the dominant chapters of education, and hence, art history were based on a certain presumption: the notion of Europe as the center and the norm, and the "primitive" as its dialectical, peripheral other – a notion that was endemic to colonial predicaments. Within this paradigm, “western modernists” alone were able to appropriate artistic forms from the periphery without jeopardizing their monopoly on claims to originality (the irony, of course, being that modernism was an inherently derivative and syncretic cultural system). Western gatekeepers thus controlled the axis of appropriation.

Therefore, through the years, a toolbox, -to use Deleuze’s expression- was constituted. How can we, in this beginning millennium, move forward and write a new and original history that would not focus on notions linked with geography, race and politics, but that would attempt to decipher what it means to be an artist and what the notion of contemporary art uncovers.

Work in Progress:
Jimmy Ogonga
Simon Njami
Fernando Alvim

Dear Claudia and Jagath,

Very Interesting discussion on this one. But I tend to agree with Jagath that (certainly) parts of history cannot be regarded as objective. The situation in Sri Lanka at the moment is a good case in point. But going back to Europe, within political economy there are all sorts of theories on the rise and decline of various world powers (and their art!) in the 15th-19th centuries. I suppose it is indeed about how relativist a position one chooses to take. My preference is to acknowledge the subjective as much as possible within interpreting (art) history, but leaving more room for the oppressed and minorities to come up with their vision of history.

Marc ter Brugge
Programme Officer Arts Collaboratory

Claudia. Your worry is NOT unfounded, it should be any one’s concern who is into writing ‘history’.

Regarding your question, what I have to say is that we only have a certain notion of types of art works, NOT styles as such. What I mean we might show interest in non-traditional art types such as installations, performances, new media works, etc. However this would only be a floating suggestion rather than a criterion. The reasons for this are to make artists think beyond the established hierarchies; as per Sri Lankan art scene.

Claudia, I’d also like to put my two cents on the issue of history, in relation to what you write to Marc. History or any other so called objective disciplines have been questioned/ contested by many scholars on the grounds of inevitable subjectivity in any interpretive exercise. The concepts of historical evidence or objective facts are highly contestable, because writing history is not documenting events of the past, but constructing a certain truth-narrative/ -claim about the past for use in the present social/ political anxieties. You know right now there is a war going on in Sri Lankaa. There are so many versions/ interpretations of this war despite the fact that it is happening right now right here in front of us. Different media channels present different ‘histories, and different individual present different interpretations. If the current lived experience has so many interpretations, the past too would have so many interpretations. Every one uses ‘facts’ for their stories. History is actually not about the past; it’s about the present. The hard facts from the past does not live in the past, they live in the present. Current critical thoughts in archaeology and history do not allow me to be very confident of the ‘objectivity’ of history writing/ historical facts. When hard data from the past enters the system of language it gets rewritten by the tyranny of the language. My approach to art history/ history as given by many poststructuralist thinkers is to maintain a critical/ deconstructivist approach as much as possible to history, in order to allow other voices to be heard. This is easier said than done!!

Dear all,

As you all know by now, we will be soon gathering in Cairo. We will then have a fantastic opportunity to engage in a deep discussion about Re-writing history.
In the meantime, I am pleased to let you know that some participants are reading this forum even if they haven’t left their contributions yet: Hama Goro, from Centre Soleil, Bamako, and Kate Tarratt Cross, from Greatmore Studios, South Africa have reacted to my invitation to join in. Ruangrupa has submitted two proposals regarding Re-writing history, one of them will be presented at the meeting in Cairo by Aminudin T Siregar, the researcher who will conduct the proposal. CCAEA, from Nairobi, has submitted a text with their contribution to the subject. Hopefully Jimmy Ogonga will be introducing himself in this forum soon and will publish the document for you to read. CCAEA is at the moment developing a project called Amnesia, which also deals with the Re-writing history theme in Africa.

All your hard work makes the agenda for the meeting extremely rich and challenging. I’m looking forward to it!

In the meantime, I would like to resume the conversation we were having and to give Marc and Jagath an answer to their last entry. I apologize for the lack of participation this past week, but as you see, it has been very busy outside the forum as well.

Dear Marc and Jagath: my worry about instrumentalisation is most probably unfounded in this case, as Jagath explains very well. However, it is a question which I am not afraid of asking myself constantly because it is a question directly related to the development of any artistic language, and a major issue central to how history of art has been written so far, as the Western version of art history is an instrumentalised version and we have no way of avoiding relating to this version of history, either to adhere to it, or to challenge it. We, contemporary artists in a globalised world, are a product of it.

So, my question to Jagath would be: how does your worry about re-writing history affect your artistic language? This question come to my mind because in your answer you say: “we do not envision a final result as such, except the fact that we know such and such types of art works/ expressions may arise from the discursive process of the project.” You seem to be previewing a certain type of outcome in terms of artistic language. What would they be?
And a more open question to everyone: apart from the discursive process, what other possible processes do you envisage to re-write history?

Marc, in reference to the objectivity –subjectivity dichotomy, it is clear to me that history is a social science and not a subjective practice, it is not fiction. Do we agree on this? Even if the construction of memory is a fictional exercise, if it is going to have some historical value it will necessarily have to be based in objective evidence. I think we are set to have a big problem if we don’t agree on the point that history is an objective practice and that art historians base their conclusions in grounded methodological research. Columbus didn’t “discover” America, (a very subjective interpretation of history they taught me at school, which unfortunately worked very well in the context of Latin American dictatorships in the ‘70s), but he got completely lost and thought he had arrived to India (quite a misinterpretation). By the same token, he started one of the cruellest and most brutal processes of colonisation, which wiped out some of the wisest civilisations on earth. This is not an interpretation, this is a fact, proved with copious evidence.
Another fact: the British declared Australia tabula rasa and Terra nullius when they first arrived in 1788, meaning Australia was a nobody’s land, that no human being was living there before they came. British descendants in government were still affirming this until very recently, though finally the overwhelming evidence of burial sites and archeological discoveries is leading them to admit that the terra nullius issue was quite a biased interpretation of history and now (only since 2004!) they are starting to give back some land to the original inhabitants, not without putting a fight in court first.
You can open up the writing of history to the most diverse range of subjectivities, but some interpretations will be always wrong, as they are not founded in historical evidence, but in historical convenience.

Coming back to the dichotomy, history necessarily grounds on objective facts, art doesn’t.
In my opinion, if there is any value behind the effort of re-writing history, it is that, as artists, we can give visibility to hidden evidence. My question, then, about how to relate a subjective practice to an objective one, is a question about what our political role as artists is. It is probably an open question with no answer, and most possibly quite unfair to ask to a single artist (sorry Jagath! I hope the rest joins in soon!), but even so, it is a question, please let’s not cancel it, and let’s keep it being a question in our daily artistic practice.

Claudia

Dear Jagath and Claudia,

Knowing both Jagath and Theertha reasonably well, it is evidently and thankfully clear that they are not interested in pre-established outcomes. The outcome should be flexible, surprising, exciting, giving us (both artists and public) a possible new perspective on the bridge and divides between Sri Lanka and India. Luckily, I personally do not fear that any instrumentalisation of artistic practice will take place (which is indeed such a danger). At the same time, it would be valuable to somehow give voice to those who are so often unheard. In this case, the fisherfolk and villagers immediately affected by this engineering monstrosity.

Another point which I found was interesting was the apparent dichotomy created between the artist-author (subjective being) and the art historian (objective being) mentioned by Claudia. This was challenging for me. Personally I think nothing can really be objective. We are all shaped by the contexts (time, place) and multiple identities (class, gender, ethnic group, etc..) in which we live and learn. So when writing art history we bring along this baggage too, and our interpretations are subjective. The point is to open up the world for other ways at looking at art history - to bring a more diverse range of views to the public domain, and in the process to challenge the hegemonic "Western" perspective on art history, which has ignored or stereotypically portrayed other histories.

Thank you for your comments. I am intrigued if others also have opinions and experiences on this matter.

Marc ter Brugge
Programme Officer Arts Collaboratory

Claudia,
The issue/ concern you raise is so important, A very very sensitive issue. Yes we are aware of this, we do NOT approach situations with a predetermined sense of an answer. We are aware of a certain situation/ a certain experience/ understanding is challenging us in so many ways, we do engage with the situation as if entering an unknown territory/ NO we do not engage with pre determined solutions. In this way our art practice doesn't get caught in the trap of 'saviors of problems'. Social change, we consider this as a long term cumulative process. The Bridge project is a way we engage with a certain register of current anxieties in Sri Lank, we do not envision a final result as such, except the fact that we know such and such types of art works/ expressions may arise from the discursive process of the project

Thank you, Jagath
I like the rhythm this forum is taking!
I think your answer hits a central point in this forum. As artists, we are in a position to make visible and give evidence of silenced voices, especially those from us who work in a context where so many inputs need yet to be acknowledged.

Personally, I worry that, at overtaking social responsibilities, these might become priorities over our art, and we might end up instrumentalising our artistic practice in order to get a pre-established outcome. Are you concerned about this in your practice? Have you thought about this in relation to the bridge project?

Ade, how is it for you and ruangrupa in Indonesia, how do you deal with these issues? If these are valid issues at all for you, that is.

Claudia

In a way I find it hard to articulate my relationship to history when I make art both as an individual and as a member of a collective. However I can say this much. What I (we) do is endowing a voice, a place, a position to the voices, anxieties, and the stories that are not otherwise acknowledged by the establishment/ the authorities of state. Yes, in this process we inevitably decide/ chose what these voices are, and as such occupy a privileged position in the 'wild side of the road'. Well this is the predicament/ conundrum of being an alternative artist, so to speak.

this is a quick answer, I'd like to think more on this line.

Your posting brings an excellent input, Marc, thank you so much! Including those more economically, culturally and sanitary affected by the possible consequences of the removal of the bridge should also, in my opinion, make an essential part of the documenting process that Theertha and 1ShantiRoad are proposing.

I still have a question for Jagath, regarding the role that he will have in this project as an artist, curating and providing evidence of this specific conflict and its meaning in history.

Jagath, what I am curious about, is the relationship between your individual artistic practice (you, either in your studio, or in the street, or behind your computer, taking artistic decisions about your own work), your collective practice (Theertha and the community of artists it gathers, plus, in this case, an extended community of experts and residents affected by the conflict) and what will end up being registered as history… by yourself.

I suppose I mean: how would you manage the bias that necessarily arises from being an artist, an author (a subjective practice) and assuming the role of art historian (an objective practice)?

Claudia

Daer all,

With interest I have been reading the recent contributions on rewriting art history. It was stimulating to read Jagath's plans for a new project with 1ShantiRoad in Bangalore to bridge the cultures of India and Sri Lanka. A welcome signal in a time when tensions have risen. The link to ramsethu.org/history1.html was fascinating. One sees the "takeover" of the debate by Hindu nationalists with pleas made to politicians to respect the Hindu faith, and not destroy the real or mythological bridge between Sri Lanka and India. This engineering surgery ruining the environment is just meant to save 780 miles of shipping mileage and increase business profits. The environmental costs and the costs to local fisherfolk are mentioned as well but the main argument by the protestors is cultural-religious in tone. This massive engineering project should be stopped. Perhaps the artists, historians, poets, and unheard voices involved in the arts project can include those marginalised villagers/fisherfolk who will be detrimentally affected by this megalomania. In this way Gabriel's idea about "letting the other to speak" can also come to fruition.

Marc ter Brugge
Programme Officer Arts Collaboratory

Claudia, here I am putting down my thoughts to your first question.
In Sri Lanka writing on contemporary art by 'art historians' or 'art critiques' is almost non-existent, since we don't have art historians. So it has become the task of artists themselves to write about art. which we at Theertha keep doing. In this situation Theertha has become an institution that endows values to certain kinds of art.

This my very direct response to your question. However I would like to take this opportunity, the window you opened with your question, to record my ideas about the relationship between art practice and the politics of art history writing. I am commenting on this as I have suggested an art project that would work like a history writing project. So please consider the following comments in relation to the art project I have briefly outline in a previous comment.

First, I’d like to present my very broad and general ideas regarding art making and history writing. Writing history is distinctly different from making art in the sense that artists are not historians in the established sense. Aims, intentions, and aspirations for art making is not essentially historiographical or the intentions of art making may not merely be motivated by a desire to record events as if a chronicler or a historian would do. BUT, art making is, in one hand a historical practice and on the other it works on register of recording, chronicling, documenting, manifesting events, emotions, concepts, and above all experiences which are necessarily informed, fashioned, and predicated upon historical moments, instances, and events. Art making as a practice does not or is not necessarily entangled with interpretation reading of historical events. It is tru that an act of art making is ineviatbly linked to society and is happening within the large context of the history of society, though it is not encumbered with the politics of history writing. In short politics of history writing is a register that operates from a different epistemological tradition while art is not of that epistemological refgister.

So, how would I relate artistic practice to the politics of writing art history? I would see the relationship between art practice and politics of art history writing to be a highly complex one. It is true that art is itself a product, a construct, or a manifestation of and, a response or, a reaction to art history. But politics of art making, as far I see it, can't get away from the notions of subject/ author. While this is a highly contestable idea, since it has classical modernist meanings, I would argue that art as a practice can’t totally debunk the idea of the ‘author’, not yet. The enterprise of art history writing today, however, has to be self consciously critical of the notions of author. So what I am suggesting is that one can’t approach and grasp the ‘history writing traces’ embedded or inherent within the processes of art making from the perspective of politics of art history writing, yet art practice can be considered within the rubric of history writing.

Happy New Year to everyone!
I’m pleased to join this forum as a moderator. I find the exchange of ideas you had so far very inspiring. It arose in me lots of questions that I would like gradually to share with you. Hopefully I will be able to help finding some common direction to your answers, while trying to deepen the questions about the meaning of Re-writing (art) history in the context of Arts Collaboratory.

In order to resume the activity at the forum, it might be useful to list the main issues that have been touched so far:

•The practice of writing history, and the influence of this practice on the way history is legitimised and taken into reference.
•The role of oral transmission in the construction of history.
•The necessity of securing the publishing and distribution of documentation.
•The legitimity of Western interpretation of history and our role in it.
•The descentralization of discourses in postcolonial theory and the figure of the subaltern.
•The antecedents of Re-writing history in Latin America and the end of linear narratives.
•Re-writing history as transdisciplinal practice.
•The relationship between practice and theory in the Re-writing of Art History.

Two action points were suggested so far:
Jagath proposed to start a collection of archival material (written, visual and audio) on the artists led initiatives in Arts Collaboratory.
Gabriel proposed to deepen the theoretical debate in order to establish a common framework.

Jagath also sent recently a draft of a project for a concrete collaboration between Theertha and artist run 1ShanthiRoad in Bangalore, which approaches the issue of re-writing history through artistic practice on a transdisciplinal platform. Jagath, I hope you don’t mind if I include here a link to http://ramsethu.org/history1.html to help contextualising your proposal for participants in the forum.

Jagath’s last entry brought to my mind an aspect of this discussion that I feel it has somehow been touched, but it has not been treated yet.

Surely you agree in that history as written from the linear Western point of view is exclusive, totalitarian and Eurocentric. You also agree that art history should be re-written, and suggest that artist-run organisations could have a protagonist role in doing so.
This arises a couple of questions for me:

-How do you relate artistic practice to the politics of writing art history in each one of your contexts? That is to say: what are the current mechanisms of legitimation for art, artists and artistic practices in place in your context? Can you give an example (and pictures?).

-How do you link your own organisation/initiative to your local history?

This is it for now!
I aim to check the forum daily. Hopefully together we will create a flow of thought from which we all can learn.
Best wishes to everyone,

Claudia

I am writng my ideas after a very long silence/break. Many things took my time however I am back with a concrete project. Mar Pilar and Gabriel's comment inscribed a certain notion/idea in my thinking. I know I am not being very clear here, but when you read the project, perhaps you'll see what I mean.

The project I am developing, is a joint project with another artist run space in Bangalore. Colombo-Bangalore: a south and the south of the south collaboration. The initial idea of this project came from Suresh Jayaram, who runs the artist-run space named 1ShanthiRoad in Bangalore. The title of the project is 'SETHUSAMUDRAM': Bridge accros the ocean. When Suresh visited Theertha, ealry last year he discussed this idea with us. and when we met last week we kind of finalised the idea. Here is a very priliminary skecth of the project as written by us:

SETHU-SAMUDRAM-socio/cultural curation with India and Srilanka

BRIDGE OVER THE OCEANS, is a symbol of connecting two civilizations that are bound by cultural geography and a common history. It is also the bridge that exits in myth and memory in both countries. Southern India and Sri Lanka are connected with a long tradition of myth, history and collective memory, both oral and recorded. This project will curate a comprehensive account of images, text, videos, voices into a creative collaboration of a shared past, a strained present and a hopeful future.

This collaborative work will involve artists, historians, poets, and many unheard voices and cultural geographers from both countries which will be formed in to two teams.Each team will have a team leader.

The duration of the project is for two/three years.
The groups will meet each other several times in this process in each others country.

The animators of the project will create a blog and will constantly correspond with each other.

The voices of people, audience will be involved in developing and in dissemination of the project, to ensure public participation and opinion in the project.

The areas of research.
Society, Politics, history, religion, mythology (- that has shaped both countries in the past and the present context, Visual arts and architecture (ancient and contemporary).

The project will culminate into a visual archive, exhibition and a curated show that will be exhibited in both countries and in other places.

Note-Sethusamudram issue have unambiguously clarified that myth cannot be equated with history and that scientific evidence proves Ram Sethu to be a natural formation. But when myth becomes a part of people’s belief systems, Should it to be respected? This is also called Ram Sethu and is described as Rama's bridge since ancient times in their maps and travelogues. The first time someone called it Adam's Bridge was in 1804 by James Rennell, the first surveyor general of the East India Company. Even if the Government of India prefers to use the name Adam's Bridge, it simply proves that not only Hindus but Muslims and Christians too have a reverence for the bridge it is going to destroy.

I'd appreciate your input to this. As one can see this is a rather heavy project/ ambitious, but some thing that the artists can do. For sure, in the process of fine-tuning the project we may focus on certain areas; methods, expressions etc. Please send me your ideas to fine tune this.

Dear contributors to the discussion,

The discussion has taken a major turn with the comments/ interventions by the Mar pilar and Gabriel. I'll come back soon with my comments on or before next Tuesday. (today is 26, Thursday).

Gabriel Peluffo Linari, Museo Blanes director

Dear partners,
from Montevideo, Uruguay, we thank very much for Ade contribution from ruangrupa. It is really a very interesting transdisiciplinary work! Thank you Ade very much for your information. And it was very useful for me, from Latin America region, to know more about what is happening in Asia ... I must also tell you something. Before beginning to participate in this forum, I had to look in "google" for Jaghat' country information! I like "tea" very much and "ceylan" tee !

Now we are very interested in the results of the symposium to which Vivian Paulissen referred in this forum: "Re-telling European Art and architectural history'. The faculty of arts there is for their efforts in rewriting art history from a more global perspective (meaning inclusive of the arts from other parts of the worls, recognising their role in art history)."

Look forward to hearing from you,
thank you very much for the oppportunity of this forum!

Mar pilar, Montevideo, Uruguay, Latin America, South America, a very little country, 187.000 km2 and 3.000.000 million inhabitants, it is based between two very big countries: Argentine and Brazil, in front to Buenos Aires, Argentine's Capital city, the "Rio de la Plata" (a river) separets our port-cities.
My apoligies for all my English mistakes ::))

we are doing critic workshop right now here at ruangrupa...11 partcipants, few of them are from outside java. from sumatera, and sulawesi (2 bigger islands than java). the program is one week presentation and discussion by several writers/critics mentors. presentation and discussion range from indonesian art history to public/media arts, urban context, and writing style. in the first day we invite aminudin th. siregar, he is a critic/curator from bandung (west java) he did very interesting presentation about the beginning of so called indonesian modern art. 1938 when a group of artist set an organisation, with clear artistic and political stand point by rejecting the dutch 'mooie indie' beautiful indies paintings - exotic,nostalgic, romantic, landscape. the group works with more reflecting the social situation and nationalist idea.

the presentation move on to the next era in japanese occupation in 1942, when japanese also using art as their propaganda as the centre of asia and these discourse of being part of asia is introduced. in his research aminudin also mention that the indonesian artists group did passively participate in Japanese programs or simply accept Japanese propaganda. Instead, they took advantage of opportunities provided by Japanese cultural policies in order to achieve their own politic and cultural goals: “propaganda for propaganda”.

the discussion growing broader comparing the cultural strategy in dutch and japanese era until the independence era, and in how adapting/using the influences/opportunity/even others propaganda to develop other form with more local and strategic....this could be a rewriting in gertrude was mention...the practice as rewriting act...

so we move again...everytime we are talking about 'indonesian art' what we're talking about is actually the development that focus mainly happen in java island with 3 big cities as axes jakarta-bandung-yogyakarta. because in java is mainly where the colonisation was happened and now java is where the most economic circulation is going - i'm making this too simple of course its very long discussion that we must go back to the era where there are still several kingdom in indonesia, not only in java island - before the european came - .....anyway, the discussion turn to give a task to friends from outside java - from sumatera and sulawesi - to write their own 'history' , from different perspective and facts... we have to speak about our self that can influences/enrich us in reading the whole picture...

more later
ade

Gabriel Peluffo Linari, Museo Blanes director

Dear Partners, from Montevideo, Uruguay, Latin American region, we are editing again our last and new comment,trying to reply to each one of your so interesting contributions, correcting some of our English mistakes. Our apologies.

1. About Jagath’s first contribution.
We find it very interesting when you say that you “realized” that the “eurocentric” history of art “has left space to write my own history”.

2 and 3. About Marieke and Jagath’s contributions on “oral history”.
We also think that it is very important indeed. We just think however, that “oral history” can`t “replace” “written history”. We think that both “histories” have their own value. But, we also think, that the “written word” is of crucial importance for “sharing knowledge” and furthermore, to “create knowledge”. The “exercise” of writing, implies necessarily to think about problems, to construct “new thought”. We can only write what we have “clear” in our minds. They aren’t opposed to each other. We could continue to discuss this issue, but it is not the objective of this forum. Oral history, is considered very important, nowadays, as Jagath pointed out so well in his commment, it is an excellent “primary resource” for history research as well.

4. About Vivian’s so important contribution and her so useful information on the symposium “another discourse”. It seems that “for their effort in rewriting art history from a global perspective”, they are including “art works” which weren’t considered as such in the past. On this issue, we have already pointed out in our comment posted in Spanish and in English, that it is important to “allow the Other to speak” in stead of “speaking for him” and we have mentioned the “end” of the single narratives. Perhaps, in this way, we can really find “another discourse”.

5. About “rewriting from the ongoing practice” (posted by Gertrude): we beleive that “ongoing practices” are of crucial importance, but that “ongoing practices” shouldn’t be “opposited” to “theoretical formats”. Every “art practise” is based on a “theoretical framework” even when it is not explicit. Art practices and theory of thought always go together. We think that this is very important for the real “power of culture” and to create “new thought”, to always think of both “practice” and “theory” togeter. Our organization in parternship (Museo Blanes/Friends of the Blanes Museum), has promoted this kind of “transdiciplinary work”. For the Regional Art Meetings of (1993,1996 and for the last one in 2007), artists and theorists from different disciplines (history, political scienes, anthropology, etc.) have been invited to work togeter, and we have registered them in "written words". Next July the young Chilean artist Nicolás Guzmán is coming to Montevideo to work together with another Chilean theorist, historian and curator, Justo Pastor Mellado.

6. About Anoli`s contribution: we fully agree with her comment in a broad sens and would like to highlight her preoccupation about the difficulties with the “circulation” of our “own” histories. In the Latin American region, we have difficulty creating links amongst ourselves. We are used to being more “interested” in having the legitimation of the “first world” than in increasing the links between ourselves.

7. Finally, about Jagath’s so interesting project, we have already said that we aren’t in a position to give an opinion on it, because we feel that the discussion has only just begun.

Our apologies for our rather late participation in this forum. We are very interested in this issue.
We are a little concerned, because after our last comment, nobody has posted any other comment. My apologies for any other English mistake.
We look forward to hearing from you and once more, thank you very much for this opportunity.

Mar pilar and Gabriel

Gabriel Peluffo Linari, Museo Blanes director

Dear partners,
Even though we believe it is a good idea to begin to propose projects in order to achieve the forum objectives, -as Jagath has already done so well-; from the Latin American region (Montevideo, Uruguay), we would like to discuss a bit more from a theoretical point of view. We feel that the discussion has just started and that it would be suitable that more partners could post here their comments.
Then, we are posting here our comment of Saturday, June 14th (in Spanish language); which I have made the effort to translate into English, to enable English spoken partners to read it.
Thank you very much for the initiative of this forum and for allowing us to speak from our place, and our apologies for any English mistake.

María del Pilar and Gabriel.
-----------------------------------------------

Rewriting history of art: “the place we are speaking from” or “the place where to speak from”

The need for rewriting history of art, forms part of a wider need of culture: “to allow the Other to speak” in stead of speaking for him.
The definitive fall of cultural eurocentrism begins its process with the liberation movements in Africa and in Latin America in the 1950s and becomes part of the European and Anglo-Saxon academic discourse from the 1960s and the 1970s, with a strong input from French thinkers (Michel Foucault, Jean Beaudrillard and others). With them, the epistemological dimension of all writing began to depend on “the place we are speaking from” or “the place where to speak from”. This implies a geographical but above all, a cultural descentralization of the discourses, so that the theory of knowledge begins to lose its “ historical center “ of enunciation: the Enlightened Europe.

Even though many “progressive” intellectuals (Iain Chambers, Edward Said, Gayatri Spirak, etc.) recognized the “other” as a subject for research, they put up resistance to giving “it” a voice. If the “other” is “heard” in the important centres of production of knowledge, it is done by means of institutional prefabricated frameworks, which place it in a subordinated position. Even when defending and recognizing it, the “other” is always classified, archived and studied, from a perspective of power, and in the best of cases, from a paternalistic perspective of the “participating observer”. But this “other” develops its own analytical thought within its own cultural environment: since the 1960s and the 1970s, the history of art and culture, began to be rewritten from Latin America (Armand Mattelart, Angel Rama, Marta Traba, Juan Acha, Gerardo Mosquera, etc.). However, in Europe they have only begun to think about this problem at the start of the Twentyone Century.

Which are the characteristics of this rewriting ?
1. Every historiographical work is a rewriting, in the sense that it is a “reinscription” of certain events of the past within a current narrative and ideological framework. But when we talk here about “rewriting of history of art” we refer to the death of the single and centralized narratives from the spokenmen of the industrilized colonial world.
2. There is no place anymore for the “linear” and “totalized” narratives so that the new historiography of art is determined by multiples locations of enunciation and by field researchers related to specific and diverse geographic timing frameworks. A “new history” is more a result of a mosaic of particularized studies than the result of a wide effort based on a single theory of the philosophy of history.
3. These rewritings of the history of art, have a transdisciplinary spirit. Both in Anglo-Saxon cultural studies as well as in the new Latin American cultural studies, it is attempted to create an epistemological body which incorporates classical historiography, anthropological research, applied psychoanalysis, the new sociology of communcation sciences, aesthetic studies and the conceptual contributions of political sciences.

Thank you very much, and we look forward to hearing from you,
best regards,
mar pilar and Gabriel

The discussion on rewriting history took a very searching and discursive path, and with the ideas surfaced in the discussions I would like to propose a concrete project where we might be able to do what we discussed. I am sorry for my rather late return to the discussion. When I am not in office I have no access to internet.

As Gertrude has clearly pointed out, all our recent activities in art can be considered as attempts at rewriting history. Shouldn't we then start collecting information of the artists-led intiatives that have come together throug ArtsCollabarotory. The kind of information I am thinking are not merely written ones, but all kinds of materials that were produced during the course of development of each organization. In other words I am thinking of archival material and art works that would present these intiatives as artist vissions/ envisioning of artitic personalities out side of market and fashinalble forces. These material, I hope, would ilustrate the roots of al kinds that lead to these initiatives and also possible futures. The artists-led initiatives have been, I would say, substantial infuneces to entir generations of artists. This fact that certain artist-led initiatives and certain individuals have played an influential role in the formation of current trends in art in countires like ours is not ususally reflected/ visible in established art museum shows, and in art fairs.

The working method/procedures required to realize this project need to be discussed at lenth. Howevr I would think the method should take the form of collaborative projects with 'key' individuals of each initiative coordinated by one or two curators.

The project may take the form of material documents, oral recordings/interviews, art works and also 'new visual presentations'/ 'creations' that would present the various social/political aspects of the histories and of anxieties of each intitiative.

I hope this is sufficient to start thinking regarding the suitability and/ or the possibility of a project like this. May be this is over-ambitious.

Gabriel Peluffo Linari, Museo Blanes director

Dear partners,
sorry my bad English. From Montevide, Uruguay, Latin American region, I am posting here Gabriel Peluffo Linari's comment on this so important subject, but in its Spanish version. In the meantime I will translate it into English language. Since some of the partners, have Spanish as it native language, some of you will be able to read it. I know that Gertrude reads Spanish too. So this comment will be able in Spanish and in English too.
Best regards, and congratulations for the forum initiative. mar pilar/amigos museo blanes/ friends of the Blanes Museum
_______________________________________________

La necesidad de una re-escritura de la historia del arte forma parte de una necesidad más amplia de la cultura: la de “dejar hablar al Otro” en lugar de hablar por él.
La caída definitiva del eurocentrismo cultural comienza a procesarse a partir de las luchas de liberación en Africa y en América Latina en la década de los años cincuenta del siglo veinte, y pasa a formar parte del discurso académico europeo y anglosajón a partir de las décadas del sesenta y el setenta, con un fuerte protagonismo de pensadores franceses (Michel Foucault, Jean Baudrillard y otros). Con ellos, la dimensión epistemológica de toda escritura pasó a depender del “lugar desde el cual se habla”. Esto supone la descentralización geográfica, pero sobre todo cultural de los discursos, con lo cual la teoría del conocimiento comienza a perder su centro histórico de enunciación: la Europa Ilustrada.
Aún cuando muchos intelectuales “progresistas” (Iain Chambers, Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, etcétera) reconocen al “otro” como objeto de estudio, se resisten a concederle voz. Si ese “otro” es “escuchado” en los grandes centros de producción de conocimiento, se lo hace a través de marcos institucionales prefabricados que lo ubican en el lugar de la subalternidad. Aún cuando se hable en su defensa y reconocimiento, el “otro” siempre es clasificado, archivado y estudiado desde la perspectiva del poder, y, en el mejor de los casos, desde la perspectiva paternalista del “observador participante”. Pero ese "otro" desarrolla su propio pensamiento analítico dentro del ámbito cultural al que pertenece: a partir de la década de los años sesenta y setenta la historia del arte y la cultura comenzó a ser re-escrita desde América Latina (Armando Mattelart, Angel Rama, Marta Traba, Juan Acha, Gerardo Mosquera, etcétera). Sin embargo, en Europa, recién al iniciarse el siglo veintiuno comienzan a pensar en ese problema.
¿Cuales son las características de esta re-escritura?
1. Todo trabajo historiográfico es una re-escritura, en el sentido de que es una re-inscripción de ciertos hechos del pasado en un marco narrativo e ideológico actual. Pero cuando hablamos aquí de re-escritura de la historia, nos referimos a la muerte de las narrativas únicas y centralizadas en los hablantes del mundo colonialista industrializado.
2. Ya no hay lugar para narrativas lineales y totalizadoras, de manera que la nueva historiografía del arte está determinada por múltiples lugares de enunciación y por investigaciones de campo acotadas a determinados y diversos marcos geográfico-temporales. Una “nueva historia”, es más el resultado de un mosaico de estudios particularizados que el resultado de un esfuerzo abarcador fundado en una única tesis de filosofía de la historia.
3. Estas re-escrituras de la historia del arte tienen un espíritu transdisciplinario. Tanto en los estudios culturales anglosajones como en los nuevos estudios culturales latinoamericanos, se trata de crear un cuerpo epistemológico en el que se cruza la historiografía clásica, la investigación antropológica, el psicoanálisis aplicado, la nueva sociología de las ciencias de la comunicación, los estudios estéticos y los aportes conceptuales de las ciencias políticas.

Thank you very much for this opportunity, we look forward to hearing from you, maría del pilar pérez piñeyro and Gabriel Peluffo Linari

Contribution by Anoli (Theertha)

To add to the comment of Jagath on 'amending what is already written is not may be our mission'- I would agree with Jagath on this principally that it is 'not our mission'. But when we do write (or document in any other way) history of the unwritten one has to realize that what is already written get reinterpreted as I find that one cannot write new segments of history within in a vacume and one has to come in contact/ contest with already written and interpretted history. History always refer to history! Therefore when we say we are writing history of the unpromoted or what is unwritten I think it intervens in the larger discourse of history (which is already written) than merely documenting the unwrtten or unpromoted.

This also brings me to comment by Vivian that "official written art history being a western discourse". I think being a post colonial country Sri Lanka psychology is still very much dominated by the 'colonial residue'. Most historical writing is effected by that fact. I think it is important for us if a rewrting of history be done decentering this eurocentricisim and has the point of referance of history writing done centering the local/ regional (for us South Asia). Some of us really don't know about regional art histories and this itself is a large lack in our knowledge. But we all are made to learn the European history over and over again therefore our vision about the world is through that psychology. It is important to think about this in rewriting art hisory'

As Gertrude pointed out ...we are kind of re-writing history everyday by doing what we are already doing;; yes..we are. In a sense what we document through our catalouges, videos, photos are documentation I would think becomes historical artifacts at one point in time and will be part of contempoary history of a certain era. But I think what would be crucial here is how much circulation those get, how much of it gets into effective dissamination process? We also have to think of effective ways of dissaminating what we we rewrite as 'rewriting hisotry'.

Dear Jagath,

I imagine you are already kind of re-writing art history every day by the activities that you imagine and construct. Would the matter here not be to think of a way that your activity can be analysed/structured/made visible in such a way that it is becomes visible to and can be understood by others (and with that be contextualised in time/location/cultural connotation etc.)? I think this is what you mean in your point 2?To me that would indeed not necessarily be 'writing' in a literal sense, but could take any form that is accessible and understandable to a large number of people, although probably that includes text. Our strength within arts collaboratory is the changing practice, so I would think a system that is constructed from practice and does not necessarily follow theoretical formats.
That was where my obsession for translation of cultural languages and visions also came from: by confronting or translating them it becomes more visible to out and insiders what they each mean.

Maybe I am just repeating what you already said, just to check.

looking forward to read more,

Gertrude

Dear Jagath,

What about regarding the official written art history, being a Western discourse, built from Western iconography etc, with Western examples? The written art history has overlooked many of the art works from non-western parts of the world and classifies them merely as ethnographical. A whole new world can be opened in re-writing art history from that perspective.

For your information: soon there will be a symposium at the University Leiden: 'Re-telling European Art and architectural history'. The faculty of arts there is for their efforts in rewriting art history from a more global perspective (meaning inclusive of the arts from other parts of the worls, recognising their role in art history). I will try to send you a link if they publish the results (or contact directly Juliette Roding for more info: j.roding@let.leidenuniv.nl)

Good luck with the debates on this forum!
Best wishes
Vivian

Vivian Paulissen

Policy Officer
Mondriaan Foundation

Marieke, your intervention is clearly important. History in the classical sense is written history. But the post-modern critique of production of knowledge has shown the political and hierarchical implications in written history. The position of oral history has been raised and discussed by many thinkers. Yes, oral history has its own value, within its own limits. But what concerns me (or us) here is the fact that oral history needs to be documented/ recorded for it to be shared in a wider sense, and this will bring us to the question of the method of recording/ documenting. Yes, we do NOT have to be dictated by the supremacy of the 'written word' to write/rewrite history. However, we will find that recording/documenting somethig/ some situation will always, inevtably, to a certain degree is bringing in order and fixity to experience. Sure there are ways to handle this, that's by constructing/ narrating multiple histories.

Thinking further on the issue of oral history, isn't it also a way of narrating an experience by a process of excluisions and inclusions/ texts and subtexts.

What about oral history?

Does it need to be written in order to have value? Do you need to write about the unwritten in order to include it in history? Doesn't this give the written word to much importance?