Gerardo Mosquera, 'Some Problems in Transcultural Curating'
In: Global Visions: Towards a New Internationalism in the Visual Arts. Edited by Jean Fisher. London: Kala Press in association with the Institute of International Visual Arts, 1994, pp. 105-112.
Supposedly, we live in a world of global exchanges and communications. Every time the word 'globalisation' is mentioned, one tends to imagine a planet in which all points are interconnected in a reticular network. In fact, connections only happen inside a radial and hegemonic pattern around the centres of power, where the peripheral countries (most of the world) remain disconnected from one other, or are only connected indirectly via - and under the control of - the centres. I proved this by experience during the years I travelled around Africa, where the best way to travel, even between adjacent countries, was by way of Europe. As I did not have enough money to do this, I was disconnected from the system, detained in a zone of silence and precariousness. This structure of axial globalisation and zones of silence is the basis of the economic, political and cultural network that shapes, at a macro level, the whole planet. The to-ing and fro-ing globalisation is really a globalisation from and for the centres, with limited South-South connections. Such globalisation, despite its limitation and controls, has undoubtedly improved communication and has facilitated a more pluralistic consciousness. It has, however, introduced the illusion of a trans-territorial world of multicultural dialogue with currents that flow in all directions.
This problematic is clear enough in exhibitions of visual art. The interest of the North in the art of the South has expanded. Transcultural shows have therefore increased, with an upsurge of an apparent ecumenical goodwill for 'global' shows. All this, obviously, constitutes an advance with respect to the iron grip of centralisation that has so far prevailed. Some things have improved, but many of the old problems together with their core, still remain, while some new ones have been introduced. A very centralised system of museums, galleries, publications, collectors and market networks still prevails, and it exercises its legitimising power on an international scale based on Eurocentric and even Manhattan-centric criteria. These central circuits possess the money to invest in the construction of 'universal values' from their points of view and those of the market.
[...]
I do not want to exaggerate by saying that the ultimate objectives of the hegemonic circuits are completely extra-artistic and extra-cultural. But I want to emphasise that they determine international circulation and evaluation based on their own artistic and cultural interests, which are, in turn, conditioned by other interests neither so artistic nor so cultural. Power has increasingly been interweaving closely with the processes of culture.
The new interest of the centres in the periphery's contemporary art has hardly modified all this. It is true that there is a more open consciousness, a more multicultural relativism and an attraction for the Other. But the specific gravity in international circuits of those exhibitions and publications relating to the periphery's visual arts is still disproportionately low, although it has increased. The scheme centre-periphery has become more flexible but remains untouched. We are still far from a globalised art scene.
[...]
Western centres themselves have begun to make an intercultural circulation of art for the Third World, fulfilling the visions and interests of the centres. Most cross-cultural exhibitions showing one or more cultures to another take place along the vertical axis from the centres down to the peripheries. They are financed, organised and curated by institutions and specialists in the centres, who are the only ones who have the power and initiative to do it. To paraphrase James Clifford, we could say that the restless desire and power of the postmodern West to curate the world has now begun.
In this way the radial scheme reproduces itself. The centres are not satisfied with sending their own art to the periphery, they also bring back art of their choosing from the periphery, under control, keeping disconnected the zones of silence. After repackaging it, they send it again, taking charge of exhibiting the peripheries in the peripheries. This is what is known as the international circulation of art. A phenomenon of inverted curating: the countries which host the art of other cultures are at the same curating the shows; it is almost never the other way around, and it is regarded as the most natural thing to happen. The world is practically divided between curating cultures and curated cultures.
Of course, the first rules over the others. At their convenience, curating cultures select, legitimate, promote and purchase. The ecumenical Eurocentric vision chooses what is valuable in the world, imposing it internationally through its networks. Apart from the more obvious implication, this provokes the art of the curated cultures to adapt in order to satisfy the preferences of the curating culture, not only looking for material benefits, but following the prestige of the paradigms legitimated by the centres.
[...]
There is an urgent need to put forward an international set of principles to moderate the transcultural colonialism of exhibitions and the new role of the curator as 'discoverer' and transcultural czar. This last implies an old-fashioned and technically untenable pedantry. Such 'curatorial correctness' has turned out to be indispensable not only due to reasons of power and ethics, but to minimally professional ones. According to my own experience, curating in small teams with the input of diverse advice produces more useful and sophisticated results.