Adapted from an essay I wrote in 2019. 

In this essay I try to understand what global art is today and how it has grown and evolved over time. I will use three exhibitions as case studies to compare and contrast effective curatorial strategies used to exhibit art from artists worldwide. First, I will measure the effectiveness of these strategies by examining how the curators create a conversation with art from different cultures and their success in avoiding the primitive “othering” of non-western work. To do this, I will examine the politics of power each curator is responsible for and how they use that power to be effective “mediators of culture” rather than just curatorial explorers. Finally, I measure the effectiveness of their curatorial approach by their ability to neutralize the exhibition so that viewers can understand each artwork’s narratives and meanings as closely as possible to the artist’s original intention without the curator imposing their intentions.

By studying the preface of the exhibition catalogs from these three exhibitions, I will attempt to understand the politics of global exhibitions by identifying the curatorial strategies used by the curators to create a “successful” global exhibition that neutrally represents all perspectives.

The three exhibition catalogs that will be looked at are:

Magiciens de la Terre, 1989

Curated by Jean-Hubert Martin in Pompidou, France.

Global Feminisms, 2007

Curated by Linda Nochlin & Maura Reilly in Brooklyn, New York.

All the World’s Futures, 2015

Curated by Okwui Enwezor in Venice, Italy.

I chose these particular exhibitions because they aim to spark conversations on specific topics through the presentation of art. Additionally, I selected exhibitions that were not too closely spaced out to allow for a longer period of time between them so that I could observe the influence and impact that the preceding exhibition had on the subsequent one. Finding exhibitions with sufficient time between them was somewhat challenging, as the next wave of “influential global exhibitions” tended to occur in the early 2000s.

To ensure that my interpretations of the exhibitions are as unbiased as possible, I have chosen to base my analysis solely on the curators’ explanations of their exhibition strategies. In doing so, I have limited my interpretation of the original intentions expressed in the preface of the exhibition catalogs. For example, I found numerous resources such as papers, journals, and videos about “All the World’s Futures,” and somewhat fewer for “Global Feminisms.” However, the available information in English about “Magiciens de la Terre” comprised only other people’s views on the exhibition. Therefore, I would have needed a more comprehensive understanding of the curatorial reasoning behind the exhibition’s original intentions. Additionally, the amount of visual information available is not proportional, so it would have been unfair to critique the curators’ success in presenting photographic or video evidence of others’ ability to do the same.

Initially, I intended to explore how the curators “othered” the cultures they curated. However, as I began researching the other two exhibitions, I noticed that much of the available information on “Magiciens de la Terre” focused on Martin-Hubert’s othering of other cultures. This realization prompted me to reconsider my approach and focus solely on the curators’ intended curatorial reasoning and strategies to execute their vision. This approach will allow me to understand the original intentions behind the exhibitions better.

I chose to base my analysis solely on the curators’ explanations of their exhibition strategies expressed in the preface of the exhibition catalogs.

What is Global Art?

For this essay, global art refers to art created by artists worldwide since the emergence of the exhibition Magiciens de la Terre in 1989. Global exhibitions are platforms for art that challenge cultural perspectives and redraws the societal map, as Tim Griffin notes in “Contemporary Art” (2012). Global exhibitions help viewers become more aware and sensitive to different situations worldwide by including universal themes. Furthermore, the act of redrawing the societal map involves a shift in how we perceive things, which leads to the emergence of new perspectives and dialogues.

Why is understanding art in relation to the world important?

Art’s relationship with the world is important because it creates a global dialogue. I am specifically interested in the importance of exhibiting art without othering it. By tracking the three exhibitions through time, I want to explore how curators have improved and evolved their strategies by becoming more aware of their power as “cultural mediators.” In doing so, I aim to understand why the exhibitions I have chosen are important and the global influence they had in shifting the discourse around art.

The power of the curator, are they really mediators of culture or just explorers?

Having established the significance of global art, I emphasize the critical role of curators in creating effective global exhibitions. Below, I will explore how curators wield power and how they can exercise that power in the most effective manner possible.

“Othering”

This realization of power is important because it highlights curators’ responsibility to exhibit art and create a platform for dialogue and understanding between cultures. As cultural mediators, curators have the power to shape the discourse around art and cultural expression, and this power must be exercised responsibly.

In his writing, Michel Foucault explores the idea of power and attitude and the role that critical attitude plays in questioning knowledge and creating a renewed practice. This critical attitude is essential for curators, who must constantly question their biases and assumptions to create a truly global exhibition that reflects diverse perspectives and experiences. Foucault’s concept of “critical attitude” is a search for a renewed practice, a new way of viewing and questioning things, and a new way of questioning knowledge (Foucault, 2007). [“How should one be governed, should we accept that/” reformation].

I then want to bring up responsible othering. It is safe to say, by this point, that whenever we are not presenting something which is not ours originally, we are presenting our interpretations of it and therefore displacing it from its original setting, which changes the meaning. While the original meaning of art may be changed when it is exhibited, it is still important to strive for neutrality to avoid imposing personal opinions or biases on the artwork. By accepting that art will always be othered to some degree, curators can work to create exhibitions that are as true as possible to the artist’s original intent while also facilitating dialogue and understanding between cultures.

Ultimately, the power and responsibility of curators in creating global exhibitions lie in their ability to facilitate dialogue and understanding between cultures while acknowledging their limitations and biases. By embracing a critical attitude and striving for neutrality, curators can create exhibitions that showcase the diversity and richness of global art and create opportunities for cross-cultural exchange and understanding.

Sure some pieces can be commissioned to be the exact manifestations of the curator and artist’s minds, but Martin-Hubert understands that just by changing the piece’s setting from studio to gallery, the meaning is shifted. So all of this is to say that the original meaning of art will never be portrayed in the same way, so in a way, it will always be othered. By accepting something will be othered, the fear in doing so must be pushed aside. Martin-Hubert realized the dangers in othering other cultures and presenting them in a “lesser” light, but regardless, after inspection of his original intention of the exhibition, he attempted to establish ways to diminish that. And that is what responsible othering is, to accept that the original meaning is going to be changed, and therefore it is important that they are exhibited in the most neutral way, which does not impose personal opinions to shadow the artwork from shining in its originally intended way.

What is responsible “othering”?

Curators will always be at some risk of othering another culture. Othering has a history of being bad when the perspective the new views are based on are completely ignorant of the original origin of the view/creation, when they disregard the history that comes with the object and presents their view of them as the only way.

In the 3 exhibitions, since the curators did not show something they were completely familiar with, I’m sure at some point here and there they could be found guilty of othering. But their intentions were to present us with new information, and to present us with new perspectives, and they did. They did so by taking the risk and accepting their lack of knowledge to properly present new views therefore starting from what they knew and consulting others.

As a way to present these new perspectives in the best way possible, they attempted to create a platform for all views to be viewed equally and not their view over others. Magiciens de la Terre did this by Martin-Hubert’s choice to create the exhibition catalog in a form of an Atlas and choosing to place the artists country of origin in the center of the map. By placing the country of birth of each artist in the center and not using one map with all countries in the same location and orientation he is neutralizing the globe by making each country the individual focus on the map.

Global Feminisms

Not only had 18 years passed since Magiciens de la Terre, but the ability to communicate has been facilitated thanks to technology. So consulting with people world wide is much easily accomplished, Martin-Hubert mentioned that as an obstacle because it was so costly. For Reilly and Nochlin, the world was more easily accessible, facilitating their research, travel and ability to speak with others, allowing them to be exposed to such a multiplicity of perspectives that they too realized they were not knowledgeable enough to properly exhibit the views as they are intended by the artist. The same way that through dialogue with artists Martin realized he should not present ancient cultures in a different stage, even if his intentions were to uplift, he would have presented a view that was not his own on another different stage than his and having done so would have been irresponsibly othering. Rather than attempting to create an exhibition with a subject as broad as what Martin-Hubert was attempting, they particularly wanted to focus on feminism, and what it was like throughout the world. the curators wanted the show to be more of a global status update of the state of what feminism was understood, viewed, experienced and lived as. Like Magiciens, the need for a neutral stage was established to present the diversity of views, a way for Nochlin and Maura to neutralize the stage but provide some structure, there were 4 common differences among women worldwide that the show was structured around. These four categories were life cycles, identities, politics and emotions, their intent was to find ideas that were as broad as possible so that it would allow the presentation of views as extreme and opposite as possible in the hopes that through the seeing the broad degree of perspectives in a category that to each women globally can hold such a different meaning. They hoped the new presentation would shift the perspectives on the common difference and “view difference as a major positive form in the human situation” . If they would have made the themes any more narrow, such as with in life cycles representing “motherhood” then it would have taken it out of its location as someone’s identity, politics and emotions. If viewing motherhood as synonymous to a life cycle would mean that the only way to give life or be a part of the life cycle is to be a mother and the is not a way of viewing life, would mean that the women who don’t view motherhood as synonymous to the life cycle would not have their views presented properly and fairly. Nochlin and Maura were aware of that and therefore decided on the four common differences shared the most after their research and dialogue with other experts and artists, they didn’t just assume their view was the only way.

All The World’s Futures

This is where “All The World’s Futures” comes in. Rather than having a pre-established idea of the kinds of perspectives the exhibition is meant to exhibit, “All the World’s Futures” is an exhibition in which all the chosen artists were asked to create art that reports on the current status of the globe with the goal of “renewing and challenging our visions of reality” at the current moment (Enwezor, 2015). There was a global collective goal to create art that reports on the current state of the globe, a neutral and open subject. Since it is a biennial, all the art is divided according to the country it represents. Since the concept and layout are predetermined, and the curator does not have an influence in either, what Enwezor did to neutralize the exhibition stage further to maximize and highlight the diversity of perspectives is to provide three curatorial “filters.” The three filters he presents are liveness/duration, a shared discussion platform, and live readings. Throughout the biennial, Enwezor presents visitors with live performances throughout the exhibit of spoken language, either in the forms of film, scripts, lyrics, work songs, and other recitations. He intends these performances to be the “central nervous system” of the biennial (Enwezor, 2015). The commonality shared with the three filters is the promotion of the intake and outtake of communication. The prior two exhibitions attempted to present perspectives in the most neutral way possible and then left the viewer to explore and create personal discoveries. However, in “All The World’s Futures,” the stage was as neutral as possible. Therefore, what Enwezor did to push that forward and encourage deeper and more meaningful discoveries was to present a stage where these discoveries can be shared as they are happening. He presented new perspectives and a way to encourage the exchange of viewpoints as the exhibition occurred. He created a “ground for reflecting the necessary conjunction of contemporary art,” which might be the trajectory of global exhibitions. To intake information and output the responses in real-time, making them the purest reactions, the most accurate state of things, an immediacy of dialogue. What was once an obstacle for Martin-Hubert is now diminished with technological advancements. Is technology a reason for the success of “All The World’s Futures”?