Why contemporary sensitivity is captured by works resonating and radiating complexity, cultural crossings, multilayered languages, mestizaje, transitional ethnicities more than by monolingual, mono-medial, “authentic” works? What has this to do with feminist thinking and gender studies? What happens when readers/spectators come in touch with works-archive, works-altares or, in a more sosphisticated terminology, installations that are originated by (or at least bear traces of) identitarian cleavage and cultural re-assemblement, of multicultural, polilinguistic, intercultural, crosscultural, transcultural crossmedial discourses and formations? Who has the power to define something cultural or not? For example: why mestizo altares are catalogued as popular articrafts whereas installations, i.e. compositions that quote and transmigrate the altar tradition, are defined as art-works? Why do we tend to forget that the crafts(wo)man of “tribal” art was in contact with the western colonizer? Which are the effects of the denial of this co-evity, co-existence? And what was the link between the idea of the “tribal” craftsman as instinctive and primitive, not cultured, and the idea of the colonized woman as “primitive”, “natural” (M. Lugones; M. Antliff and P. Leighten). And can we consider the artivism performed by women artivists (G. Latorre) and originated by the new mestiza consciousness, as a gender technolgy strategic in bypassing the patriarcal nalionalistic surveillance system which still pretends to administer passports and determine “national” identities?
"JAMMINGS" DISONANTES:VIAJANDO POR LOS ARCHIVIOS POSCOLONIALES Y POSMULTICULTURALES DE LAS CULTURAS PùBLICAS,
ZACCARIA, Paola
2011-01-01
Abstract
Why contemporary sensitivity is captured by works resonating and radiating complexity, cultural crossings, multilayered languages, mestizaje, transitional ethnicities more than by monolingual, mono-medial, “authentic” works? What has this to do with feminist thinking and gender studies? What happens when readers/spectators come in touch with works-archive, works-altares or, in a more sosphisticated terminology, installations that are originated by (or at least bear traces of) identitarian cleavage and cultural re-assemblement, of multicultural, polilinguistic, intercultural, crosscultural, transcultural crossmedial discourses and formations? Who has the power to define something cultural or not? For example: why mestizo altares are catalogued as popular articrafts whereas installations, i.e. compositions that quote and transmigrate the altar tradition, are defined as art-works? Why do we tend to forget that the crafts(wo)man of “tribal” art was in contact with the western colonizer? Which are the effects of the denial of this co-evity, co-existence? And what was the link between the idea of the “tribal” craftsman as instinctive and primitive, not cultured, and the idea of the colonized woman as “primitive”, “natural” (M. Lugones; M. Antliff and P. Leighten). And can we consider the artivism performed by women artivists (G. Latorre) and originated by the new mestiza consciousness, as a gender technolgy strategic in bypassing the patriarcal nalionalistic surveillance system which still pretends to administer passports and determine “national” identities?I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
