Art Question-Due in 10 hours

rather than to the superficial framework within which the art is presented. It should also be added that the artists in this show are of no single ideological persuasion. Their ages, background, even nationalities range too broadly to succumb to generalization. [...]

Lucy R. Lippard, extracts from exhibition organizer's statement, c.7,500 (Valencia: California Institute

of the Arts, 1973) The exhibition toured to other venues during 1974.

Huang Rui Stars Art Exhibition//1979

We, twenty-three art explorers, place some fruits of our labour here. The world leaves unlimited possibilities for explorers. We have used our own eyes to know the world, and our own brushes and

awls to participate in it. Our paintings contain all sorts of expressions, and these expressions speak to our own individual ideals.

The years come at us; there are no mysterious indications guiding our action. This is precisely the challenge that life has raised to us. We cannot remove the

element of temporality; the shadow of the past and the glow of the future are folded together, forming the various living conditions of today. Resolving to live on and remembering each lesson learned: this is our responsibility.

We love the ground beneath our feet. The land has nurtured us, we have no words to express our passion for the land. Seizing this moment of the thirtieth anniversary of the nation's founding, we give our harvest back to the land, and to the people.

This brings us closer. We are full of confidence.

Huang Rui, text from poster for the first unofficial 'Stars Art Exhibition' ('Xingxing Meizhan') held in

the gardens outside the National Museum of Chinese Art (Beijing, September 1979); trans Philip

Tinari, in Huang Rui, ed., Huang Rui: The Stars Times, 1977-1984 (Beijing: Thinking Hands/Guanyi

Contemporary Art Archive, 2007) 288.

128//IN THE EXHIBITION MOMENT

Rasheed Araeen Magicians of the Earth: On `Magiciens de la Terrey/1989

I am sorry I have to speak to you in English [at an event in the Centre Pompidou,

Paris]. But my apology for speaking in English is not the same apology that Guy

Brett has just made. I am not speaking to you in French because I cannot speak

French, because I do not come from a French colony. I come from an English

colony. While I have learnt English, I actually speak two other languages and very

well. My mother language is Punjabi and my national language is Urdu. I could

have spoken to you in one of those. And perhaps it would have sounded very

good to you, you would have enjoyed it. It would have added some rhythm and

made it more amusing, but you would not have understood anything. So I have

to come back to colonial discourse in order to speak to you. This is a paradox and

I think it is the paradox of the whole exhibition that I am talking about here.

But this is just a preface to what I want to present. I have been dealing with

these questions for the last fifteen years and, in fact, I have written an article on

them, 'From Primitivism to Ethnic Arts', published in Third Text.' It is quite a long

article and already available so I don't want to deal with those issues theoretically

now. If want you to read about them in depth you can get hold of this journal.

Here what I am going to do is make a very personal statement.

My comments today are determined by my being one of the artists in the

exhibition. And by the fact that my participation has been somewhat reluctant. It

is important therefore that I should talk about my personal difficulty. But, in

doing so, I hope that I will be able to deal with some of the questions this

exhibition has raised. Particularly in relation to its perception of other people

and what their real artistic contribution to our contemporary culture might be.

Here 'contemporary' must be underlined. These questions are not new but it is

important that we should continue asking them, in order not to be complacent.

It is easy to be complacent at the time of a grand celebration, which can often

lead one to self-indulgence. After having seen this exhibition, I do not know why I am in it. My position

and views are so different from the whole enterprise that I begin to wonder if I

am not been used as a token. Although I know I am not the only one who is in this

position. There are some other artists from so-called Third World countries who

are also in a similar situation. But we all make a small minority. This became

clear on the very first day I arrived in the exhibition hall of La Villette. Everybody

seemed to be chasing either the exotica or the famous European artists. However,

I would like to make it clear from the outset that my comments here are not

Araeen//Magicians of the Earth//129

addressed to individual works or their artistic qualities and merits. I do recognize the importance of traditions, whether they belong to the past or they still exist today. And I have always emphasized their importance, particularly for those cultures that have been under colonial domination and are now struggling to find an independent place in the world. But the issue here is not of one of traditions but the way they are used, particularly by those forces that are against any radical change. In India, the conflict between those who want to stick or return to tradition and those who want to take the country into the modern age has been going on since the nineteenth century. And it was in this context that Rabindranath Tagore, one of the twentieth century's major thinkers, said: 'Fearfully trying always to conform to a conventional type is a sign of immaturity

... I strongly urge our artists vehemently to deny their obligation carefully to produce something that can be labelled as Indian art:2This was said in the 1920s. And things of course have changed. There has been a shift from denying one's cultural identity to reasserting it. But this does not imply a return to traditions. If there is a re-emergence of traditional forces, it is part of the politics of self- determination in the face of continuing Western imperial domination. A search for spirituality is not necessarily at the centre of this re-emergence, although that is what is suggested in the catalogue.

My discomfort in being part of this exhibition is due to the nature of my activity, which is not only different from what is attributed to me as somebody belonging to a different culture but which is also in opposition to the very concept of this exhibition, seeing as it is based on two distinct categories: a Modernist avant-garde, belonging to European artists; and traditions, as attributed to non European people. As an artist who has been inspired by the secular and progressive aspects of Modernism and who has spent twenty-five years of his life in Europe in pursuit of an ambition to make his own original contribution to this development and perhaps to free it from its Western confines, I have run into particular difficulty here. How can I respond to a situation that is antithetical to my very position? How can I share the fascination of the West for the exotic - and every Western artist I have spoken to is fascinated by this - when I have been trying all my life to escape from this? How can I, considering myself to be part of what is called the Third World - and the Third World for me is not a category, or a geographical space but a concept - share the feeling of so many artists from all over the world who are just happy to be a part of this exhibition?

I am not a magician. For me, magic has nothing to do with art, not even when some kind of spirituality is attributed to it. And if there is irony involved in this

use of the word 'magic', I am unable to understand it. I do not know what it means in the context of this exhibition. I have always thought magic had to do with some kind of trickery and charisma, which are perhaps essential in one's

130//IN THE EXHIBITION MOMENT

pursuit of success and power; but what have they got to do with us? If this

exhibition is a celebration of power, why are we in it? Is that not a mockery of

our powerlessness? After three months we will all be told to go back to our

villages, back into the wilderness, and the European heroes will continue to

dominate and monopolize contemporary art practice.

I am an artist not because of some spiritual need. Art for me is a profession, a

secular activity that demands an intellectual pursuit that is not necessary only

for self-consumption or satisfaction; it is a pursuit of new ideas, their articulation

and expression in relation to a prevailing body of ideas, and not exclusively those

of my own discipline. It is, of course, based on an assumption that new ideas are

essential for a dynamic culture and for the progress of humanity. While pointing

out the nature of my ambition as an artist, it is not my aim to draw your attention

to my work but to point out the basic problems that we from the Third World

face when we have such ambitions. We are not supposed to be part of the modern

world, let alone receive recognition for the aspirations and ambitions that have

put many of us at the forefront of modern development. As for our achievements,

every art history book will tell you that they are non-existent. However, I am glad

to be here and I am grateful to the organizers for inviting me to participate in this

debate. I very much hope that this exhibition is not the end of everything but the

beginning of a meaningful debate. This may be an opportunity to get to know each other better. Ignorance can

only be countered with knowledge. However, it is essential to understand that a

meaningful debate or dialogue can only take place on the basis of a real equality

and it is particularly important to recognize this at the time when we are

celebrating the bicentenary of the French Revolution. Not that the declaration of

liberty, fraternity and equality two hundred years ago has achieved much as far

as the world is concerned, but it is better not to give up hope or to despair,

although I am sceptical about the ability of Western civilization to solve the

present world problems. I am sorry if I have deviated a bit from the subject. I should be

talking about

art, not about the politics of inequality. But can we separate them? Can we ignore

the fact that there exists gross inequality between the different cultures of the

world in the sense that one has tremendous power and all the others have

nothing. And this exhibition somehow not only demonstrates that inequality,

but also reinforces it by celebrating it. To see other cultures only in terms of

traditions and to consider these traditions the only authentic expression of that

culture is to deny the culture the contemporary struggle to enter into modern

history. India, for example, is not only grossly misrepresented here but its

modern aspirations are altogether ignored.

It may be true that India's modern aspirations are in direct conflict with the

Araeen//Magicians of the Earth//13I

ambitions of the West, but ignoring this conflict and its underlying causes is to remove India from the modern world. Reducing India to a folk or religious tradition renders it powerless.

It seems, therefore, that within the conceptual framework of this exhibition, which is analogous to the dominant art-historical framework of the relationship between Modernism, represented here by Western artists of established calibre, and so-called primitivism, represented here by traditional culture, a dialogue between different cultures is impossible.

My own difficulty, in trying to speak to you, is compounded by the fact that the position from which I should be speaking is invisible. It is not recognized and does not seem to be recognizable. Let me explain what I mean by this: I was asked to participate in this exhibition because some of my works were deemed appropriate for the purpose of the exhibition, by which I understand that some of my recent works make allusions to my own culture. In other words, if there were a solo exhibition of the avant-garde movement of the last 25 years I would not be included in it, in spite of the fact that I have lived in Europe for the last 25 years and was at the forefront of developments in both Minimal and conceptual art.

It is not unusual for me to be invited to participate in events only when other cultures are at issue. For example: in October 1998 I received a letter from the Museum voor Land- en Volkenkunde, an ethnology museum in Rotterdam, inviting me to a conference based on an exhibition there entitled 'Art from Another World'. The accompanying leaflet has this to say: 'In Western Europe attention arises (it is not my English, sorry, I am quoting) in an increasing degree for the contemporary cultural development in the non-Western world. Nobel Prizes for Marquez and Soyinka the breakthrough of filmers (but I think they meant filmmakers) like Ousmane Sembene and Sulaiman Sisse, just to mention some eye-catching examples. It is impossible to imagine the programming of the Dutch International Festival of Poetry and the Rotterdam Festival without non-European artists.'

This is what I wrote back: 'I am sorry I cannot accept your invitation', sorry for the bluntness but that is what I did. 'I cannot accept the framework of the museum of ethnology for the consideration and discussion of the work of non-European artists. I appreciate your intention but you have got the basics wrong. The contemporary art of non-Europeans is no different from the work of modern European artists; the quality of work may vary from one individual to another but the aspiration for modernity is the same. If their achievement is not recognized in the way that the work of, say, Soyinka and Ousmane is recognized, it has nothing to do with the work being culturally different. The issue is not the difficulty of understanding the work of non-European artists because of their different cultural traditions, it is more to do with certain assumptions on the part of Western culture which prevents the recognition of modernity in the work of non-European artists.'

132//IN THE EXHIBITION MOMENT

The point I am making is central. The dominant view in the West is that artists from other cultures have been producing only vulgar imitations or pastiches of Western art, which are not worth looking at, and that they are incapable of producing original works of art within the modern context and that this is somehow to do with the nature of their own culture. Their cultures are authentic only when they are pure and uncontaminated by Western culture. Somehow this view has also entered the conceptual framework of this exhibition and this perhaps is the reason why there is so much concern for other traditions. I am not suggesting that there are no imitations or pastiches or that we have no problems in adopting the framework of Modernism for our contemporary art practices. The problem here is not that of our cultures but it is to do with the ideology of Modernism, which doesn't allow others to enter the central space. The others must stay on the periphery, contemplated by modern culture but not taking part in its development.

Why is the question of Modernism so important to us? In order to understand this we must understand anticolonial struggles, which have not been just about changing our rulers. They have not been just for the restoration or preservation of our old traditions but to break away from the stagnant social structures and to be part of the dynamic of modern progress. And this was possible only through independence and self-determination. Our struggle in India, for example, was and is for a secular, modern and democratic state. India's quest for modernity does not necessarily reject its traditions but it can provide them with a new historical context for their continuity through a dynamic progress which is part of our times, and which, in turn, can play a new role in the transformation of India as a modern state. If traditions refuse to be a part of a change, they become fossilized and become obstacles to the dynamic of change.

Colonialism, on the other hand, encourages the maintenance of traditional structure in order to produce and maintain what Frantz Fanon calls mummification of thinking:

The cultural mummification leads to mummification of individual thinking. The apathy so universally noted among colonial peoples is but the logical consequence

of this operation [...] Thus we witness the setting up of archaic, inert institutions ... These bodies appear to embody respect for the tradition, the cultural specificities, the personality of the subjugated people. This pseudo-respect in fact is tantamount to the most utter contempt, for the most elaborate sadism. [...] The

constantly affirmed concern with 'respecting the culture of the native populations'... does not signify taking into consideration the values borne by the culture ... Rather, this behaviour betrays a determination to objectify, to confine, to imprison ... Exoticism is one of the forms of this simplification. It allows no

Araeen//Magicians of the Earth//133

cultural confrontation. There is, on the one hand, a culture in which qualities of dynamism, of growth, of depth can be recognized. As against this we find characteristics, curiosities, things, never a structure.'

I find it strange the way the word 'contemporary' has been used in the context of the whole exhibition. In terms of its literal meaning it seems to be okay, but at the same time it is a departure from the idea of contemporaneity, which implies a relationship with modern times if not synonymity with the modern. In India, for example, when we use the word 'contemporary' we use it only for modern works of art, clearly distinguishing them from classical and folk traditions, whether they belong to the past or they still exist today. This also seems to be the case when we realize that the Western artists in the exhibition are not folk or traditional artists but they all belong to the contemporary mainstream. But, in the case of other cultures, this distinction is not made. If all kinds of art produced during the same period of time is to be considered contemporary art of that time, why have we not included folk or traditional European art in this exhibition? Where are the folk and traditional artists in Europe? If you are really interested in folk and traditional art, why do you have to go and search for it all over the world? Why don't you look for it in the villages and towns of Europe? In fact, it still exists in Paris. Is it because it is not exotic enough and does not represent the 'other'?

The idea that art produced today in other cultures has a different structural context from that of so-called contemporary Western art is totally absurd. It negates the fact that capitalism has penetrated every corner of the earth and has changed or is in the process of changing social, economic and cultural production all over the world. This is not new. Art has always been produced in relation to the dominant system, and if the dominant system is hierarchical, the nature of art production varies according to different social levels. To deny the fact that contemporary art today is being produced all over the world in relation to the dominant system is either to play a naïve game or it is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue.

The struggle in most of the world today is for power to enter the modern world, and mainstream art produced today is part of this struggle. While Western artists have access to the international art market, with all its power of legitimation and valuation turning the art product into a precious commodity to exchange value whose complexity is entrenched in the Hegelian notion of modern artists as a historical subject with all its racial ramifications, this access is denied to other artists. This exhibition denies the existence of this struggle and somehow refuses to recognize the conflicts and contradictions produced by it. It has thus failed to deal with the priorities over time and thus misses an opportunity to provide us with a new direction.

134//IN THE EXHIBITION MOMENT

For 200 years we have been listening to your declaration of liberty, fraternity and equality and we have been doing everything possible to achieve these objectives. But you still don't want to know that we have been part of it. All you want is to go to our ancient villages, our temples and shrines and refuse to meet us on a crossroad of history.

We know you are going through a serious crisis, ontological and psychological, whatever you wish to call it, and your culture - I would like to say 'our culture' but you insist on its monopoly - is disintegrating into fragments and you find it difficult to keep yourself together. We have every sympathy for you, but why, why for God's sake, do you want to use us only for the solution of your so-called spiritual problems?

We've learned from you all the knowledge of the world, how to be civilized and conduct an intellectual conversation, but now we cannot even talk to each other on the same level and within the same context. Why do you have to search for a different context in order to talk to us? I am sorry if I am throwing all the burden of Western civilization on your French shoulders. I have not come here to complain, in fact I have nothing to complain to you about, but I must confess I am disappointed by the exhibition. It could have been a watershed in the history of art.

A few days after I sent my letter to Holland, I received the invitation to Paris to participate in the 'Magiciens de la Terre' exhibition. I was surprised and my feeling was mixed with a weird pleasure. It was my first invitation in 35 years to participate in an international exhibition. And in Paris! I had my reservations about the exhibition, which I hope I have made clear, but I could not say 'no'. If I had said 'no' it would have made no difference to the exhibition or its objectives. I'm not sure that my participation has made any difference either or that what I am saying here will change the situation, but I am glad to be here and speaking to you. Thank you.

1 Rasheed Araeen, 'From Primitivism to Ethnic Arts', Third Text, vol. 1, no.1 (Autumn 1987) 6-25;

reprinted in Susan Hiller, ed., The Myth of Primitivism (London and New York: Routledge, 1991)

132-51.

2 Rabindranath Tagore (1926), in The English Writings of Rabindranath Tagore, vol. 7: Lectures and

Addresses (New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1996) 586.

3 Frantz Fanon, 'Racism and Culture', speech at the First Congress of Negro Writers and Artists in

Paris, September 1956; first published in Presence Africaine, 8-10 (June-November 1956) 122-

32; first translated into English in Frantz Fanon, Toward the African Revolution, trans. Haakon

Chevalier (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1967) 34-5.

Rasheed Araeen, transcript of contribution to colloquium on the occasion of the exhibition 'Magiciens

de la Terre' curated by Jean-Hubert Martin, Centre Georges Pompidou and La Villette, Paris, 1989.

Araeen//Magicians of the Earth//135