POP “WAS THE BIRTH OF THE NOW”: So claim curators Darsie Alexander and Bartholomew Ryan in the catalogue for their sprawling and ambitious show “International Pop” at the Walker Art Center, thus positioning the movement as a progenitor of our so-called post-Internet condition. Indeed, the curators write, Pop artists “were modeling behaviors that then seemed radical, but now are second nature: the image world as an extension of the self, the individual curating information via status feed, the rise of social media that is one of the most profound changes of our time.”
What is striking about this genealogy of the present is that Alexander and Ryan keep a self-conscious distance, in their account of historical Pop art, from the term global—a word that also arguably describes “one of the most profound changes of our time.” They make a subtle distinction between a previous model of the world and that of the present, claiming that the show is “a project about internationalism that could only have been made in today’s global era.” In other words, “International Pop” was an account of the recent past in which individual national art histories (such as those of the United States, England, Brazil, Japan, Argentina, Hungary, and Italy) were set alongside transnational aesthetic or formal dynamics that indicated an emerging “global style”: The mobility of pictures, for instance, was addressed in a section called “The Image Travels,” while in “Distribution & Domesticity” we saw artworks that confront the postwar explosion of commodities in everyday life. The exhibition thus tracked the nation-state giving way to multinational networks, markets, and cultures—to globalization—as a framework for understanding and encountering world art.
...
But in extracting a free-floating "pop-ness" from the history of Pop art and by extending its time lin through the mid-1970s, "The World Goes Pop" opens itself to criticisms that the more historically specific "International Pop" avoided. Why, for instance, should the Tate show's "world" not also include African "pop" practices, such as the paining of Congolese artist Cheri Samba and his compatriots, whose vibrant populist style was on display in the exhibition "Beaute Congo" at the Fondation Cartier in Paris, or s-called cynical realism from China? Since the Tate makes such a point of exploding the geographic boundaries of Pop, it seems arbitrary not to carry this deimperializing project even further to truly embrace the world. Such dilemmas in defining the exhibition's limits arise from an imprecise grasp connections based primarily on visual resemblances. In assessing the "birth of the now"--our borderless, neoliberal fantasy of a timeless global contemporary--history has never been more important.
...
But in extracting a free-floating "pop-ness" from the history of Pop art and by extending its time lin through the mid-1970s, "The World Goes Pop" opens itself to criticisms that the more historically specific "International Pop" avoided. Why, for instance, should the Tate show's "world" not also include African "pop" practices, such as the paining of Congolese artist Cheri Samba and his compatriots, whose vibrant populist style was on display in the exhibition "Beaute Congo" at the Fondation Cartier in Paris, or s-called cynical realism from China? Since the Tate makes such a point of exploding the geographic boundaries of Pop, it seems arbitrary not to carry this deimperializing project even further to truly embrace the world. Such dilemmas in defining the exhibition's limits arise from an imprecise grasp connections based primarily on visual resemblances. In assessing the "birth of the now"--our borderless, neoliberal fantasy of a timeless global contemporary--history has never been more important.
http://broadway1602.com/site2013/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/EA_Artforum_Jan2016.compressed.pdf
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기