An Intercultural Perspective in Art History

Wrong both ways
Contemporary art from the non-Euramerican world often finds itself in the awkward position of either being neglected completely, or being sandwiched between practices of ‘othering’ on the one hand and that of ‘appropriation’ on the other by the various art institutions, media, and venues of the international art world. The first option is not an option when taking seriously the creative practices of whatever people from whatever place. The other two practices are related to power structures and the institutionalisation of the art world, but at least they make us aware of the fact that the encounter with ‘other’ art is problematic. When it comes to insiders and outsiders, I am the ‘other’ in many occasions. I am Caucasian, female, North European and educated and working at a European university. The subject of my teaching and research is art. Not to sink into the quagmire of the question ‘what is art’, I take the position that art is what is introduced to me as art, by an artist or an art institution. Art is a valuation and is always institutionalised, it always comes to us mediated through some kind of discourse or institution. Following David Summers’ observation in the Art Seminar, this also implies leaving the idea of art relatively open to be defined by the instances at hand, the historical modalities.
The institutionalisation of art and the ongoing globalisation are intrinsically connected to the history of the European expansion and domination of the world in the past centuries. Although many of us now look back very critically on these practices, they did shape the world as we know it today. Only recently did much art from the non-Euramerican world become visible as art, as part of an art discourse, as part of the art system. [4] I would like to ask: is this an act of appropriation? If we consider the international/global art system as being shaped only by the Euramerican art concept, then it is; if we take the art system as a domain that is fuelled by practices that vary widely in form and content but have as a common denominator the way people express and give surplus value to their being, it is not. Art is a concept that gives room to a wide scope of practices and interpretations, and it has been co-shaped for centuries by the impetus from various cultures. [5]
This observation does not, however, solve the problem of how to access non-Western art. [6] The paradox is that, either way we approach it, as ‘alien’ or as ‘own’, we seem to be biased. Alienating means making non-Western art different, and that often means making it unequal or else leading to disregard; not paying attention to its differences ignores the characteristics of this art and de-contextualises it. This would imply: wrong both ways. I would like to reverse this implication, and suggest we both include and ‘other’ art at the same time.

From Eurocentrism towards Art Histories
In his article ‘The Marco Polo Syndrome’, Gerardo Mosquera, Adjunct Curator at the New Museum of Contemporary Art in New York, critiques the attempts to overcome the problem of Eurocentrism and Western domination. For him, “Eurocentrism is the only ethnocentrism universalised through actual world-wide domination by a meta-culture, and based on a traumatic transformation of the world through economic, social and political processes centred in one small part of it.” [7]
Despite the Western world’s occurring self critique, Mosquera still observes the perpetuation of the distortion that is produced by the West’s one-sided (unilateral) perspective and the existing circuits of power. If Third World cultures (Mosquera’s typification) want to take part in today’s dynamic, they should not isolate themselves into traditions, but instead – so Mosquera argues - make traditions work within the new epoch, by vigorously adapting them, by making contemporary art from their own values, sensitivities and interests. According to him, the de-Eurocentrism in art is not about returning to purity, but about adopting postcolonial ‘impurity’ in order for cultures outside the West to express themselves. This would result in a syncretistic contemporary culture that in each case connects to various contexts, both local, national and international. Art for him, and I agree, is linked to cultural specificity but possesses a polysemic ambiguity open to diverse readings. He proposes that the West should take an equally pluralistic view on its own art and by doing so it will revise Western culture. For Mosquera, intercultural involvement implies a critical evaluation of art practices from both sides. Intercultural communication includes not only seeing but also listening. [8]
What Mosquera is pointing at in his critique, is the cultural asymmetry implied. The West set the standard, and the Rest could either adapt, or was traditionalised and exoticised in institutional settings, such as ethnological museums. Mosquera critiques the apparent obviousness of this standard as well as its claim of being entirely of Western descent.
I tend to agree with Mosquera that the idea of a purely ‘Western’ art setting the standard is a misrepresentation of such a multifarious complex as is the prevailing international art. For centuries art has been fed by a diversity of cultural sources and impulses, and it can never be tracked down to only one point of origin. We cannot, however, un-write the art history that had been written, nor deny Western Europe’s importance for the emergence of the modern art concept as we know it today. What we can do, and what is already happening for the past decade, is re-evaluating how art history has been written and questioning why it happened in such a way, and subsequently re-interpret the past from a multicultural point of view and work towards the writing of art histories, of systematic as well as historical studies on the scope of art. As points of departure, two issues are important: first, to take art as a panhuman specification, and second, to take into account art’s openness to diverse readings and the generation of meanings. I will now elaborate somewhat on these matters:
Art is a specific form of making the world your own, of acquiring, getting hold of the world (in German Weltaneignung), and we do that by creating symbols. The use of symbols is a unique characteristic of humans and art would indeed seem a panhuman phenomenon. [9] To turn to the second point, an art work never has just one meaning attached to only one context; that would make it being either historical documentation or merely decoration. A key characteristic of art is that it opens up to (new) interpretations time and again. Otherwise, it would be a self-contained ontological object enclosing its one and only meaning, denying both the interpreter’s share in the generating of meaning, as well as the role of changing contexts in the interpretation of art. To paraphrase Norman Bryson, art works have a potential of meaning that is generated by different frames. Context, or as he proposes, a ‘frame’, is not naturally given but something that we as researchers make. My frame relates to an intercultural perspective. [10]

Intercultural perspective
How do my arguments help us to formulate an intercultural perspective? I understand the term ‘intercultural’ as in the Latin meaning of ‘inter amicos’ among friends: ‘inter culturas’, among cultures. As a strategy that relates to a diversity of art forms and cultures, consequently an intercultural perspective can profit from a multidisciplinary approach. It addresses art history, philosophy, anthropology, language and culture studies, sociology, even neuroscience. No researcher covers this entire field of academic studies, rather, we participate in it, each starting from their expertise. Consequently, the research starts by the researcher’s clarification from which point of view s/he operates. Thus ‘showing your colours’ makes clear where one comes from, academically as well as personally, what position one takes, and what the aim is of the research. It makes equally clear that conclusions drawn from the research are expertise-bound, and thus limited, relative and not absolute, and therefore dynamic.
Thus, for me, key issues for the formulation of an intercultural perspective with a strong art historical, art theoretical (in German: kunstwissenschaftlich) emphasis centre around the following concepts that I will briefly discuss - there is no hierarchy in this listing, nor is it exhaustive:
1. World Art Studies. The concept is taken from John Onians, who was the first to use this term to open up the study of art history to a global scope. [11] At Leiden University we have adopted John’s phrasing, and ‘World Art Studies’ is now used to designate a field of study that covers various, contingent art histories (of the ‘non-Western’ world) and at the same time aims at developing the concepts and approaches to an integrated, i.e., multidisciplinary study of art, as a panhuman phenomenon. [12] These two strategies do not exclude each other, rather they keep in balance the ‘inclusion/othering’ dichotomy.
2. Inclusion & othering. I connect the two by taking seriously what has been presented to me as art – how unfamiliar the works may seem – and thus include it into my research, while at the same time being aware of the ‘own ness’, ‘otherness’ (in German: Andersartigkeit of the art works. Including/othering, then, are two sides of the same coin. ‘Othering’ implies connecting art to its cultural background; one of the entries to a work of art is its cultural background, which can play a larger or smaller role. Hence, ‘other’ artistic practices are incorporated, and by doing so art history will be revised and extended too.
3. **Cultural diversity and syncretism: we all share culture, but culture, the concept of culture differs greatly, or rather, the term culture is used in various ways and contexts. It is not just connected to a people, a ‘tribe’, or a nation, but also to the metropolis, specific areas or provinces, to social stratification, specific groups or scenes, and the like. The one word covers a plethora of meanings and attributions, so we have to handle the notion of culture with care. For any artist, his or her social and cultural background only matters, I would say, when by the art works themselves the connection to that context is made. However, it does not make their work a synecdoche. It still matters in what way the works relate to the cultural – in fact any – contexts. The other term mentioned, syncretism, refers to the assumption that in the course of time all cultures (I almost hesitate to use the word) in one way or the other have been influenced and changed by intercultural contacts and exchange, and therefore are syncretistic. This is an ongoing process and for that reason dynamic
4. Centre/periphery. The centre/periphery model is taken as a flexible one. There is no fixed centre, the centre is (or in historical research, was) where the action is (was), seen from the perspective of the art in question. In some (many?) cases, the West may well be the periphery. Centre/periphery can also apply to the canon. An intercultural perspective rejects the idea of a fixed canon, it is neither static in place nor in time.
5. Frames and contexts. Different framings will produce different readings, different interpretations. To determine what the relevant context is in which to study an artwork is one of art history’s most difficult problems. Art historical research mostly deals with historical topics. The historical past as such is gone, only all sorts of material objects, texts and data remain. To determine what facts, historical events and aspects are significant largely depends on what the researcher is aiming at to elucidate. This applies to research of the past as well as the present. Except for being aware of one’s own practices of framing, part of the research is to critically evaluate the existing discourse (framings) on the subject, to trace norms and values behind it, and take into account possible cultural differences. [13]
6. Role of technique and materials. Art comes as a material and is created by a technique; obvious as they are, these aspects are often overlooked as agents for the production of meaning in both creation and interpretative practices. [14]
7. Materiality versus immateriality. In his dissertation entitled ‘Condensed Reality’, the anthropologist Pieter ter Keurs (National Museum of Ethnology in Leiden) emphasises the importance of the study of material culture, that is to say: the materiality of the objects (in his case from two small island groups of Papua New Guinea and Indonesia). He understands the mere material presence of an object as a cultural fact and introduces the concept of ‘material complex’. For Ter Keurs, a material complex is a “material object with the meanings condensed in it or evaporated from it”; it refers to the object and its socially constructed meanings. [15] The subject’s activities towards the creation or construction of meaning condenses into the material object but in the course of time evaporate from it due to changing contexts and functions, and in that process will have new meanings attributed to them. In Ter Keurs’s view, “the subject is changing in the way it deals with objects and (….) although the physical object seems to remain the same, the material complex (the material object and the ideas condensed in it and evaporated from it) is also changing”. [16] In my opinion, Pieter ter Keurs’s ideas towards material objects as metaphors, as condensation cores, for ideas, concepts and values in culture, assess both the material object as such and the subject’s part (maker and recipients) in the generating of meaning, as well as the changes that occur over time. He stresses the importance of studying the materiality of the object together with the processes of condensation and evaporation of meaning. This is a useful approach for art works as well. Where art works are often seen as ‘concepts’, the potential for meaning production of the art work’s materiality is often underestimated.
8. Art History. Last but certainly not least, there is the body of approved art historical methods and concepts. In my opinion, every artwork can be subjected to a formal analysis, placed into relationship with other art works from the past (diachronic) and from the present (synchronic), from its ‘own’ culture as well as others, as long as it is relevant to do so; every art can be appraised for its stylistic quality, eloquence and power of expression, for its technical skill, mastery of the materials, even aesthetics. In order to do so, one needs to be fully informed and aware of one’s own point of departure (in my case art history) and biases; only then we can contribute to the discourse, by sharing our knowledge, perception and insight. An intercultural perspective is a way of learning, of acquiring access to an unfamiliar concept of art. The final question regarding a chosen approach comes down to the basic question posed by David Summers in the Art Seminar: does it work?

Notes

• I thank Wilfried van Damme for discussing this text with me, and for his critical remarks and helpful suggestions.

1. See, for example,Gerald R. McMaster, The New Tribe. Critical Perspectives and Practices in Aboriginal Contemporary Art (Dissertation University of Amsterdam, 1999). In his dissertation, McMaster, an aboriginal Canadian artist and theorist, introduces ‘the new artist’, who is not the subject of the gaze but who speaks and who “recognizes the unlimited potential of art to express – poignantly and critically, personally or universally, locally or pan-tribally - issues, situations, and perspectives that are extra-tribal.”: 235.

2. Kitty Zijlmans, “East West Home's Best. Cultural Identity in the Present Nomadic Age / East West Home's Best. Masalah Identitas Budaya dalam Era Nomad, Kini”, GRID, a collaborative project between the artists Tiong Ang, Fendry Ekel, Mella Jaarsma, Remy Jungerman, ed. by Tiong Ang et al., (Yogyakarta: Cemeti Art House, 2003): 81-88. Kitty Zijlmans, “Kunstgeschiedenis en het discours over mondialisering”, Marokko: Kunst en Design 2005, ed. by Charlotte Huygens et al. (Rotterdam: Wereldmuseum, 2005) text in Dutch: 21-25, and Arabic: 80-78. John Clark’s book Modern Asian Art (Honolulu: University of Hawaï Press, 1998) gives a thorough insight into the complexity of modernism (modernisms) in Asia, and the way in which modern and traditional art practices in the various regions are related.

3. David Summers, Real Spaces. World Art History and the Rise of Western Modernism (London: Phaidon, 2003): 12.

4. In his theory of society as a complex of social systems which distinguish themselves on the basis of their specific types of communication, and hence their function, as he puts it, of society (economy, law, politics, religion, education, science, media, art), the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann refers to art as a self-generating, autopoietic social system. Communication systems (such as art) do not stop at national borders or at the rim of a continent. From this point of view, art - the occurrence of an autonomous art system - is the effect of an internal evolution within art, and hence, in my opinion, a global issue. See for Luhmann’s theory: Niklas Luhmann, Social Systems. Trans. John Bednarz, Jr., with Dirk Baecker (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995) [German ed.: Niklas Luhmann, Soziale Systeme. Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1984)]; Niklas Luhmann, Art as a Social System. Trans. Eva M. Knodt (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000) [German ed.: Niklas Luhmann, Die Kunst der Gesellschaft (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp 1995)].

5. In the opinion of Rasheed Araeen, the absence of artists from all over the world from modern culture is due to their exclusion from the history of mainstream art. He strongly pleads for a new concept of art historiography beyond its dominant European narratives. See The Third Text Reader. On Art, Culture and Theory, ed. by Rasheed Araeen, Sean Cubitt, Ziauddin Sardar (London/New York: Continuum, 2002).

6. I am aware of the Western based and hence biased point of view in using the term non-Western. For the sake of argument, I use the term nonetheless.

7. Gerardo Mosquera, “The Marco Polo Syndrome. Some Problems around Art and Eurocentrism” (1992/3), Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985, ed. By Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung (London: Blackwell, 2005): 218-225 (here 219).

8. Mosquera, “The Marco Polo Syndrome”, 221-23.

9. Franz-W. Kaiser, Kunst Wirklichkeit. Untersuching von Arten der Weltaneignung. (Dissertation University of Leiden, forthcoming 2006).

10. Norman Bryson, “Art in Context”, The Point of Theory. Practices of Cultural Analysis, ed. by Mieke Bal & Inge E. Boer (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1994): 66-78.

11. In 1992, following the gift of the Robert and Lisa Sainsbury Collection of art from all over the world to the University of East Anglia, John Onians founded the School of World Art Studies and Museology. It was the first programme in art history aimed at studying art worldwide. See John Onians, “World Art Studies and the Need for a New natural History of Art”, Art Bulletin Vol. 78, No. 2 (1996): 206-09. Atlas of World Art, ed. by John Onians (London: Laurence King Publishing, 2004). At the University of Leiden a similar programme is being developed. See Kitty Zijlmans, “Pushing Back Frontiers: Towards a History of Art in a Global Perspective”, International Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 18, No. 4 (2003): 201-210. Kitty Zijlmans, “Die Welt im Blickfeld. Unterwegs zu einer global orientierten Kunstgeschichte”, Kunstgeschichte und ‘Weltgegenwartskunst’. Konzepte – Methoden – Perpektiven, ed. by Claus Volkenandt (Berlin: Reimer Verlag, 2004): 243-259. See also: World Art Studies. Exploring Concepts and Approaches, ed. by Kitty Zijlmans and Wilfried van Damme (forthcoming 2006).

12. Ellen Dissanayake, Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes From and Why (Seattle: 1992).
Wilfried van Damme, Beauty in Context. Towards an Anthropological Approach to Aesthetics (Leiden/New York/Köln: E.J. Brill, 1996).

13. Mineke Schipper, Beyond the Boundaries. African Literature and Literary Theory (London/New York: Cassell, 1989).

14. Helen Westgeest, “Identity and materiality – Cultural Studies in artistic practice”, The Reflexive Zone: Research into Theory in Practice, ed. by Anke Coumans and Helen Westgeest (Utrecht: HKU, 2004): 188-201.

15. Pieter ter Keurs, Condensed Reality. A study of material culture, with case studies from Siasso (Papua New Guinea) and Enggano (Indonesia) (Dissertation University of Leiden, 2005): 75.

16. Ter Keurs, Condensed Reality: 182.

Kitty Zijlmans is Professor of Contemporary Art History and Theory at the Department of Art History, University of Leiden, the Netherlands. She is member of the Steering Committee of the European Science Foundation Network ‘Discourses of the Visible: National and International Perspectives’ (2003-2006). Her publications include Gesichtspunkte. Kunstgeschichte Heute (Berlin 1995, ed.); “Pushing Back Frontiers. Towards a History of Art in a Global perspective”, International Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 18, No. 4 (2003): 201-210.