THE WAY IT WAS: Art and globalisation —Mian Ijaz Ul Hassan
Globalisation is being perceived today as a coercive force. Its most
controversial aspect is the neo-liberal economic onslaught by the powerful,
industrialised nations. It is heartening that perhaps for the first time the
people of North and South have jointly demonstrated all over the globe against
the imposition of harsh and exploitative measures of GATT and WTO
In the post-colonial era the Third World has undergone two distinct phases. In
the first phase they were made to feel that they were no longer at the bottom of
the pit but on the fringes of the great cultural centres like Paris and New
York. Before that — as a light-hearted aside, I recall, David Frost quipped in
his talk show on the BBC in the early sixties that racist South Africa had
enforced a law by which the white keys in the pianos were separated from the
black keys. A white person played the white keys and a black person played the
black ones.
In the second phase, the word ‘contemporary’ was brought into circulation.
In this phase, an artist aspiring to be ‘contemporary’ had to create global
art that had severed itself off its ethnic, national and regional ties. It was
terribly homogenous and bland like the food that is served by the airlines on
international flights so as to appear slick but not offensive to any taste. Most
contemporary art from New York to New Zealand or America to Asia looks the same.
For an Asian artist to be admitted to this neutral, trans-national zone, he had
yet again to get his/ her visa endorsed by the West.
Let me add in passing that as a reaction to contemporary art some artists and
galleries reacted by mounting and promoting art that made virtue of ethnic and
regional individuality. While this challenged the international monopoly of
cotemporary art, it tilted to the other extreme. Ethnic and regional identities
are forged by the past and frozen in time. An artist while being a product of
the past must overcome parochial limitations and aspire to have a larger and
more composite human vision of him self and the world.
The Post-Modern period presents an alternative narrative and practice. Although
it mocks the great European tradition of painting, in a way it liberated
painting from highbrow pretentiousness of Modern Art. I remember when a stranger
asked the Chinese Prime Minister Chou En Lai what he thought of the hippies, he
responded by saying that there were many ways of expressing revolt against the
establishment and that the hippie movement was one of the forms. In the sphere
of the sartorial arts it was revolt of the Carnegie Street against the Seville
Row. I remember as a student in 1962 quite unwittingly buying a rough cotton
blue shirt worn by the slave farm labour in the southern American states, as a
result of which my English friends at Cambridge regarded me, considerably
avant-garde. But let’s not forget that Post Modernism is a product of the
inner crisis of Modernism or — in plain words — Capitalism, like the hippy
movement was in the sixties. In these circumstances elephant dung displayed at
the Tate Gallery in recent years is not going to hurt any one, although the
question remains, as I pointed out on another occasion, which is the artist the
elephant that defecated or the person who transported the shit at the Tate?
Incidentally, lest anyone forget, in the West, Capitalism is more sacred today
than Christianity. An artist can immerse the Holy Cross into an empty jam bottle
filled with his urine and display it without fear as a work of art on a street
in Manhattan, but try offending the multinational monopolies or attacking their
cultural and material assets and you will be regarded blasphemous, declared a
terrorist and held in Bay for the rest of your existence. Maybe that is the
reason why the Western artists have — quite sensibly — agreed to work within
the system. Democracy and Pluralism are eminent needs of Capitalism but for us
they end where capitalism begins.
While Post Modernism attacks the avant-garde, highlights some social concerns
such as minorities and gender issues, sexual preference, and defends marginal
cultures, it trivialises cultural traditions and the high moral ground that
modernism sought to defend.
For an artist from Asia to be Modern it is imperative for him to rely on his own
perceptions and collective experience. Modernism as it emerged during and after
the Great Wars, in its essence was neither a style nor a set of rules and forms.
It was an invitation to an artist to be always ready to renew himself through
his perceptions, awareness of his environment and information that relentlessly
flows to him — often causing pain and provocation.
Globalisation is being perceived today as a coercive force. The most
controversial aspect of globalisation is the neo- liberal economic onslaught by
the powerful, industrialised nations. It is heartening that perhaps for the
first time the people of North and South have jointly demonstrated all over the
globe against the imposition of harsh and exploitative measures of GATT and WTO.
The protest marked the beginning of global solidarity movement, which signifies
an alternative type of globalisation.
Some intellectuals feel that cultural aspects of globalisation are rather
problematic. The cultural nationalists, whether they are Indian, Pakistani or
Bangladeshis; Muslim fundos, Hindu fundos or the American Christian fundos and
neo-conservatives, find the spread of legitimate, liberal values threatening to
their notion of cultural purity. An urgent need exists today to establish a
cultural strategy in order to reinterpret and establish an alternative discourse
to Modernism, The Contemporary and the Post Modern narratives. That is where the
Third World critics come in.
Some basic issues need to be particularly addressed: A) Why in our discourse do
we have to accord centrality to the issues that are of concern to the artists in
London, Paris or New York? B) Should our narrative not concern our own real
issues and not be detracted by events and happenings in museums and galleries of
affluent consumer societies. C) Should we not set our own agendas and priorities
and not be swayed by the seemingly liberal neo-colonial deceptions that detract
our artist from his role as a creative precursor of new ideas and dispenser of a
vision of new human possibilities?
Prof Ijaz Ul Hassan is a painter, author and political activist. This is the
second part of the paper presented at the International Seminar hosted by the
National Section of International Art Critics Association (AICA) on November
25-26, at Karachi. The first part appeared in this paper on December 14, 2004