In
the Introduction to the special issue on Globalization and the Decolonial
Option, Walter Mignolo defines de-colonization as an “epistemic reconstruction”
that recognizes the “pluri-versalism” of knowledge systems. Colonialism thus
conceived, is not merely the subjugation of territory and population, but also
the privileging of one “local” episteme as the only universalism—what Mignolo defines as the “hubris of the zero
point”. It is also an acknowledgement of the idea that “coloniality” if not
colonialism, is concurrent and integral to modernity—which is why Mignolo
constantly refers to “modernity/coloniality,” reminding us of the decolonial
project’s status as a state of double consciousness.
In
a separate publication in SocialText,
Mignolo and Rolando Vazquez have also written about modern aesthetics (or
“aestheTics”) as being complicit in the modern/colonial
project’s implication in the control of “the economy, the political, and
knowledge” along with a “control over
the senses and perception”. They go on to speak about a “decolonial
aestheSis" as opposed to “aestheTics,” referring to a particular practice
of challenging and subverting the hubris of the zero point. Taking this as its
starting point, my paper will interrogate the possibilities of conceiving
decolonial aesthetics as an attempt at unsettling the gaze of coloniality. If
colonial practices were deeply implicated in a regime of “rational vision”—one
that sought to quantify, categorize and thus “know” the colonial subject, then
a decolonial aesthetics must be seen as a deliberate deployment of an affective
regime that breaks free of the rationale of a scientific perspective.
As
a specific case study, I will look at the works of the Indian performance-artist,
Pushpamala N, whose collaborative photo-performances with the British photographer Clare Arni in the Native
Women of South India series, challenged practices of colonial anthropometry
and photography that were complicit in the creation of racialized stereotypes
of the colonial subject. However, as much as this series has a political
charge, it must be kept in mind that Pushapamala’s work circulates in art
galleries and institutions around the world and operates within what Mignolo
and Vazquez call the “market option”—the idea that all other values of art are
now subsumed under its market value. Given this contradiction, it would be apt
to ask if decolonial thought can provide a comprehensive framework for
analyzing what is essentially the “doubleness” of a work of art when it
operates under the rubric of a “decolonial aesthesis.”
No comments:
Post a Comment