Working Title: Towards a Decolonial AestheSis

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.”