| LatinoAmedia,
a round-table discussion at the Rufino Tamayo Museum’s
Cyberlounge, was the last of three events happening in conjunction with
the Centro + Media Exhibition. It took place on Saturday, August 21, 2004.
For accounts on the previous events happening at Centro and Laboratorio
Arte Alameda please look over the postings of August 30, and September
03, 2004, respectively.
LatinoAmedia focused on "the
[artists'] personal experiences of the present and the future of the
production, diffusion and reflection of new
media in contemporary art, specific to the Latin American region." The
artists, critics and invited participants scheduled to speak included Brian
Mackern (Uruguay), Santiago Ortiz (Colombia), Eduardo
Navas (EE:UU El Salvador),
Gustavo Romano (Argentina), Christian
Oyarzun (Chile), Ivan Abreu (Mexico-Cuba),
Antonio Mendoza ( EE:UU Cuba), Ricardo
Rendon (Mexico), Mario De Vega (
Mexico ) , Fran Ilich (Mexico ), Fernando
Llanos (Mexico), Jorge Castro (Argentina), Priamo Lozada (Rep Dominicana) Erandy
Vergara (Mexico) Tania
Aedo (Mexico), Andres Oriard (Mexico), and Arcangel
Constantini (Mexico).
The following are some of the highlights of the round-table. It is impossible
for me to present an exact chronological account of the discussion as this
one became heated at times and I was not able to take notes of everything
that was said as I also found the urge to get a word in as well. What I
include in the following paragraphs is a subjective account based on my
personal notes of the event. If anyone is interested in an exact documentation
of LatinoAmedia, there is a videotape available at the Cyberlounge at the
Rufino Tamayo Museum in Mexico City.
Some of the topics brought forth by Fernando
Llanos, the moderator of
the event, included problematics around economical and cultural resources
currently
facing Latin American cultures and their possible resolutions in relation
to technology as well as the role of the artists, curators, and critics
within these dynamics leading to possible collaborations in the future.
The round-table discussion started with Antonio
Mendoza commenting on
what a great experience it was to personally interact with artists
from other
parts
of Latin America. He considered the events to be very educational, as he had
learned quite a bit from the other participants, and believed in the importance
of organizing similar events in the near future. Then Brian
Mackern commented
on the important role of the artist as promoter of her/his own work that is particularly
vital to the historization of net art and other emerging technologies, and the
necessity to understand the potential for creative development in particular
countries directly connected to economic realities. Tania
Aedo (on the left)
pointed out the technological frenzy of a few years back leaving a sense of not
knowing where one may be going with emerging technologies, but that it is extremely
important to keep in mind what had happened at Laboratorio Alameda and the opening
event at Centro, as well as the current round-table discussion at the Cyberlounge,
as rich material to generate even more discussion in the future. Ivan
Abreu (at
center) commented on the ambiguity that is at play with the interdisciplinary
aspect of new media practice, and the fact that some innovative projects can
fall in the realm of “entertainment,” adding that one should keep
in mind the relation of art practice to this particular occurence.
Erandy Vergara (with Microphone) emphasized the importance of new media
as a vehicle for education, that is how emerging technologies play
an important role in the
social problematics of contemporary culture at the moment, and how these can
be vehicles for new educational opportunities through creativity. Santiago
Ortiztalked about issues of class, and its differences in Latin America and Europe.
He also commented how Latin Americans in many ways are still “second-hand
Europeans.” He suggested that artists should focus on the moment of creativity
and not to necessarily look at institutions for validation. Ortiz is also interested
in blurring the line between art and design as way to revitalize creativity.
I proposed to consider what can actually be questioned today with the
creative
use of new technologies, especially after a popular time of "pluralism," and
that the crossover between the roles of the curator, artist and critic is crucial
to the many histories of new media in Latin America. I also pointed out the importance
to keep histories in check in order to do justice to the contributions of diverse
groups that may fall outside the Eurocentric circles that were created during
the early nineties in Europe. An example I proposed was of the net.art movement
being contextualized to be specifically a European discourse, omitting artists
like Brian Mackern from Uruguay, who had been active along with Jodi and Alexei
Shulgin throughout the mid-nineteen-nineties. This inevitably shows that net
art practice from the very beginning was used to extend the narratives at play
during a post-colonial period of supposed de-centralization. Brian Mackern commented
on this explaining that he did see a very strong influence in the historization
of new media still coming from the "North."
Christian Oyarzun commented on the issue of "center versus periphery," a
theme that had actually been previously brought up in the discussion and that
was implicit throughout the events, given that the exhibition at Centro was called
Centro + Media (Center + Media) and the event at Laboratorio Alameda was called Periferico (Periphery). Oyarzun pointed out how there were many peripheries at
this point, that is peripheries and centers within other peripheries and other
centers and so forth, and how this was always relevant to the definition of an
actual Center. Someone in the audience disagreed and claimed that there was no
more "center or periphery," and how he did not find such discussion
relevant anymore. He gave an example of how an artist could live in a remote
place of the world and still have a gallery in Germany show his work with great
recognition.
|
At
this point I intervened and disagreed with the audience member explaining
that global communication is so efficient today that anyone can be in dialogue
with others in many areas of the world considered part of the "center
of
cultural discourse" but that in the end, while one may not need to physically
be in specific places to be part of such discourse one still needs to be part
of such centers intellectually. Meaning that having or not having the ability
or cultural position to develop the “right connections” to be in
the discourse of the "center" is where marginalization starts to happen
today, both locally and internationally. I also added that developing an audience
today is much easier with emerging technologies and that having exposure to diverse
communities may lead artists to think that they are at the "center" of
mainstream global culture, when in fact this might actually be part of a periphery,
hence I agreed with Oyarzun's comment on the complex development of peripheries
and centers emerging within other centers and peripheries at local and global
levels, leaving the contemporary art practitioner in a very complex situation.
Toward the beginning of the discussion I had expressed how glad I was to be
part of an amazing set of events that were fully funded, something that
was simply not possible in the United States at the moment due to the lack
of funding following the extreme conservativism that has developed there
since 9/11. And then, the relationship of Latin America to the United States
was brought up in consideration to this dynamic—and the conversation
became a bit heated. I explained that, unfortunately, no matter how great
things, similar to the events happening around Centro + Media were, that
the art culture in the United States, even today, has the tendency to ignore
such events, and that this is a left over of the myth of the United States
being the "center of the artworld." I emphasized how this was
a problematic myth, particularly because the U.S. does not have the type
of funding available to convene so many artists together for eight days
at a five star hotel with all expenses paid and on top of this include
a decent honorarium, especially in relation to new media, like Arcangel
and Ivan had been able to do with great ease in Mexico City. Antonio Mendoza
also added that he did not see events like this happening in the United
States. Erandy responded explaining how Mexico and Latin America have the
agency to write their own history and that there should be strategic efforts
to make this a priority, and that she, personally, in the end, was not
concerned how the United States viewed what was happening in Mexico.
Arcangel also asked me how I saw the current and future situation in the United
States in relation to emerging technologies, and I re-emphasized the
conservativism that is currently being experienced throughout the many
facets of American Culture being quite unfortunate for new media in
particular, and that I saw the fact that there was funding available
in Mexico for a series of major events, such as the ones we had been
part of up to that point, very promising for Mexico and Latin America
to redefine major areas of the continent as cultural centers in the
fields of emerging technologies and new media.
Constantini then entertained the role of the artist as a professional playing
an important part in art discourse when exercising a collaborative practice.
He considered the model of the professional artist crucial for places like
the Rufino Tamayo Museum in order to open up art discourse to a wide audience
that need not be specialized in the arts. He saw this happening at the
moment with the round-table, which had been a collective effort.
Mario De Vega questioned the term “New Media,” wondering how it
relates to the idea of art, and Jorge
Castro then raised questions on the critical
position that the emerging fields could and should have in art practice explaining
how many artists and performers were often more interested in being “cool” than
in thinking what the content of their work actually promotes.
Fran Ilich questioned the role of the institution in the new media field, asking
what it actually meant to be sitting in the Museum gallery having a discussion
about centers and peripheries. He questioned whether this actually extended
the elitist exclusivity in art practice to the new media field even as
this one keeps changing.
Arcangel Constantini explained that the cyberlounge had actually been set up
with this issue in mind. He also explained how the museum had specific
educational programs targeting people who would not normally visit the
museum as a way to enrich the many facets of Mexican Culture; to further
this aim, events are free to the public and that therefore the museum should
not be seen as an elitist institution but rather as a resource with its
doors open for everyone.
Gustavo Romano (on the left) finally proposed to look at thematic approaches
as a way to re-evaluate the interpolated dynamics discussed up to that
point in relation to centers and peripheries; that is to focus on the actual
content of the work and relate it to specific curatorial engagements that
can make way for a focused narrative to surface first. I consider this
a great suggestion because a thematic approach then can place other political
and cultural aspects of each artwork as important yet not over-powering
elements in their complex creative development.
The discussion had to end at the Cyberlounge, but it was continued over yet
another great meal. The last
one the local and foreign artists would share
around this series of events.
|
