 |
| Luis Pérez-Oramas (Photographed by Denise Adams) |
Q: Interests towards Latin American art outside Latin American countries have had a significant growth over the past decade or so. How do you see this coming? Are there decisive causes for the growing interests?
Pérez-Oramas: I would stress different aspects regarding your question: A) There is a fact that since the early 1990s various mainstream art institutions in the North Atlantic region (US and Western Europe) have fostered their interests in both Latin American Modernism and Latin American Contemporary Art. Does this mean that there is a general tendency in the world to pay more attention to Latin American Art? I doubt it. What I want to emphasize is the fact that general opinion in art still remains highly dependent upon very few opinion builders and certainly dependent upon the “dominance” of some North Atlantic cultural institutions. B) There is a fact that Latin American studies has grown exponentially in the American academy, bringing and amplifying interests for Latin American culture generally. C) There is a fact that the “main players” in Latin America—Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia—have seen political transitions from struggling historical circumstances to more or less open and democratic societies while enjoying economic growth allowing both transparency and international resonance for their cultural and artistic scenes. D) Finally, and not the least, it seems to be a general tendency amongst Latin American artists to conceive and think of their works vis-à-vis their own local traditions of modernity, reenforcing the strength of the insertion of their works within their own scenes as well as fostering a dialogue with international modern art. One thing is for sure that contributes to the richness of Latin American art today: our artists are extremely knowledgeable about European, American and international art, whereas American and European artists tend to ignore all traditions but theirs.
Q: What do you think are the distinguished features of Latin American art that most attract museums and collectors? What makes it different from art from other parts of the world?
Pérez-Oramas: Beyond the arguments that I have developed before, I think that Latin America arguably embodied one of the most rich and complex modern scenes in the world—one that has remained relatively overlooked until now. This strong and, for most European and American audiences, unknown modernity contributes to their interest as well as to the richness and complexity of Latin American contemporary art.
Q: As a curator, what do you try to present to people about Latin American art? Is there a goal that you are trying to reach as the curator of Latin American art at the MoMA?
Pérez-Oramas: I am not trying to present anything about Latin America in general. I avoid generalizations when it is possible to do so. I am interested in great art and great artists as well as in their meaningful presentation. At the MoMA, I am only one of the players among hundred of colleagues, and for sure I am not solely—not even by far— responsible for the Museum policies. I do my job at the MoMA by trying to advocate for the visibility of one of the most comprehensive Latin American Art collections in the world, which the MoMA began to gather since its very foundation in the early 1930s. I also play a role, alongside all curators at the MoMA, in the process of enriching and continuing that collection today.
Q: Can you explain the title of the 30th São Paulo Biennial “The Imminence of Poetics?” Does the title have special connection or significance to São Paulo?
Pérez-Oramas: I thought, alongside my co-curators for the São Paulo Biennial (Andre Severo, Tobi Maier, Isabela Villanueva), that the articulation of these two ideas—Imminence and Poetics—could offer us a strong motif rather than a theme, an axis for many questions rather than a manifesto-like slogan, and a frame of mind that could be rigorous rather than dogmatic for our selection process. It seems that art becomes more and more of a discoursive nature today—contemporary artists reject the modern idea of exceptional artistic languages and rather proclaim their art as a common, ordinary language; they comment in their works objective dimensions of our world. The question of Poetics is therefore key today: How does an expressive, discoursive strategy set up? Who “speaks” in contemporary art? To whom? What is the value of silence and discoursive disruptiveness? Etc. On the other hand, we all agree that our world is more and more unpredictable, and that our tools to understand future are useless, etc. Maybe art function today consists in accompanying us going through the experience of imminence: giving a formal shelter to what is about to happen and we don’t know...I think these are meaningful questions today, and they are certainly not restricted to São Paulo.
Q: Going through the list of artists presenting in the biennial, nearly half of the artists are of Latin American origin. Does it mean that the works of Latin American artists are generally more aligned to the theme? Are there any artists that you would like to mention in particular?
Pérez-Oramas: There has always, always been a significant representation of Latin American artists in the São Paulo Biennial. We are not going out of that standard. Our biennial is the most relevant artistic gathering in the Latin American continent and São Paulo has become a pole for contemporary art in the region. Beyond that fact, we do not expect Biennial artists to be “aligned” with a theme: there is no theme here; there is a motif, and a set of questions, and we do not expect the artists to answer them or to represent them or to do work after them, etc.
Q: You mentioned that the notions of “constellation” and “globalization” are also discussed in the biennial. In your opinion, is art from different parts of the world becoming more and more similar because of globalization? How do you see the place of Latin American artists in a globalized world?
Pérez-Oramas: I profoundly believe that all art is local. I also find extremely disturbing that art aligns itself with the idea that contemporary art is an international style. Contemporary art is not an international style since it only responds to a given experience of time from a given place in the world. Communication and exchange systems are becoming more and more global, meaning that they are more and more dependent of a limited set of apparatuses, which are, in contrast, more and more powerful in their reaching and information capabilities. Does this affect art? For sure it does. Does that mean that art should depend of the same limited set of apparatuses for its circulation and resonance? I doubt it. Art, in my opinion, has to resist against all trends that pretend to simplify our world.
（Originally published in《ART TAIPEI FORUM media》Vol.17, July 2012）
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment