ror’s research blog

Altermodern for comment (please)

Posted in Uncategorized by Rachel on March 31, 2009

What to make of this?

ALTERMODERN MANIFESTO – POSTMODERNISM IS DEAD

Travel, cultural exchanges and examination of history are not merely fashionable themes, but markers of a profound evolution in our vision of the world and our way of inhabiting it. More generally, our globalised perception calls for new types of representation: our daily lives are played out against a more enormous backdrop than ever before, and depend now on trans-national entities, short or long-distance journeys in a chaotic and teeming universe. Many signs suggest that the historical period defined by postmodernism is coming to an end: multiculturalism and the discourse of identity is being overtaken by a planetary movement of creolisation; cultural relativism and deconstruction, substituted for modernist universalism, give us no weapons against the twofold threat of uniformity and mass culture and traditionalist, far-right, withdrawal. The times seem propitious for the recomposition of a modernity in the present, reconfigured according to the specific context within which we live – crucially in the age of globalisation – understood in its economic, political and cultural aspects: an altermodernity. If twentieth-century modernism was above all a western cultural phenomenon, altermodernity arises out of planetary negotiations, discussions between agents from different cultures. Stripped of a centre, it can only be polyglot. Altermodernity is characterised by translation, unlike the modernism of the twentieth century which spoke the abstract language of the colonial west, and postmodernism, which encloses artistic phenomena in origins and identities. We are entering the era of universal subtitling, of generalised dubbing. Today’s art explores the bonds that text and image weave between themselves. Artists traverse a cultural landscape saturated with signs, creating new pathways between multiple formats of expression and communication. The artist becomes ‘homo viator’, the prototype of the contemporary traveller whose passage through signs and formats refers to a contemporary experience of mobility, travel and transpassing. This evolution can be seen in the way works are made: a new type of form is appearing, the journey-form, made of lines drawn both in space and time, materialising trajectories rather than destinations. The form of the work expresses a course, a wandering, rather than a fixed space-time. Altermodern art is thus read as a hypertext; artists translate and transcode information from one format to another, and wander in geography as well as in history. This gives rise to practices which might be referred to as ‘time-specific’, in response to the ’site-specific’ work of the 1960s. Flight-lines, translation programmes and chains of heterogeneous elements articulate each other. Our universe becomes a territory all dimensions of which may be travelled both in time and space. The Tate Triennial 2009 presents itself as a collective discussion around this hypothesis of the end of postmodernism, and the emergence of a global altermodernity.

Nicolas Bourriaud

Tate Britain Open every day 10.00-17.50, and until 22.00 on the first Friday of the month. For tickets book online http://www.tate.org.uk/tickets or call 020 7887 8888

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. kris said, on March 31, 2009 at 4:31 am

    I don’t recognise the version of “postmodernism” here (it’s not F. Jameson’s).

    And, while the rest seems more or less agnostic on issues of class, and other subject positions, this is only very limitedly true:

    “Our universe becomes a territory all dimensions of which may be travelled both in time and space.”

    And maybe only true ideologically. Is there ideology in altermodernity? This seems to say ‘yes:’ “the twofold threat of uniformity and mass culture and traditionalist, far-right, withdrawal.”

    But I think if this had really been thinking about economy, it would have been written differently.

    Is radical re-periodization modernist, postmodernist or altermodernist?

  2. danny said, on April 1, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    There is a lot of “our” in this piece – as Tonto put it, “What you mean ‘we,’ white man?”

    But more thoroughly:

    “Whereas the Lehman Brothers, thanks to computers, “earned about $2 million for… 15 minutes of work,” the entire economic text would not be what it is if it could not write itself as a palimpsest upon another text where a woman in Sri Lanka has to work 2,287 minutes to buy a T-shirt. The “postmodern” and “premodern” are inscribed together. Simmel argued nearly a hundred years ago that a developed money-form promotes “the individual”: “if freedom means obeying only one’s own laws, then the distance between property and its owner that is made possible by the money form of returns provides a hitherto unheard-of freedom.” The best beneficiary of this “postmodernization” of Wall Street is, predictably, the individual small investor in the United States. And the apparently history-transcendent “individual subject” who will “have to hold to the truth of postmodernism… and have as its vocation the invention and projection of a global cognitive mapping” [Jameson] will be, as long as no attempt is made to specify the postmodern space-specific subject production, none other than a version of this unpromising individual.”

    Spivak, Scattered Speculations on the Questions of Value (1984)

  3. danny said, on April 1, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    With “as long as no attempt is made to specify the postmodern space-specific subject production” in italics!


Leave a Reply