This article offers a critical perspective on the pedagogical direction of what I call “global art histories” in Canada by addressing the apparent impasse posed by the notion of what is euphemistically called “ethnocultural art” in this country. It examines different interpretations of the latter chiefly through a survey of course titles from art history programs in Canada and a course on the subject that I teach at Concordia University in Montreal. Generally speaking, the term “ethnocultural art” refers to what is more commonly understood as “ethnic minority arts” in the ostensibly more derisive discourses on Canadian multiculturalism and cultural diversity. The addition of the term “culture” emphasizes the voluntary self-definition involved in ethnic identification and makes the distinction with “racial minorities.” “Ethnocultural communities,” along with the moniker “cultural communities” (or “culturally diverse” communities), however, is still often understood to refer to immigrants (whether recent or long-standing), members of racialized minorities, and even First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. Not surprisingly, courses on ethnocultural art histories tend to concentrate on the cultural production of visible minorities or ethnocultural groups. However, I also see teaching the subject as an opportunity to shift the classification of art according to particular geographic areas to consider a myriad of issues in myriad of issues in the visual field predicated on local senses of belonging shaped by migration histories and “first” contacts. As such, ethnocultural art histories call attention to, but not exclusively, the art of various diasporic becomings inexorably bound to histories of settler colonialism and Indigenous sovereignty. This leads me to reflect on some aspects of Quebec’s internal dynamics concerning nationalism and ethnocultural diversity that have affected the course of ethnocultural art histories in the province. I argue that the Eurocentric hegemonic hold of ethno-nationalist discourses on art and art history can be seen with particular clarity in this context. Moreover, I suggest that these discourses have hindered not only the awareness and study of art by so-called culturally diverse communities but also efforts to offer a more global, transnational, and heterogeneous (or chiastic) sense of the histories from which this art emerges. In today’s political climate, the project that is art history, now more than ever, needs to address and engage with the reverse parallelism that chiastic perspectives on the historiography of contemporary art entail. My critique is forcefully speculative and meant to bring together different critical vocabularies in the consideration of implications of the global and ethnic turns in art and art history for the understanding of the other. I engage in an aspect less covered in the literature on the global turn in contemporary art, namely the ways in which the mutual and dialectical relation betwe
这篇文章通过解决这个国家被委婉地称为“民族文化艺术”的概念所造成的明显僵局,为我所谓的加拿大“全球艺术史”的教学方向提供了一个批判性的视角。本书主要通过对加拿大艺术史课程名称的调查,以及我在蒙特利尔康考迪亚大学(Concordia University in Montreal)教授的一门课程,来考察对后者的不同解释。一般来说,“民族文化艺术”一词指的是在加拿大多元文化主义和文化多样性的表面上更具讽刺性的话语中通常被理解为“少数民族艺术”的东西。“文化”一词的加入强调了民族认同中涉及的自愿自我定义,并与“少数种族”进行了区分。然而,“民族文化社区”连同绰号“文化社区”(或“文化多样性”社区)仍然经常被理解为指移民(无论是最近的还是长期的)、种族化的少数民族成员,甚至是第一民族、因纽特人和姆姆萨蒂斯人。毫不奇怪,民族文化艺术史课程倾向于关注少数族裔或民族文化群体的文化生产。然而,我也认为教授这门学科是一个机会,可以根据特定的地理区域来改变艺术的分类,以考虑视野中无数问题中的无数问题,这些问题是基于由移民历史和“第一次”接触形成的当地归属感。因此,民族文化艺术史引起人们对各种流散艺术的关注,但并非完全如此,这些艺术与定居者殖民主义和土著主权的历史有着不可分割的联系。这让我开始思考魁北克民族主义和民族文化多样性的内在动力,这些因素影响了该省民族文化艺术史的进程。我认为,在这种背景下,可以特别清楚地看到种族民族主义话语对艺术和艺术史的欧洲中心主义霸权。此外,我认为,这些话语不仅阻碍了所谓的文化多元化社区对艺术的认识和研究,也阻碍了对这种艺术产生的历史提供一种更加全球化、跨国和异质(或混合)的感觉的努力。在当今的政治气候下,艺术史项目比以往任何时候都更需要解决和参与当代艺术史学的交错视角所带来的反向平行关系。我的批判具有很强的思辨性,旨在将不同的批判词汇汇集在一起,以考虑艺术和艺术史中全球和种族转变的含义,以理解他者。我研究的是关于当代艺术全球转向的文献中较少涉及的一个方面,即“文化认同”之间的相互和辩证关系,更好地描述为“局部归属感”(Appadurai)和地方的偶然性之间的关系,可能会在特定的国家机构场所塑造、抵制或破坏世界或全球艺术史方法的引入。我认为,如果目标是通过强调艺术史作为一个领域的实践点,而不仅仅是文化产品本身,来改变对他人的理解,那么在这种教学和解中,需要一种更加关注的参与政治,以解决所谓的非西方艺术,以及流散和土著艺术的历史如何作为知识整体地转移。我建议将“全球艺术史”作为一个临时标题,使艺术史中的全球主义研究更明确地包括这些类型的定位跨文化谈判。
{"title":"Mise en perspective chiasmique des histoires de l’art global au Canada","authors":"Alice Ming Wai Jim","doi":"10.7202/1052630AR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1052630AR","url":null,"abstract":"This article offers a critical perspective on the pedagogical direction of what I call “global art histories” in Canada by addressing the apparent impasse posed by the notion of what is euphemistically called “ethnocultural art” in this country. It examines different interpretations of the latter chiefly through a survey of course titles from art history programs in Canada and a course on the subject that I teach at Concordia University in Montreal. Generally speaking, the term “ethnocultural art” refers to what is more commonly understood as “ethnic minority arts” in the ostensibly more derisive discourses on Canadian multiculturalism and cultural diversity. The addition of the term “culture” emphasizes the voluntary self-definition involved in ethnic identification and makes the distinction with “racial minorities.” “Ethnocultural communities,” along with the moniker “cultural communities” (or “culturally diverse” communities), however, is still often understood to refer to immigrants (whether recent or long-standing), members of racialized minorities, and even First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. Not surprisingly, courses on ethnocultural art histories tend to concentrate on the cultural production of visible minorities or ethnocultural groups. However, I also see teaching the subject as an opportunity to shift the classification of art according to particular geographic areas to consider a myriad of issues in myriad of issues in the visual field predicated on local senses of belonging shaped by migration histories and “first” contacts. As such, ethnocultural art histories call attention to, but not exclusively, the art of various diasporic becomings inexorably bound to histories of settler colonialism and Indigenous sovereignty. This leads me to reflect on some aspects of Quebec’s internal dynamics concerning nationalism and ethnocultural diversity that have affected the course of ethnocultural art histories in the province. I argue that the Eurocentric hegemonic hold of ethno-nationalist discourses on art and art history can be seen with particular clarity in this context. Moreover, I suggest that these discourses have hindered not only the awareness and study of art by so-called culturally diverse communities but also efforts to offer a more global, transnational, and heterogeneous (or chiastic) sense of the histories from which this art emerges. In today’s political climate, the project that is art history, now more than ever, needs to address and engage with the reverse parallelism that chiastic perspectives on the historiography of contemporary art entail. My critique is forcefully speculative and meant to bring together different critical vocabularies in the consideration of implications of the global and ethnic turns in art and art history for the understanding of the other. I engage in an aspect less covered in the literature on the global turn in contemporary art, namely the ways in which the mutual and dialectical relation betwe","PeriodicalId":385296,"journal":{"name":"Article cinq","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134444450","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}