Globalization- A New Challenge for Museums

Enwezor writes, “Here, what marks the critical division between culture and art is that for centuries art as such has waged a fierce battle of independence from all cultural, social economic, and political influences.” Battle waged or not, I do not think there is any denying the relationship between art and culture, not even with the apparent tolls of globalization. Art is still produced by someone, or now, something, but there still remains an inspiration or purpose at the root of production. Enwezor then states that contemporary artists today are driven by the “new forms of governmentality and institutions, new domains of living and belonging as people and citizens, cultures and communities, defined by the post-colonial matrix that shapes the ethics of subjectivity and creativity today.” He contrasts this modern notion with that of “classical European thought . . . informed by its own internal cohesion, without an outside.” I would argue that classical Europe was just as driven by “new” forms of government and institutions as is true with today’s contemporary society. Enwezor uses the word “thought,” “classical European thought”- “thought” implies an active process, a reaction to something in which to first have thought about, meaning that there had to be something to react to. I think that classical Europe, although not faced with the exact governments and institutions as we are occasionally burdened with today, had their own burdens in the form of government, which in many cases was the church. The church took the form of both institution and government.

I also have to wonder what the difference is between globalization and imperialism that Enwezor refers to. He writes about globalization after imperialism, and then uses the term “post-imperialism” to define his “postcolonial constellation.” What’s exactly is globalization but another form of imperialism? Another way for powers to influence and push ideas? This may be a bit of a generalization, I realize, but what is the museum but another way in which to attempt to convey ideology and construct history- possibly another form of globalization? With that said, I think that what Enwezor is so enraged about in his article is the Tate Modern’s attempt to categorize and globalize its exhibition of African Art. How do you exhibit something that was not made for the purpose of being art, but made for a specific reason, for a specific task, by a specific culture? Are these objects then considered art? Should they be displayed in an art museum known for modern and contemporary exhibitions? The exhibition is then forced to include text about how the objects were used and what their intended purpose was, turning the museum and the exhibition into the curator’s and/or the museum’s own view or take on the history of a certain culture. It is an attempt in which to globalize and categorize, in this case African objects within the context of a museum, displaying them as art, and constructing a history for an entire "Africa" based on only the objects part of the exhibition. The objects that are purposely left out are just as important, and tell just as much about Britain's own views about colonial history. Obviously, Enwezor feels that the Tate Modern failed miserably and has not moved passed colonialism at all. Once again, it seems as though the history of African cultures are falsely reconstructed and dominated by a powerful institution, the museum. I believe that museums and curators today face a huge challenge during a time with it seems like artists and the world for that matter are fighting against and resisting globalization and the old way of categorization and classification.