Memories of Europe in the Art From Elsewhere

Andreas Huyssen
{"title":"Memories of Europe in the Art From Elsewhere","authors":"Andreas Huyssen","doi":"10.22456/2179-8001.98255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At a time when the boundaries of European citizenship are challenged from both the inside and the outside, those boundaries cannot be equated with the imaginary boundaries of European memory. The rights to citizenship are usually defined administratively and politically. European memory cannot be. It cannot be culturally fortressed. For what is European memory if it does not include memories of Europe’s role in the world at large? It must reciprocally acknowledge the memories of Europe as they circulate elsewhere, and now even inside Europe itself. Some years ago, conference titles such as “Europe and its others” abounded—still fundamentally Eurocentric in spirit, with its possessive pronoun and the globalizing discourse of othering. Then the language changed, acknowledging the implicit problem and turning to phrases such as “Europe in other cultures.” The altered phrasing recognizes counterstrategies of writing back to Empire: Europe itself was being othered by “its” others, or as Dipesh Chakrabarty has called it, provincialized.[1] From my point of view both perspectives are inadequate today in capturing how the imaginary relationship between Europe and non-European parts of the world is structured in the work of contemporary artists. It is particularly the transnational and by now globally extant discourse of political memories of violence, state terror, and genocide that has produced artistic memory practices in which the European and the non-European are indissolubly folded into each other. Neither the discourse of othering nor that of provincializing makes much sense any longer.","PeriodicalId":426791,"journal":{"name":"PORTO ARTE: Revista de Artes Visuais","volume":"1271 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PORTO ARTE: Revista de Artes Visuais","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22456/2179-8001.98255","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

At a time when the boundaries of European citizenship are challenged from both the inside and the outside, those boundaries cannot be equated with the imaginary boundaries of European memory. The rights to citizenship are usually defined administratively and politically. European memory cannot be. It cannot be culturally fortressed. For what is European memory if it does not include memories of Europe’s role in the world at large? It must reciprocally acknowledge the memories of Europe as they circulate elsewhere, and now even inside Europe itself. Some years ago, conference titles such as “Europe and its others” abounded—still fundamentally Eurocentric in spirit, with its possessive pronoun and the globalizing discourse of othering. Then the language changed, acknowledging the implicit problem and turning to phrases such as “Europe in other cultures.” The altered phrasing recognizes counterstrategies of writing back to Empire: Europe itself was being othered by “its” others, or as Dipesh Chakrabarty has called it, provincialized.[1] From my point of view both perspectives are inadequate today in capturing how the imaginary relationship between Europe and non-European parts of the world is structured in the work of contemporary artists. It is particularly the transnational and by now globally extant discourse of political memories of violence, state terror, and genocide that has produced artistic memory practices in which the European and the non-European are indissolubly folded into each other. Neither the discourse of othering nor that of provincializing makes much sense any longer.
来自其他地方的艺术中的欧洲记忆
当欧洲公民身份的边界受到来自内部和外部的挑战时,这些边界不能等同于欧洲记忆中的想象边界。公民权通常是行政上和政治上界定的。欧洲人的记忆却不是这样。它不可能在文化上受到保护。因为,如果欧洲的记忆不包括欧洲在整个世界上所扮演的角色的记忆,那它又是什么呢?它必须相互承认欧洲的记忆,因为它们在其他地方流传,现在甚至在欧洲内部流传。几年前,诸如“欧洲及其他者”之类的会议标题比比皆是——基本上仍然是以欧洲为中心的精神,带有所有格代词和全球化的他者话语。然后,语言改变了,承认了隐含的问题,并转向诸如“其他文化中的欧洲”之类的短语。改变后的措辞承认了反击帝国的策略:欧洲本身正在被“它的”其他人所取代,或者像迪佩什·查克拉巴蒂(Dipesh Chakrabarty)所说的那样,被省化了在我看来,这两种观点都不足以捕捉当代艺术家作品中欧洲和非欧洲地区之间的想象关系。尤其是跨国的,到目前为止在全球范围内存在的关于暴力、国家恐怖和种族灭绝的政治记忆的话语,产生了欧洲人和非欧洲人不可分割地相互融合的艺术记忆实践。无论是他者的话语还是地方化的话语都不再有多大意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信