현대미술에서의 전지구화에 대한 논의는 구 동구권의 몰락으로 무너지기 시작한 제1세계와 제2세계, 이주와 이동으로 인한 제3세계와의 경계들이 와해되는 1980년대 말부터 본격적으로 부각되었다. 영토적 경계를 넘어 계속적으로 이동하며 국제적 규모의 비엔날레와 전세계의 주요 미술관, 지역공동체를 기반으로 작업을 진행하는 유목적 미술가들의 등장도 이와 맥을 같이한다. 이들 유목적 미술가들의 작품은 이동의 경로에 들르는 다양한 장소들과의 관계 속에서 완성되며, 작품의 수용자인 지역 관객뿐 아니라 작가 자신 쪽에서도 ‘문화번역’이라는 불가분의 과정을 필요로 한다. 여기서 유목적 미술가들이 촉발하는 동시대 아시아 미술의 몇 가지 쟁점들이 부각된다. 본 논문은 정체성, 장소성, 혼종성, 관람자를 화두로 유목적 미술가들이 이끌어내는 전지구화 시대 동시대미술의 쟁점들을 점검해보았다.The boundary between First and Second worlds was broken down at the end of the 1980s, which had been epitomized by the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989. It was about the same time when there emerged in the art world the notion of global art.’ Standing in contrast to the term ‘world art’ that has been associated with the colonialist notion of the art of the non-west, which posits itself always in the past and at the opposite end of Euro-American modernism, ‘global art’ refers to the transnationality of contemporary artistic practice in constant border crossings.
In the global art scenes, there also appeared a new breed of ‘nomadic artists,’ those who create and exhibit works at different international venues. The frequent biennals and art fairs, and the commissions from various international art institutions allow the nomadic artists always on the move. The production of artwork not only reflects the culture and social conditions of the artist’s origin, but those of the locality the artist is visiting. The conflicts and negotiations these itinerant artists occasion bring up several issues of the contemporary art.
First, what is at stake is the identity of the artist. Regarding the limited amount of time that has been allowed to the artist in the frame of exhibition in the host institution, how much of the locality of the place where s/he conducts the project could possibly be reflected in the artwork? If the artist negotiates the culture of his or her origin with that of the place s/he visits, the problems of translation should occur in both sides.
Secondly, there can be noted in their practice an increasing loss of ‘site-specificity.’ In merely reproducing and restaging similar characteristics or methods across different global venues, their practice degrades into an island of artistic signifiers. These repetitive individual acts and attitudes even foretell the looming danger of the ‘return of the author.’Thirdly, what follows such acts is the hegemonic status of the nomadic artists. The celebration of cultural syncreticism and hybridity could empower the nomadic artists who could have more access to the world-wide artistic venues compared to those who work in the localities. Equally problematic is how features of syncreticism tend to dismiss conflicts and tensions between cultures, which can unwittingly serve as a podium for the assertion of conservative politics that praise the status quo.
The final, but not the least important, issue is that of the viewer-participant. The previous discourses about the nomadic artist have usually been centered around the aritst’s identity and issues of site-specificity. The ‘viewer-specificity’ has been loosely defined according to different categories including territorial borders, gender, and classes. Since the nomadic artists attempt to ‘construct’ a transnational identity, their works potentially remain precluded from viewers’ expectations. Could meanings other than individual associations to the work possibly emerge from these nomadic works? To delve into these complex issues, this paper looks into the arguments around ‘Relational Aesthetics,’ and its revisionist views suggested by Jacques Rancière and Claire Bishop who propose the art that provokes and discloses the conflicts and dissensus rather than conceals them.