2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

Mosquera advocates a plurality of, a hybridization of, cultural voices in art, and an awareness of new traditions in art and a move to adapt to those new traditions. Instead of imperialistically entering other cultures and attempting to make them like one's own culture, it's more desirable to have a global dialogue: "our cultures should not lock themselves in isolating traditions if they want to take part in today's dynamic and offer solutions to their own problems. Instead, what should be done is to make traditions work within the new epoch." Mosquera says that "the way towards an intercultural evaluation of the work of art is not just a question of seeing, but also of listening." Just as a dialogue between two people shouldn't be one-sided and rewarding to only one party -- a dialogue between cultures shouldn't not just involve one culture "talking" to the other, but both cultures actively listening to each other.

Mosquera says, "The myth of the universal value in art, and the establishment of a heirarchy of works based in their "universality," is one of the heritages of Eurocentrism that continues to survive, despite our becoming less naive with respect to the "universal."" I would debate with Mosquera on this point. I believe that some works of art explore humanity in a more profound way than do other works of art, and are therefore more accessible and "universal" than other works of art. There are certain art works that actually handle universal human themes (like sadness, loneliness, oppression, brotherhood, motherhood, death, war, love, sex, wealth, poverty, and so on) in a more "professional," more pithy way.

Mosquera says, "What is monstrous about (the Marco Polo Syndrome) is that it perceives whatever is different as the carrier of life-threatening viruses rather than nutritional elements." To play devil's advocate: perhaps this suspicious instinct in us is indeed "monstrous," and does indeed "(bring) a lot of death to culture," but I would argue that it is also natural. I would argue that there is a natural, biological, survival-based, tribalistic instinct within all of us, an instinct to differentiate and distrust "the Other," not because we want to, or because we're all "evil racists," but because it is -- or was, in our evolutionary past -- a survival mechanism, an essential help to us in our biological efforts to protect ourselves from potentially harmful cultural phenomena, natural dangers, or even actual "life-threatening viruses." In other words, I would argue, "racism" and "ethnocentrism" stem from biologically inherited impulses designed to help us better propagate ourselves and our genes. In terms of our evolution, distrust was "good," suspicion was "good." (Even the ideas of "good" and "evil" are, I think, artificial overlays which arrogantly ignore our truer natures). What will become of this "good," natural instinct now that, as Mosquera says, "the possibility of a more diversified consciousness has been opened up"? Are we really capable of transcending our nature and embracing this "new consciousness of ethnicity"?

Yes we are! Due to "several contemporary processes, among them decolinisation, the greater space gained by the Third World in the international arena, the influence of ethnic groups from the margins in the great northern cities, the increase of information and improved facilities in travel and communication," our world is one in which, more and more, intercultural communication is acceptable, desirable, and advantageous. That is, while globalization is a cultural force which may do battle with our natural, biological instincts, and while there may still be tribalistic impulses etched into our genes, perhaps we as a species are increasingly looking to other cultures with an inquisitive mind and a benevolent will... Perhaps we are a different kind of animal now, or at least, we are becoming one. Of course, such disgraceful contemporary political actions like Bush's invasion of Iraq, which smacks strongly of what Mosquera describes as a "lack of focus, limitation, boredom, and injustice of planning the world like a one-way street," fly in the face of my more hopeful suggestion that we are advancing as a species.

America-centrism is also relevant to this discussion. Even in contemporary times, many Americans seem to engage in an exclusionary kind of thinking which values only the "American" point of view. American foreign policy in recent years could be described as isolationist and unilateral. For example, the United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol regarding greenhouse emission restrictions, and it went into Iraq unilaterally without the approval of the United Nations.

Mosquera’s essay immediately brought to my mind Baudrillard’s words: “…the idea of politics has disappeared.� While this is in many ways an absurd statement, especially when taken out of context, connections can be drawn between this idea and Mosquera’s suggestion that postmodernism could be considered a result of globalization, or as he describes it, a ‘realigned universe’ through the praxis of societies previously completely marginalized.� “…from the Industrial Revolution, the global expansion of capitalism began to involve the whole world in an economic process that would have Europe as its centre, which from then on, determined the course of the planet.� The consequences of this are reminiscent of Baudrillard’s frustration with the trans-ifying of every aspect of culture, thereby eliminating distinction and creating a sort of banal homogeneity. Mosquera echoes these ideas when he states: “As a result, many elements of this metaculture cease to be “ethnic� and become internationalized as intrinsic components of a world shaped by Western development.�

The resulting Eurocentrism that the author describes is most relatable to me in the sense that it describes our metaculture’s ability to completely ignore any history that is not our own. I enjoyed his explanations of our tendencies to commodify aspects of other cultures by only recognizing foreign art when it somehow fits into a predefined Western role. Perhaps it is exotic, primitive, or simply “displays their identity.� I would argue that these prejudices are present most obviously in art critique and history, and not in artists themselves. It is not that there are no working artists in other countries making distinct work, but rather that art history and critique is obsessed with trend and “movement.� Perhaps this is why I sometimes find art history frustrating, while I thoroughly enjoy the history of art. Mosquera seems to find these prejudices confining to the point of saying that “the ‘contemporary artistic scene’ is a very centralized system of apartheid.� This seems like an extreme point of view, but it sometimes seems scarily applicable to many aspects of contemporary culture. Unfortunately, third world artists are given no choice but to accept the label of “other� for the sake of Western acceptance and patronization.

Mosquera ends the article with hope, which I also appreciate. He seems to acknowledge Barthes’ Death of the Author when he gives power to the viewer and his or her ability to alter these stereotypes. “Given that it has been demonstrated that the role of the viewer is fundamental in art and literature, this does not mean that one only sees from one’s self and one’s own circumstance, but also that reception is active and therefore capable of expanding.� I’d like to agree with Rowan that we are, as citizens and artists, improving by “increasingly looking to other cultures with an inquisitive mind and a benevolent will.� While I appreciate Mosquera’s criticism of the art world, art history, and art critique, I remain hopeful that as a people, we are growing our perspective. Just as citizens cannot be judged by the actions of their governments, artists (and any human, because we are all creative) cannot be judged by the prejudices of their “art world.�

Rowan, you say, "There are certain art works that actually handle universal human themes (like sadness, loneliness, oppression, brotherhood, motherhood, death, war, love, sex, wealth, poverty, and so on) in a more 'professional,' more pithy way."

The idea of what constitutes a "professional" approach might vary drastically from one culture to another. Furthermore, the idea of art as an arena of professional expertise is closely tied to the economic structures of the Eurocentric art market. And even those who share the same idea of professionalism might not afford it the same value. I know folks who have a severe aversion to things that look too "professional," because of the perspective of authority and power that it signifies.

Mosquera’s diagnosis of the world’s Macro Polo system is troubling way of looking at the cultural problems the world has been left with in the modern era, but I agree that it is an existing situation that has affected most of the world. What I disagree with in his writing is that there is a “cure� for it. Some of the damages made to third world cultures cannot be undone, and a return to pre-colonial traditions and aesthetics is not contemporarily feasible if not impossible. What we have is the world as it is, we can try to heal this world, and move on but we can never go back. We have to level the playing fields and respect all cultural and artistic centers instead of just the American and European ones.

I was recently in Galena, Illinois at the branch of the Chicago Athenaeum there. In their upstairs gallery was a textile collection of authentic Navajo weavings, blankets and rugs. As I walked through the gallery, looking at the real deal, a video documentary played from one end of the room. During my time in the space I overheard the narrator talk about how none of these traditional weavings existed before the 1600’s when the Navajo, who kept their distance and avoided Spanish explorers stole sheep from the Spaniards. This made me realize immediately that authentic Navajo weavings were a by-product of colonization. I know they are extremely valuable and rare, but they are a product of Europeans and indigenous people living together, one influencing the other and back, never being the same again.

This article also made me reflect on a story told to me by Noro Andriamanalina, a professor I worked with over the summer. She is from Madagascar, and was researching the origins and meanings of traditional Madagascar Art before European colonization. She found that most of the crafts people who produced the work today for the tourist trade did not know the origins or meaning of the works and pattern they produced and sold. Fortunately, she was able to find the wife of the late artist who was credited for being the preserver of Madagascar art, but then was horribly disappointed. When the artist was a child he had became lost and could not be found, and during the weeks his parents looked for him, he was being taken care of by Scandinavian missionaries. The artwork this man produced for the rest of his life were geometric stylizations of European patterns that would go on to become the look of Madagascar Art and sold back to Europe.

The damage of Colonization is still with us today in the Post-Colonial era. There isn’t a cure, for going back, but there is a need to move forward. A movement that has respect for all and without the hierarchal systems that have been imposed in the past.

In response to Rowan’s writing, I would argue that there is a danger to the term “Universal�. Not all cultures see, understand or view the themes you’ve mentioned in the same ways. “Death� for instance, is viewed differently in many cultures. Many Eastern and third world cultures celebrate death as part of the natural cycle of life and spirituality, where many in the west avoid the subject as much as possible and shelter their children from the knowledge of death until they are “old enough�. Yes we are all human beings, who have similar relationships, roles and life events as other human beings, but it is wrong to infer that these are all “Universal� human experiences when you view them through the windows of various cultures.

Being both a critic and a curator at the New Museum in New York, Garardo Mosquera is apart of the very same western art world that he criticizes. Thankfully, as Rowan pointed out he would like to see broader more intercultural dialogue occur. He believes that all cultures have unique viewpoints and relevant things to say about our globalized world. He also believes that we need to move beyond the residue that was left behind by colonialism. Rather than try to recapture what culture has been lost and completely disregard the influence of European Colonialism, Mosquera suggests that it is time for us to except our current globalized state and move beyond it together.

I found it interesting when Mosquera talked about how the west tends to view art from the third world, that participates in western art practices, as being "inauthentic" and "derivative of the West". He goes on to say that "Third World artists are constantly asked to display their identity, to be fantastic, to look like no one else or to look like Frida..." This thought reinforces many of the issues that were raised in Bell Hooks essay "Eating the Other".

That being said, I find it a odd that this conversation is being brought up by some one that is intrenched in the New York art world as much as Hooks is. On one hand it's hard to completely trust his view point because he's engaging in the very structure that he is criticizing but on the other hand he is of Cuban descent and is trying to bring a different perspective into the western art world. The idea of breaking down the old model of colonialism and opening up the dialogue is refreshing and exciting. When thinking about where art is going next after postmodernism, maybe it will come from the influx of ideas from alternative cultural perspectives.

Overall, I think Mosquera makes some useful suggestions towards a broader cultural perspective, but like Bart, I agree there is no cure. Mosquera’s explains our general, very Western understanding of contemporary art as, “a conception of a self-sufficient activity based on aesthetics, is also a product of Western culture exported to others. Its full definition is also very recent, no older than the end of the 18th century. The aesthetic tradition of other cultures…was a different kind of production, determined by religious, representational and commemorative functions…� Mosquera reminds us that this mindset is not an “evolution of tradition,� rather it is a product of Western colonialism. His suggestion that we work traditions into this era, while making art personal and reflective of our own values seems appropriate. Yet like Ben, throughout the article I questioned Mosquera’s criticism in regards to his high place within the art world.

“…The way towards an intercultural evaluation of the work of art is not just a question of seeing, but also of listening. Careful account should be taken of how artwork functions in its context…� In any dialogue, one can hear the other person, or one can listen to the other person by acknowledging and reaffirming what the other has said. This seems like another reasonable suggestion to step away from Eurocentrism and expand one’s views and perspectives of other cultures. Like Mel, I also picked up on Mosquera’s reference to the Death of the Author when he says, “Given that it has been demonstrated that the role of the viewer is fundamental in art and literature, this does not mean that one sees from one’s self and one’s own circumstance, but also that reception is active and therefore capable of expanding.�

I agree with Mel when she writes, “that these prejudices are present most obviously in art critique and art history, and not in artists themselves.� Art history courses always seem unfairly geared toward European art. In my undergrad, European and American art were always the main focus. Sadly, I can’t even remember learning about any other countries. I think often times artists will create based off of their experience and what inspires them, but are open minded enough to look at and learn from to other cultures and histories. These explorations may not directly affect the art we make, but we are at least considering it.

Jonathon -- I probably should have used a different word than "professional," perhaps "serious" or "thoughtful" or "mature." Of course, your comment, while certainly true, is beside the point I was arguing, which is that certain art works explore the human condition and deal with universal human themes in a more profound way than do others, and could therefore conceivably be put on the "hierarchy of works based in their "universality"" that Mosquera criticizes as Eurocentric. Don't some pieces of art, whatever their culture of origin, more deeply probe the human soul than other works of art? Most, if not all, of the writers we've been reading seem to shy away from discussing the subject of "quality" in works of art, but to my mind, the issue of quality should be at the foreground of any discussion of art. What is the criteria by which Shohat, Stam, or Mosquera judge the quality of works of art, European or non-European? Does artwork that is made by a non-European culture necessarily reflect a higher quality? I was wondering if perhaps one of the measures of the "quality" of a work of art is the depth to which a work of art explores the human condition...

Bart -- Yes, of course different cultures view different human themes differently. But still, we are all human, certain aspects make us "human," and certain human themes are ubiquitous and could reasonably be called "universal." For example, all cultures have their own attitudes toward religion, family, or love, all cultures struggle with questions of war, violence, oppression, and revenge, all cultures must cope with their feelings about death, sickness, and work, all cultures have a set of moral principles upon which they conduct their lives. There are even certain human themes which overlap into the animal world, such as the struggle with losing a child, how to find food to survive, or how to protect one's family. While these ideas may differ from culture to culture they are nevertheless found in all cultures.

The idea of Eurocentrism is inevitable as long as we remember the history. Everything in any culture has its origin and if the origin is remembered to be from an outside culture, it is natural that we find the original culture as the “center�. Europe has influenced (or some times forcefully overtaken) so many cultures that up until now we remember Europe as the “center� in many aspects.

I can see why Mosquera has seen the Eurocentrism as a problem when I see the fact that Mosquera is working at a museum. The whole idea of galleries and museums bases on European definition of art. It is problematic, but I still think it is fair to think that the “Third World� being seen as non-European and being asked to demonstrate the uniqueness makes sense, because the whole notion of galleries and museums is based on European art. If we imagine a Chinese calligraphy written by an American you might be able to get the sense of “art from Third World being displayed in galleries�. The uniqueness is automatically considered from the context.

In the modern world, the definition of “Art� itself is being questioned. Eurocentrism (in the world of art) is decaying as the whole concept of displaying art in galleries are being questioned. If the art must be displayed universally and equally, we need to have a platform that is generalized and neutralized.

In response to Rowan and Bart, I agree with Rowan that there are works that are more/less “universal� than others, but at the same time I also think that the idea of “Universal� is different among others, like Bart mentioned.

Mosquera does an excellent job of describing the forms and origins of Eurocentrism in art. I was most interested in his discussion of what it could mean to construct a contemporary culture – “one capable of acting in today’s reality – from a plurality of perspectives.� I felt that despite the daunting scale of this task, Mosquera uses concise and instructive examples to illustrate how vernacular and non-Western cultures can become more empowered, as well as the challenges they face from “Marco Polo Syndrome.� As a panoramic starting point, Mosquera sums up the apples-to-oranges dilemma faced by outsiders to the Eurocentric art system; “Art, in today’s conception of a self-sufficient activity based on aesthetics, is also a product of Western culture exported to others. Its full definition is also very recent, no older than the end of the 18th century.�

Given that many cultures have historically given art an entirely different social function and set of aesthetic criteria than the Eurocentric norm, it seems only natural to bypass the west entirely, and develop regional arts communities. Of course, the lucrative market for art in the financial centers of the west contrasts with the relative poverty of the rest of the world, so naturally there will be artists from everywhere who seek their fortunes in the west. Mosquera confirms that this problem is compounded by post-colonial communication and transportation systems which often make it easier to make contact with the west than with much closer and more similar communities. “One of the worst problems of the Southern Hemisphere is its lack of internal integration and horizontal communication, in contrast with its vertical – and subaltern – connection with the North.�

Finally, in imagining a more polycentric art discourse, I was attracted to a quote that Rowan also pointed out in his response, about the importance of listening to artmakers who operate in unfamiliar cultural contexts – not just looking at their work. Mosquera goes on to say, “Careful account should be taken of how artwork functions in its context, what values are recognized there, what sensibility it satisfies, what perspectives it opens, what it contributes.� Thus, the western critic who defines “authenticity� in African art according to narrow criteria of aesthetic tradition is probably not paying attention to the motivations of artists who are experimenting with new materials and themes.

Rowan, I certainly believe in quality. I find that some works of art probe my human soul more deeply than others, but I don't expect that these works will be universally perceived the way that I perceive them. I think you're missing Mosquera's point about how "universality" is usually a value applied by westerners according to western criteria. A Michelangelo painting that you and I find to be moving and beautiful might be considered blasphemous and crude in an Islamic society where representations of the human body are forbidden. Similarly, a piece of Islamic calligraphic inlay that expresses the most profound synthesis of formal perfection, craftsmanship, and poetic content to its audience might be lost on you and I, since we can't read Arabic, and we're unfamiliar with the conventions of that visual culture. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Mosquerra's idea that Eurocentrism is a relatively new consciousness and that to understand the Other means denying the sense that it is viral in a life threatening way and becoming open to the possibilities of nutritional elements is very powerful. The risk of all cultures taking on a Eurocentric critical mind set will actually lead to a monoculture and that is the real death.

He proposes that to not preserve traditions which is actually isolating but to work within this new epoch by adapting is the way to partake in today's dynamic and truly offer solutions. Art should not be burdened with the myth of authenticity. We should look to how art satisfies the community in which it is made. He proposes that the more interesting dialogue may be with our neighbors: These cultures urgently need to know and think of each other, to exchange experiences, to embark on common projects.

The critic, the curator and the historian have a great role in advancing the ability to listen and to receive what artwork from other cultures has to contribute to the dialogue of high art and in this way create expansion. Not only can we understand the other through respect of artwork and the culture it is coming from we will also gain more awareness into ourselves.

When reading about the synthesis of visual culture, I can’t help but think about the religious synthesis that happens as a result of colonization and now globalization. The hybridization of culture, a syncretic religion is very invigorating since it is historically unrepeatable: “Indeed, it could be argued that many of the highpoints of western creativity the Renaissance, modernism have been those moments when Europe loses its sealed-off and self-sufficient character; moments when its art was most hybridized, most traversed by currents from elsewhere.� During the Renaissance, classical philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato were rediscovered. Their work influenced the strictly ecclesiastical readings of Christian texts. A circumstance which Erasmus, a Renaissance philologist, thought strengthened and enriched Christianity.
Though I do think that the sycretic culture is often discussed and criticized as impure, grotesque, and disapprobated. In fact, it seems as though art has placed this language on itself. Anthropophagy means cannibalism, right? Though I understand that the very use of this language is in itself a subversion to the western Behemoth [“Thus ritual cannibalism, for centuries the name of the savage, abject other, becomes with the Brazilian modernists an anticolonialist trope and a term of value. (Even ‘magic realism’ inverts the colonial view of magic as irrational superstition.)]

Mosquera's essay seems to make a similar argument to Shohat and Stam, that Eurocentricism in art is a problem, or disease, that must be remedied. But Mosquera is also warning against exoticizing the Other, much as bell hooks did in her essay. He says, "Postmodern interest in the Other has opened some space in the "high art" circuits for vernacular and non-western cultures. But it has introduced a new thirst for exoticism ...which conditions certain cultural productions from the periphery according to paradigms that are expected of it for consumption by the centeres." Art by the Other has to look exotic, and they have to "display their identity, to be fantastic." It does seem that much of the work I see by non-Westerners is about being a non-Westerner, it is about their identity. Perhaps because this is what the art world demands, that is what people expect-- that the non-Westerner has such an exotic identity that they must have much to say about it.

So what is to be done? I think what Mosquera replies is astute; he recognizes that there is no going back to "purity" of art in non-Western cultures, the cultures have already influenced each other. "What should be done is to make traditions work within the new epoch. The problem is not preserving them but vigorously adapting them. The question is how we may also make contemporary art from our own values, sensitivities and interests." He seems to be in agreement with Shohat and Stam, that cross-pollination has already happened, and cannot be stopped or reversed, and will if handled correctly can strengthen and revitalize artwork from both non-Western and Western cultures.

Jonathon, Mosquera's thesis is one which advocates "cultural exchange," and I was stressing cultural exchange through identifying and expressing universal human themes. Art can be used as a tool, as a common visual language, to unify people of different cultures. And even though certain cultural aspects of a work of art may be lost on certain people, doesn't mean it's not worth trying to create a meaningful dialogue across cultures by means of art. If we begin with the view that we are all fundamentally different, and that it is impossible to connect with other cultures, then our journey to find a common ground is blocked.

To my mind, your first statement, "I certainly believe in quality" contradicts your last statement, "it's all in the eye of the beholder." If it's "all" in the eye of the beholder, then quality in art becomes entirely subjective and relative, any meaningful or reasonable standards of quality may be annihilated, and all art and all works of art are flung into a vacuum of meaningless equality -- with all art having the exact same value in which there can exist no sense of quality. I try to stay away from attitudes which relativize art and its value into oblivion. Mosquera warns us against this by saying, "extreme relativism constitutes another danger." I was trying to find some standard for judging art which transcends mere cultural values and limitations. Because this is difficult to do, doesn't make it impossible. Since we are all human, there must be some values that are not simply culturally created values but "human" values, and if we can find those values, the purely "human" values, then we can find methods for analyzing art, which stretches to the human and not merely the cultural. For example, Michelangelo's Pieta could be seen as the story of a mother holding her dead child, rather than as the Christian story of Jesus and Mary. Further, I highly doubt Michelangelo's Pieta would be seen as "crude" by nearly every culture of the world if considered only in terms of its formal visual aspects, and I doubt, too, that the "formal perfection" and "craftsmanship" of a "piece of calligraphic inlay" would be lost on discerning people just because they can't read Arabic or aren't familiar with that visual culture. If we are unfamiliar with the conventions of a visual culture, is it really so undesirable to do some research into those conventions, or, as Mosquera suggests, to be an "active" listener? What is wrong with trying to find commonalities within art and within us?

Bart, your story about the Navajo weavings is interesting. When I was thinking about the Inuit prints my dad has, I did a bit of research and was kind of disappointed to find out that a non-Inuit Canadian dude taught them how to do stonecut printing in the 50s. As you say, they are a by-product of colonization. But after mulling it over, I realize I still love the images, and the style is unique and specific to their culture. The same images and stories were used in textiles before, but now the medium is different, and Western. Does this make them less authentic somehow? I do think that the story Noro Andriamanalina told is a little tragic, that the European designs overtook traditional designs, taking their place. It reminds me of a language going extinct.

I love the idea of immigration as a source of nutrition for a community. And I totally agree with the fear of the 'Other' and the fear of a more diversified consciousness will lead to the death of a culture. Any person, artist, community, or country that embraces differences and opposing points of view ultimately is welcoming growth, health, vitality, and exciting art, whether its visual, music, film, performance, etc. But I can also see how a wealthy and powerful country like ours gets uneasy about differing points of view, because it threatens our place at the top of the pyramid. The moment a person, culture, or population chooses to stop growing and changing, is the moment that person, culture, or population begins to die.
I believe the same thing happens at the top ranks of an American art museum's curatorial staff when it comes to promoting artwork that challenges the home turf. I do see some top American museums promoting 'ethnic' artwork as long as its already accepted at a popular level. Look at the Walker Art Center's Frida Kahlo exhibit. It was one of the most attended Walker exhibits to date. Frida is the perfect 'exotic' art figure from faraway lands. Perfect exhibit for a museum to draw a large more conservative crowd into its galleries. In this case it gets complicated, a double-edged sword. On one hand it is great that the Walker is showing Mexican art, but on the other hand it is such a safe and easy choice to go with Frida because she is 'able to fulfill the new demand for exoticism at the centers.' But I also agree that we 'need to make an effort to avoid centrisms and cliched expectations' and push it further. Overall, I think the Walker does do a good job of taking chances and showing very diverse work in its raw, un-compromised form, but unfortunately those shows don't draw large crowds because, again, most of the population doesn't want their way of thinking challenged.
The most powerful line in the essay is "It is said that a village may be ignorant of what happens in the neighbouring village, but knows what happens in New York." Oh, how true that rings in my own city. I really feel our physical communities have been destroyed and there is an urgent need to re-build them. I love Peter Haakon Thompson's current project with the West Bank Shop where he is reaching out to the (huge) Somali community that exists in our art building's neighborhood. I am very curious to see what is learned, brought to light with his interactions every week where he is asking a non-english speaker to teach him their language. Peter's project is a great example of actual human interaction versus web-based, but he is also reporting and sharing his project online. It is a great example of physical and digital working in harmony together. Gotta give a shout to the Mobile Art On Wheels to for that matter.
If the fundamental problem with the art world, and entire world as a whole, is a lack of communication, then I fully embrace the new ways of communication with the world wide web. Not to be a broken record, but we have at our fingertips the beginnings of a cross-cultural plane for communicating colors, sounds, language, image, text, that we have never had before. Note: the internet is not a 'replacement' for actual human contact and interaction, but it is a damn good way to transfer information and ideas that wasn't available before in history.