Curatorial Culture
Curation operates as a nuanced epistemological method and emerges as a locus for engaging in ontological political discourse. Departing from traditional aesthetic criteria that emphasize beauty, style, and genre within the domain of art, contemporary discourse within the artistic realm increasingly centers on ontological inquiries, serving as a point of contention among curators, art critics, and creators. Art, transcending its conventional role in aesthetics, assumes a dual function: not only does it possess the potential to generate objective knowledge akin to scientific inquiry, thus contributing to the formulation of epistemological frameworks, but it also diverges from the confines of rationalistic epistemological paradigms. Instead, it interrogates entrenched modes of thought, fostering novel perspectives on cognitive frameworks informed by diverse sensory experiences, thereby eliciting varied ontological perspectives.
Bonaventura de Sousa Santos employs the term “epistemicide” to underscore the violent erasure enacted by Northern epistemologies upon Southern epistemologies within the overarching dominion of colonialism, capitalism, and patriarchy.1 Consequently, discussions revolving around contemporary curatorial practices necessitate an initial engagement with the foundational inquiries of ontology and epistemology. This imperative arises not solely due to the fact that curating constitutes a mode of knowledge generation, but also owing to the intrinsic interplay between ontology, epistemology, and lived experience, thereby prompting the cultivation of diverse and thriving ontological and epistemological frameworks. It is imperative to recognize that disparate ontological and epistemological perspectives need not inherently manifest as adversarial or discordant; indeed, they may concurrently espouse shared ethical principles. Furthermore, individuals are not constrained to espousing singular ontological or epistemological outlooks; rather, they may embrace manifold ontologies and epistemologies, thereby inhabiting a realm of pluriversal discourses. Chris Cuomo’s conceptualization of the “ethics of flourishing,”2 rooted in ecofeminist philosophy, seeks to illuminate ethical considerations underpinned by the aspiration for flourishing across diverse realms encompassing individuals, species, and communities. Accordingly, the thematic focus of this special issue gestures towards Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia, and other locales, elucidating the diverse and heterogeneous ontologies embodied within varied curatorial praxes.
If we conceive of curating as a mode of discourse and praxis characterized by the caring of communal spaces, the cultivation of civic domains, and the forging of urban environments, then it becomes pertinent to scrutinize how biennials across diverse locales in Indonesia and Thailand, alongside urban exhibitions in Cambodia, actualize the notion of “shared spaces” through their curatorial endeavors. In what ways do these exhibitions partake in the dialectical negotiation, transformation, or articulation of ontological frameworks within the lived realities and cultural discourses of their respective milieus? How do they leverage their situated knowledge and discursive positions to assume the roles of critical interlocutors and efficacious agents? This thematic inquiry undertakes an examination of concrete instances of art exhibitions from varied geographical contexts, with the objective of delineating the prospects aiming to propose the possibility of an ethics of onto-epistemological flourishing.
Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ scholarly inquiry delineates the contemporary global landscape through the lens of three interlinked hegemonic systems: capitalism, colonialism, and patriarchy. Central to his analysis is the recognition of an inherent tragedy stemming from the coordinated functioning of these modes of dominance, juxtaposed with the fragmented and incremental nature of resistance efforts.3 Importantly, Santos elucidates that this governance paradigm extends beyond mere economic or political dimensions, embodying a broader Eurocentric civilizational framework. Within this paradigm, hegemonic knowledge, predominantly originating from Northern epistemologies, perpetuates the marginalization and erasure of regions and populations relegated to the Global South.4 Santos accentuates the imperative of disengaging from Northern epistemologies, advocating for a nuanced stance that neither negates the critical legacy of Eurocentrism nor overlooks its historical potential for societal liberation within Western modernity. Rather, he proposes the integration of Eurocentric traditions into a comprehensive array of epistemological and political alternatives. This approach entails a deliberate focus on suppressed or marginalized traditions within the overarching Western framework and concerted efforts to counteract the prevailing trend of epistemicide.5
In alignment with this discourse, Martin Savransky advocates for a meticulous reassessment of knowledge production and its attendant implications. Rooted in his scholarly inquiry, Savransky proposes that the discourse surrounding the (geo)politics of knowledge may derive substantial benefit from a process of de-epistemologization. This conceptual framework entails reconceptualizing epistemology as an intrinsic generative flux of the world, rather than knowledge production being seen as a representation of pluralistic, albeit variably just, diverse worlds. Drawing from a lineage of scholarly thought elucidated by luminaries such as Isabelle Stengers, Bruno Latour, Alfred North Whitehead, and William James, Savransky indicates that their projects indicate endeavors to embed the “politics of knowledge” within the “process of the world.” This intellectual endeavor seeks to surpass the constraints imposed by epistemology-centric methodologies, accentuating the pivotal role of “solitary entities” as integral constituents of the material world, shaped by intricate interplays of social and technological practices.6 Moreover, Savransky introduces the concept of “onto-epistemological pluralism,” positing it as a complementary perspective to the foregoing discourse. Within this analytical framework, Southern epistemology, championed by Santos, finds its rightful place. The primary focus shifts from inquiries pertaining to “who, when, why is constructing knowledge” to “who/what, when and how inhabits what world.” This discursive trajectory elucidates an enduring historical continuum of intellectual dialogue between Western and non-Western traditions, fundamentally shaping realpolitik.7 Savransky contends that the multiplicity of worlds, far from being representable or articulated, emerges organically from ongoing negotiations among entities enmeshed in situated practices. Consequently, the politics of knowledge assumes the semblance of the politics of reality, or, as Anne-Marie Mol aptly terms it, “ontopolitics.”8
Drawing inspiration from Augustine’s seminal work, The City of God, Hannah Arendt advances the proposition that humanity’s creation was imbued with a divine intent to infuse the world with the foundational attribute of freedom and foster the concept of the life of action (vita activa). Arendt posits that the advent of each individual heralds a fresh commencement (initium), as each person embodies a unique existence hitherto absent prior to their birth, thereby introducing novelty into the world.9 The intrinsic plurality inherent in human existence consequently accentuates the significance of “natality” and “plurality” as fundamental features of human life. Furthermore, Arendt discerns a profound spiritual transition from the contemplative life, or vita contemplativa, to the life action, attributing this paradigmatic shift primarily to humanity’s relentless pursuit of knowledge.10 Arendt challenges the efficacy of passive observation and contemplation as avenues for knowledge acquisition, championing action as the exclusive reliable conduit for knowledge attainment.11 She assumes that knowledge emanates solely from the self and necessitates practical application for validation. In addition to emancipating human spirituality from passive contemplation through active engagement, Arendt derives elements from Kantian philosophy in order to emphasize the inherent political potential residing in faculties such as judgment, common sense, and taste.12 She contends that judgment enables individuals not only to perceive matters subjectively but also to apprehend them from a collective standpoint, thereby endowing them with a political dimension conducive to active participation within public spheres. Arendt further argues that sensory perception and subjective experiences equip individuals to navigate an objective world collectively, positing judgment, particularly in matters of taste, as being capable of “sharing-the-world-with-others” and unveiling personal qualities publicly.13 Moreover, Arendt asserts that taste transcends mere politics and serves as a non-coercive mechanism for spiritual refinement, thereby fostering cultural cultivation and contributing to the harmonization of societal dynamics.14 Her conceptualization of a “life of action” deviates from conventional ontological discourse fixated on “Being,” prioritizing instead the notions of “appearance” and “being” as “the one who is revealed to all people.”15 In her view, action emerges as the definitive mode of existential revelation, constituting the sole credible pathway for exploring ontology and knowledge.
11 Ibid.
Donald Preziosi offers a discerning critique of curatorial practice, portraying it as a venture fraught with potential hazards. He conceptualizes curating as an epistemological technique, a cognitive faculty that inherently evokes a sense of “divine fear” or “holy terror” owing to its reliance on subjective constructions of reality. As individuals traverse the ever-shifting terrain of existence through their unique perceptual lenses, the act of curating emerges as a creative performance aimed at contemplating, affirming, and reshaping reality. Preziosi posits that curatorial endeavors challenge entrenched notions of reality by employing the world as a canvas for intellectual inquiry.16
Preziosi’s argument elucidates two salient propositions. Firstly, that the divine fear and holy terror associated with curatorial praxis emanate from an acknowledgment of the perpetual flux characterizing the world, suggesting that curatorial epistemologies can elicit a spectrum of affective responses, including fear and terror stemming from perceived existential threats or upheavals. Secondly, he contends that curating entails employing the world as an instrument of thought rather than confining oneself to the contemplation of discrete “objects,” typically artworks, thereby engendering opportunities for the emergence of diverse epistemological frameworks.
In the contemporary milieu, marked by mounting interrogations of cognitive justice and its elusive realization, curators confront the imperative of fostering critical and politically engaged curatorial methodologies. Given the inherent interconnection among ontology, epistemology, and lived experience, there exists a pressing exigency to develop a plurality of flourishing ontological and epistemological paradigms. Consequently, this discourse endeavors to furnish a concise exposition of epistemological frameworks such as feminism, perspectives from the Global South, and indigenous knowledge systems, which actively contest dominant epistemic hegemonies. Through this inquiry, the aim is to delineate a simplified schema of the multifaceted epistemological landscape, illustrating that diverse ontologies and epistemologies need not be mutually exclusive or antithetical, but can coalesce and share congruous values. Moreover, individuals frequently traverse multiple ontological and epistemological terrains concurrently, underscoring the intricacies inherent in grappling with a pluralistic comprehension of reality, herein termed the “pluriversal worldings.”
This article undertakes, regarding ontology, a critique of its operative status as a theoretical construct preoccupied with elucidating the fundamental nature of existence and reality. It asserts that the apprehension and interpretation of the external world by individuals, mediated through sensory perceptions and subjective conceptualizations, introduce inherent complexities that preclude definitive resolutions to ontological inquiries. Individuals formulate ontological frameworks as conceptual apparatuses so as to articulate their comprehension of reality, subsequently employing these frameworks as interpretive lenses capable of probing deeper truths within their construed reality. In essence, ontology aspires to address the foundational query: “What constitutes reality?” Epistemology delves into the inquiry of cognition and the processes of knowledge acquisition, encompassing theories regarding the essence of comprehension and the mechanisms by which knowledge is garnered. It is imperative to acknowledge that epistemology is intricately intertwined with ontology, as the conceptualization of “reality” directly informs one’s approach to comprehension and cognition. Hence, epistemology operates within a broader conceptual landscape delineated by ontological presumptions, underscoring the mutual dependence between these two interrogative spheres in configuring cognitive paradigms and avenues of inquiry.17
Feminist onto-epistemology, as expounded by scholars Liz Stanley and Sue Wise, delineates a conceptual framework aimed at comprehending the formation and propagation of knowledge concerning the world. It elucidates the mechanisms through which perceptions of “reality” are shaped within epistemic frameworks, governing the identification, production, and dissemination of knowledge, while also attributing agency to the actors involved in these processes. Stanley and Wise underscore the foundational importance of epistemological inquiries within feminist discourse, asserting that addressing these concerns is imperative for feminism, in order to effectively contest hegemonic knowledge paradigms and methodologies. Consequently, the formulation of a feminist epistemological framework is positioned as an indispensable endeavor toward interrogating prevailing paradigms and advancing feminist scholarship.18
There is a growing acknowledgment of the intricate interplay between political dynamics, particularly various configurations of power, and theories of knowledge production. Cognitive authority often manifests within hierarchical structures of knowledge generation, influenced by multifaceted factors such as gender, race, class, sexual orientation, culture, and age. It is imperative to conceive of gender not as an abstract analytical category isolated from its contextual moorings but rather as intricately interwoven with intersecting hierarchies.19 Liz Stanley and Sue Wise argue that feminist epistemology must actively engage with the lived experiences of women. This undertaking is both ethically and politically significant, as it entails the development of a conceptual framework forged through the praxes and norms of both the cognitive community and theoretical discourse.20 Stanley and Wise elucidate that the ontology of marginalized groups is often relegated to the status of the Other, positioned in direct opposition to the ontological frameworks and experiences sanctioned by dominant ideologies. Consequently, the core thrust of the political agenda for marginalized collectives should pivot around the construction of quotidian existence, leveraging an ontology to explicate, delineate, and assert the secular reality of their existence. However, they acknowledge the inherent fragmentation and heterogeneity inherent within this ontological paradigm.21 Feminist epistemology, as delineated by Stanley and Wise, finds its moorings in feminist ontology, which perceives the body as a cultural artifact analogous to cognition and ideological experience. Its significations and experiences are inscribed within broader cultural and political milieus. In contrast to conventional mainstream epistemology, which often marginalizes emotion as incompatible with rational inquiry, feminist epistemology repudiates the Cartesian dichotomy between rationality and emotion. Instead, it regards emotion as a culturally constructed phenomenon amenable to rational scrutiny, akin to other culturally inscribed forms of conduct.22 Within feminist ontology, the notion of the “body” assumes nuanced significance. It is construed not merely as a corporeal entity but rather as a locus of contested significations, experiences, and affective states, enmeshed within discourses of power and control within specific socio-cultural milieus. The body, within this framework, is conceptualized as an evolving entity, subject to mutable interpretations and imbued with fluid connotations.
In response to transformative shifts in the conceptualization of corporeality, French feminist scholars, including Hélène Cixous,23 Julia Kristeva, and notably Luce Irigaray, have made significant contributions to theoretical discourse. Of particular note is Irigaray’s deconstructive inquiry into the hierarchical organization of sexual desire, premised upon the hegemony of the phallus. Central to her theoretical framework is the proposition that women’s agency in matters of sexuality emanates from the plurality of labial contact and pleasure. Consequently, she positions women as active agents of desire rather than passive recipients of male gratification. Irigaray’s theoretical intervention transcends the dichotomous opposition between essentialism and constructivism, thus engendering a nuanced interrogation of women’s sexual autonomy while simultaneously destabilizing dualistic paradigms of biological essentialism and social constructivism. Her conceptualization of the essence of women’s bodies constitutes a strategic intervention within the political sphere, providing women with a discursive platform through which to assert agency within realms of cognition and discourse.24
Another group of feminist scholars, exemplified by Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter, advanced the notion that epistemology transcends mere knowledge acquisition, serving as a conduit for liberation and the democratization of knowledge production. They underscored the critical importance of scrutinizing the mechanisms through which knowledge is endowed with power and the beneficiaries of such empowerment. Central to their argument is the assertion that a robust feminist epistemology necessitates reflexivity, shedding light on social realities, and undergoing empirical validation through active engagement with tangible political struggles, rather than remaining confined within the realm of academic discourse.25 In essence, if feminism aspires to emancipate women, it must address all manifestations of oppression in concert, acknowledging that women occupy multifaceted positions within intersecting systems of domination. Indeed, the ontology of women has evolved, challenging essentialist conceptions of womanhood. Illustrated by the diverse experiences of individuals such as the marginalized upper-caste Indian girl, the elderly heterosexual Latina, and the working-class white lesbian, each occupies unique positions within the matrix of oppression. Consequently, embracing a liberatory feminist approach extends beyond the realm of gender exclusivity; it entails drawing upon feminism’s commitment to unraveling the complexities of oppression and reconstructing the societal fabric.26
From Santos’ perspective, the act of distancing oneself from the Eurocentric tradition embodies an acknowledgement of the inexhaustible diversity of global experiences, defying reduction to a singular theoretical framework. As a result, there is a pressing imperative for an epistemological shift.27 Embracing Santos’ advocacy for such a transformative epistemological shift, as espoused by Jean and John Comaroff, symbolizes a revitalizing of contemporary political imaginaries, predicated on an erudite engagement with perspectives emanating from the Global South. Conceptualized not merely as a geographical entity but as a cognitive locus, the Global South emerges as a crucible of alternative epistemic formations forged through histories of struggle and resistance. It represents a fertile terrain for re-envisioning prevailing world orders and nurturing emergent political trajectories. In this expansive narrative, the Global South assumes the dual mantle of a tangible reality and an aspirational beacon, embodying nascent political potentials, heterogeneous historical narratives, and a horizon suffused with transformative possibilities.28
Southern epistemologies endeavor to engender emergent modes of knowledge and ontologies originating from the global South, with the aim of fostering conditions conducive to marginalized social groups articulating their perceptions of the world autonomously, thus effecting transformative shifts aligned with their unique aspirations and viewpoints. Central to these epistemological frameworks is the valorization of art and sensory experiences as potent forces in shaping knowledge paradigms. Historically, Northern epistemology has marginalized artistic expression within the confines of rationalist knowledge, relegating it to the realms of emotion, subjectivity, and creativity. Therefore, a crucial imperative arises for a cognitive arena of confrontation, wherein the idioms and syntaxes of art are enlisted to reconstruct subjectivities, narrate histories, and articulate the struggles of resistance. Contemplating experiences borne of social strife demands a multidimensional approach, incorporating epistemological, geographical, and political dimensions. From this perspective, the South emerges as a reservoir of multifaceted and heterogeneous perspectives. Facilitating dialogue among diverse Southern voices through intercultural and interpolitical exchanges facilitates the generation of legitimate and pertinent knowledge from myriad standpoints, as well as the adoption of diverse modes of articulation. Southern epistemology advocates for a reconfigured ethical stance vis-à-vis knowledge production — one that is performative, therapeutic, and transformative. This ethical paradigm transcends decolonial, democratizing, and depatriarchal discourses, foregrounding the ascendancy of the South and attending to the marginalized knowledge of individual and collective subjects, characterized by its unruliness, subversiveness, and rebelliousness. Proponents of Southern epistemology refrain from endorsing a monolithic theoretical framework, instead advocating for a theoretical plurality encompassing diverse struggles and alternative cosmologies. This approach aims to dismantle the notion of a global periphery and integrate the Global South as an integral constituent of a pluriverse characterized by multiple loci of knowledge production.29
Indigenous onto-epistemology serves as a testament to the collective experiences of indigenous communities worldwide, who have contended with a spectrum of adversities, ranging from political subjugation to cultural and economic marginalization. A salient predicament arises from the enduring hegemony of external epistemologies, which persistently overshadow and subordinate indigenous modes of cognition, thereby perpetuating their marginalized status.
According to Shawn Wilson, a Canadian Indigenous scholar, Indigenous scholarship is deeply rooted in a worldview that fundamentally conceives of knowledge as intrinsically “relational.”30 Wilson accentuates the paramount importance of relationality within Indigenous thought, positing that relationships form the very fabric of reality, thereby delineating Indigenous epistemological and ontological frameworks. He contends that Indigenous axiology and methodology are similarly underpinned by the imperative of nurturing and honoring relationships. Consequently, research endeavors within Indigenous contexts are imbued with ceremonial significance, serving as acts aimed at cultivating and fortifying interpersonal connections.31 Wilson advocates for the adoption of an Indigenous research paradigm distinguished by its incorporation of Indigenous ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology. These foundational principles inform the methodological approaches adopted by researchers striving to apprehend the intricacies of the universe. He argues that for Indigenous communities, a central aspect of their identity resides in their unique perceptual apparatus, which shapes their understanding of the world and their place within it. Hence, Indigenous research methodologies must encompass cosmological, worldview, epistemological, and ethical considerations in conjunction with chosen research topics.32
Wilson derives perspectives from the scholarship of Mayan academic Carlos Cordero in order to underscore the divergence between indigenous research paradigms and Western epistemologies.33 Cordero elucidates a fundamental dichotomy, wherein Western knowledge systems compartmentalize scientific inquiry away from artistic and religious domains, whereas Indigenous knowledge systems interlace these spheres of comprehension. As a result, Indigenous scientific knowledge assumes religious and spiritual dimensions in addition to aesthetic implications. Furthermore, while the Western tradition accords primacy to knowledge acquisition via intellectual faculties, Indigenous knowledge acquisition is predicated upon sensory perception and intuition.34
Wilson argues that an exploration of Indigenous epistemologies inevitably leads to the recognition of relationality as a central imperative. Within Indigenous ontologies, he posits the existence of multiple realities akin to the constructivist research paradigm, challenging the notion of a singular, objective reality in favor of a mosaic of diverse relationships constituting Indigenous ontology. Accordingly, reality is construed not as a static entity but as a fluid, relational process. Indigenous ontology, Wilson contends, functions as a theory of knowledge grounded in the fundamental principle of relationality. Knowledge, within this framework, extends beyond individual boundaries to encompass relationships not only among humans but also with the broader natural world, including animals, plants, and the Earth itself.35 Moreover, in addition to emphasizing the relational nature of Indigenous epistemologies, Wilson underscores the paramount significance of land within Indigenous societies. Land is revered as the cornerstone, shaping all facets of existence, encompassing place, environment, reality, and the very space which individuals inhabit. Furthermore, he highlights the heightened importance attributed to space within Indigenous worldviews, surpassing the conventional emphasis on time prevalent in Western thought.36 Wilson maintains that Indigenous peoples must vigilantly defend their rights, sacred relational laws, and intellectual property rights. As an Indigenous researcher, he affirms his commitment to the underlying worldview and philosophy that inform his scholarly pursuits.37
Notably, Wilson’s conceptualization of Indigenous onto-epistemology anchored in relationality resonates with the scholarship of numerous other academics, including Zoe Todd,38 Eve Tuck, and Marcia McKenzie,39 among others. Taiwanese Amis artist Rahic Talif approaches from a perspective beyond land and organisms, addressing the oceans and materials (including artificial ones) that connect the entire Earth, proposing a fluid onto-epistemological perspective that transcends anthropocentrism. Taiwanese Atayal artist Yuma Taru, on the other hand, utilizes Atayal weaving as a means of establishing relationships, developing a knowledge system that connects the traditional Atayal Gaga, woven by spirits, with the current existential circumstances.40
40 Sandy Hsiu-chih Lo, “The Artistic Sailing of Marine Debris and the Rainbow Weaving of Atayal Ethnography: Mapping the Polyphony in the Art Works of Rahic Talif and Yuma Taru,” in Unesco Observatory (2023) 10:1. https://www.unescoejournal.com/volume-10
In the contemporary intellectual landscape, resonating with calls to safeguard epistemological integrity, advocate for alternative cognitive frameworks, and navigate the burgeoning plurality of individual epistemologies, Alberto Corsín Jiménez introduces the metaphor of “spider web Anthropologies” as a salient heuristic for engaging with the complexities of contemporary ontology and epistemology. Jiménez posits that conceptualizing a spider web offers a nuanced lens through which to comprehend the dynamic and precarious nature of our present milieu. The spider’s web serves as a dual emblem, simultaneously representing a mechanism for ensnaring both prey and predators and an ecological scaffold delineating the intricate architecture of an ecosystem.
The utilization of the spider web trap activation method, characterized by its recursive modality, serves as a mechanism for elucidating prospective environments and their descriptive articulations. This methodological approach embodies a dual environmentalization technology, wherein the world undergoes concurrent transformation while preserving its extant manifestations. This iterative process entails the parallel act of both describing worlds and worlding descriptions. The progression of the spider web trap method unfolds through the assimilation of each novel description, akin to the ensnarement of prey within adhesive entanglements, thereby engendering terraformed ecologies, material deceits, and tensions. Traps, as emblematic motifs within twentieth-century scientific discourse, serve as potent instruments; however, their capacity to ensnare unexpected subjects necessitates a keen anticipation of unanticipated contingencies beyond the purview of the spider’s sensory faculties.
The pervasive influence of nature’s design is manifest within the intricate weaving of the spider’s web, symbolizing an ontological ecology wherein nature assumes the role of trap, ecology acts as its infrastructure, and the spider web serves as the interface mediating their entanglement. Jiménez draws attention to Alfred Gell as a prominent figure among anthropologists who have earnestly engaged with the trap metaphor, with Gell positing artworks as entrapments that encapsulate complex social relations within their environmental milieu. He contends that traps, akin to Duchamp’s readymades, conceptualize the world as a nexus of entanglements between humans and their environment, concurrently serving as both models and instruments.41 In essence, Jiménez underscores trapping as a potentially fertile anthropological technique capable of engendering “suspension without relinquishing contextual entanglements.” Furthermore, he elucidates how urban furniture archetypes operate analogously, facilitating conditions conducive to social seduction.42
By adopting the metaphor of the spider web to expound upon the theory of knowledge, one may discern the operational dynamics of ontology as inherently political in nature. Isabelle Stengers introduces the concept of ontological politics, positing nuanced interpretations of both ontology and politics. She advances the notion that diplomats, to a certain extent, partake in speculative endeavors, intervening in conflicts with the aim of fostering potential peace accords. The realization of cohabitation among divergent worlds hinges upon diplomatic elites embracing the feasibility of peace, thereby advocating for the primacy of “giving peace a chance” as a prerequisite for diplomatic intervention. However, Stengers posits ontological politics as introducing an alternative conjecture, one that implicates a formidable and untrustworthy protagonist—the global West. She portrays the global West not as a self-contained “world” but rather as a “machine” that undermines both political and ontological frameworks, prioritizing reconciliation, and policing actions, over genuine peace initiatives.43 Stengers advocates for a discerning examination of Bruno Latour’s “Parliament of Things,” cautioning against the inherent limitations within its framework. While the “Parliament of All Things” adheres to the Greek political tradition, facilitating free negotiation among a cohort of individuals expressing diverse knowledge and experiences, opposition or non-negotiable stances risk dismissal and are frequently perceived as disruptive. To mitigate such constraints, Stengers introduces the concept of “cosmopolitics,” incorporating the prefix “cosmo-” to underscore its disruptive potential. Disruptive events, she contends, engender scenarios that challenge conventional human deliberative frameworks, diverging from reliance on institutions steeped in deliberation and transaction.44 Moreover, Stengers emphasizes the concept of “living in the ruins,” which Donna Haraway derives from Anna Tsing, as an instructive framework. This notion underscores the imperative of grappling with ruins across varied contexts, prompting a reassessment of strategies for inhabiting and navigating these remnants. The imperative of ontological politics, she posits, should be interwoven with the discourse surrounding ruins, serving as a catalyst for scholarly engagement with these vestiges.45 Ultimately, Stengers accentuates the transformative potential of ontological politics, asserting that narratives, rituals, negotiation modalities, and modes of thought possess the capacity to reconfigure our fractured worlds and forge connections with alternate realities—an inheritance she deems indispensable for successive generations needing to navigate life amidst ruins and to envisage potential alternative modes of existence.46
Our interaction with the world is inherently shaped by the lens of perception. Without a comprehensive grasp of diverse ontological and epistemological paradigms, the practice of curating, underpinned by the ethos of “care,” risks vacillating between nurturing and authoritative control. The absence of such comprehension may precipitate cognitive violence, where biases and entrenched predispositions incline towards regulatory inclinations. Consequently, the establishment of an ontological and epistemological milieu rooted in the tenets of multiverse theory assumes pivotal significance within the domain of contemporary art curation. The concept of “holy fear” gains salience as it unveils a sense of divine reverence, evoked by the multifaceted realities articulated through myriad onto-epistemologies.
The ontological and epistemological orientations embraced by individuals or collectives are dynamic constructs undergoing continual evolution, characterized by processes of inception, perpetuation, and divergence. It is commonplace for individuals or groups to concurrently harbor multiple ontology-epistemologies. However, in certain contexts, individuals and collectives may deem it necessary to espouse a distinct ontology-epistemology so as to navigate complexities, uphold order, or facilitate interaction and negotiation with external entities. Such frameworks serve as foundational underpinnings for engagement and discourse. Central to our collective discourse is the quest for a robust ethical framework capable of embodying the onto-epistemological principle of “sharing-the-world-with-others.”
The ensuing contributions within this issue encompass a diverse array of inquiries, notably explored in “A Chronicle of ‘the Open World’ and the Chiang Rai Biennale 2023” authored by Sorayut Aiem-UeaYut, “The Exhibition Is Not Enough: Evolving Trends in Indonesian Art Biennials” by Ayos Purwoaji, and “Streaming Discourse: Phnom Penh as a Dialogued Space” co-authored by Pen Sereypagna and Vuth Lyno. Aiem-UeaYut’s discourse delves into the intricate nexus of politics and aesthetics within Thailand, particularly scrutinizing the trajectory of the biennale format through the lens of the 2023 Thailand Biennale held in Chiang Mai. The analysis meticulously examines the delicate equilibrium sustained by contemporary Thai art amidst nationalist undercurrents, global modernization exigencies, resistance against authoritarian paradigms, and endeavors geared towards democratizing the artistic sphere. Propounding for a recalibration of societal perceptions and consciousness rooted in principles of equality and democracy, the author concludes by appraising nationalist ideologies and contemporary power dynamics. Purwoaji, in his exploration of Indonesia’s artistic landscape, accentuates the concurrent unfolding of three distinctive art biennials: the 17th Yogyakarta Biennale (Biennale Jogja), the 10th East Java Biennale (Biennale Jatim), and the 5th Makassar Biennale. Through a meticulous scrutiny of the Makassar Biennale, Purwoaji underscores the biennale’s function as a conduit for social choreography, underscored by a commitment to decolonizing knowledge and an elevation of indigenous epistemologies. By elucidating the biennale’s role as a vehicle for aesthetic experiences intertwined with the forging of novel social structures and relations, Purwoaji illuminates the transformative potential inherent within such artistic endeavors. Finally, the collaborative endeavor of Sereypagna and Lyno revolves around “Currents: Phnom Penh Arts and Urban Festival 2019,” employing a curatorial approach dispersing performance venues across 14 discrete locations within the city. Their methodology conceptualizes the urban milieu not merely as a physical construct but as a dynamic tapestry interwoven with thoughts, dialogues, tensions, and aspirations. By framing the entire performance as a dialogue with the urban landscape, the authors illustrate how art can catalyze the reconfiguration of spatial order and perception, thereby transmuting urbanization into fluid conduits for observing, comprehending, recollecting, and reimagining, thereby laying the groundwork for social praxis and reform.
While delineating distinct focal points, this trio of articles collectively emphasizes the potential for diverse individuals to collaboratively shape a paradigm of “sharing-the-world-with-others” through various curatorial initiatives. These deliberations illuminate the curatorial domain’s capacity to cultivate a realm of “revelation” and underscore the avenues through which curatorial practices can facilitate ethical onto-epistemological flourishing.
1 Bonaventura de Sousa Santos, Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide (London and New York: Routledge, 2014).
2 Chris J. Cuomo, Feminism and Ecological Communities: An Ethic of Flourishing (London: Routledge, 1998).
3 Boaventura de Sousa Santos, “Toward an Aesthetics of the Epistemologies of the South: Manifesto in Twenty-two Theses,” in Knowledge Born in the Struggle: Constructing the Epistemologies of the Global South, ed. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa and Maria Paula Menses (London and New York: Routledge, 2020), 117.
4 Ibid.
5 Boaventura de Sousa Santos. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide, 45.
6 Martin Savransky, “Worlds in the Making: Social Sciences and the Ontopolitics of Knowledge.” Postcolonial Studies, (2012), Vol. 15, No. 3, 353.
7Ibid., 353-354.
8 Ibid., 354.
9 Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought(New York: The Viking Press), 167-168.
10 Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press), 289.
11 Ibid.
12In many of Arendt’s works, one can observe her references to Kantian thought. Particularly in Chapter Six, “Cultural Crisis: Its Social and Political Significance,” in Between Past and Future. She delves deeply into discussions on judgment, empathy, and taste, developing her own insights. See Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future: Eight Exercise in Political Thought.
13 Ibid.,223.
14 Ibid.,224-225.
15 Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition. 303.
16 Donald Presiosi, “Curatorship as Bildungsroman Or, from Hamlet to Hjelmslev,” in Curatorial Challenges: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Contemporary Curating, Hansen, Malene Vest et al. eds. (London and New York: Routledge, 2019), 11.
17 In The Life of the Mind, Hannah Arendt proposes that the commonality shared by all the numerous entities existing in the world and entered by humans after birth is the essence of appearance. She points out that existence and appearance are inseparable, and what repeats along with phenomena is the diversity of animal senses, representing that every living being has its own world (pages 46-48). As mentioned earlier, Arendt believes that humans, who aim to manifest themselves in the world, rely on action as the only reliable way to explore ontology or knowledge. See Hannah Arendt, The Life of the Mind.
Shawn Wilson succinctly concludes that ontology questions what is real, while epistemology explores how to know what is real. See Shawn Wilson, Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods (Halifax and Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing, 2008), 33.
18 Liz Stanley, and Sue Wise, Breaking out again: Feminist ontology and epistemology (London and New York: Routledge, 1983, 1993. This edition is published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002), 188-189.
19 Linda Alcoff, and Elizabeth Potter, “Introduction,” in Feminist Epistemologies, Aloof, Linda and Elizabeth Potter eds. (London and New York: Routledge, 1993), 4.
20 Liz Stanley and Sue Wise, Breaking out again: Feminist ontology and epistemology, 200.
21 Ibid., 223.
22 Ibid., 192.
23 Hélène Cixous’s concept of “écriture féminine” (feminine writing) pioneered the writing of women’s differentiated bodies and life experiences. She first introduced the term “écriture féminine” in her essay “The Laugh of the Medusa” in Feminisms redux: An anthology of literary theory and criticism, Robyn Warhol-Down and Diane Price Herald eds. (Rutgers University Press, 2009), 416-431.
24 Luce Irigaray, This Sex Which Is Not One, Catherine Porter and Burke trans. (Cornell University Press, 1985).
25 Linda Alcoff, and Elizabeth Potter, “Introduction,” in Feminist Epistemologies, 13-14.
26 Ibid., 4.
27 Santos, Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide, 45.
28 Jean and John Comaro, Recommended preface, in Knowledges Born in the Struggle: Constructing the Epistemologies of the Global South, Boaventura de Sousa Santos and Maria Paula Meneses eds. (New York and London: Routledge, 2020).
29 Ibid., 242-244.
30 Shawn Wilson, “Using Indigents Research to Shape Our Future,” in Decolonizing Social Work, Mel Gray, John Coates, Michael Yellow Bird and Tiani Hetherington eds. (London and New York: Routledge, 2016), 311.
31 Shawn Wilson, Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. (Halifax and Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing, 2008), p.7. In this book, when he mentions Indigenous peoples, he is referring to those in Canada, Australia, and other related peoples and ethnicities. Ibid., 34.
32 Ibid., 11-15.
33 Carlos Cordero, “A Working and Evolving Definition of Culture,” Canadian Journal of Native Education 21 (Supplement), 7-13.
34 Shawn Wilson, Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods, 55.
35 Ibid., 58-73.
36 Ibid., 87-88.
37 Ibid., 137.
38 Todd, Zoe,” An indigenous feminist’s take on the ontological turn: ‘Ontology’ is just another word for colonialism.” Journal of Historical Sociology (2016) 29:1, pp. 4-22.
39 Eve Tuck and Marcia McKenzie, Place in research: Theory, methodology, and methods (New York: Routledge, 2015).
40 Sandy Hsiu-chih Lo, “The Artistic Sailing of Marine Debris and the Rainbow Weaving of Atayal Ethnography: Mapping the Polyphony in the Art Works of Rahic Talif and Yuma Taru,” in Unesco Observatory (2023) 10:1. https://www.unescoejournal.com/volume-10
41 Alberto Corsín Jiménez, “Spiderweb Anthropologies: Ecologies, Infrastructures, Entanglements,” in A World of Many Worlds, Marisol de la Cadena and Mario eds. (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2018), 53-63.
42 Ibid., 74.
43 Isabelle Stengers, “The Challenge of Ontological Politics,” in A World of Many Worlds, Marisol de la Cadena and Mario eds. (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2018), 84-85.
44 Ibid., 101.
45 Ibid., 107.
46 Ibid., 108.
Share
Author
Sandy Hsiu-chih Lo is an independent curator whose main research areas include urban studies, philosophical construction of space, gender politics, contemporaneity of indigenous art, and situated knowledge. Her current program focuses on curating as a method of social practice, spatial practice, and critical thinking. Curating topography, a curatorial practice method that she has actively used in recent years, uses relative and relational spatial concepts to bring to light different cultural concepts such as myths, legends, history, memories, morals, ethics, desires and rights embedded in the pluralistic dialectic concept of place in order to strengthen political and ethical transformation through the contrast, confrontation, overlap, and juxtaposition in the becoming of place.
Her major curatorial projects include “Di Hwa Sewage Treatment Plant Art Installation: A New Cosmopolitan World”, ”Street Theatre” (awarded as the best curating work and outstanding project by Ministry of Culture, Taipei, 2004-2005), “Pop Pill” (“Shanghai Cool”, Taiwan Section, Doland Museum, Shanghai, 2005), “Border-crossing, A Tale of Two Cities” (Taipei, Shanghai, 2005-2006), “Exorcising Exoticism”(Taipei, 2006), “Poetic Borderline” (“Borderliner”, Taiwan Section, Festival of Contemporary Art Varna, Bulgaria, 2007). She is the co-curator of the related project of 9th Shanghai Biennale “Zhongshan Park Project”(the related project of 9th Shanghai Biennale, Taiwan, China, 2012-2013), “A Revelation from Ponso no Tao”(Orchid Island, Taiwan, 2014), “Taitung Ruin Academy”(Taitung, Taiwan, 2014), “Topography of Mirror Cities” (Taipei, Dhaka, Bangkok, Jakarta, Phnom Penh and Kuala Lumpur, 2015-2021), “2018 Kuandu Biennale Seven Questions for Asia” (2018-2019), “2019 Green Island Human Rights Art Festival Visiting No.15 Liumagou: Memory, Place and Narrative” and “2020 Green Island Human Rights Art Festival If on the Margin, Draw a Coordinate.”
Sponsor
