Diasporic Aesthetics: Towards a definition
Rebecca VanDiver, Vanderbilt University
Although regularly understood to be the forced dispersal of individuals (often African-descended),
in recent years the term ‘Diaspora’ has expanded to include not only the movement, dislocation
and relocation of bodies, but also of objects and ideas. Resulting from this increased scholarly
attention is a range of new applications that broaden the concept’s geographic, topical, and
institutional boundaries. These new uses range from the site-specific (e.g. ‘South Asian diaspora’)
to the thematic (e.g. ‘queer diasporas’). In that vein, this panel seeks to address new definitions of
what might be termed Diasporic aesthetics. The assembled papers consider: the impact of
Armenian Genocide and its resultant Diaspora on art and architecture, question aesthetic
strategies deployed by Black British artists and artists working in the former Yugoslav region,
explore Diasporic tropes in the work of single artists and at the most recent Venice Biennale.
Alyson Wharton (University of Lincoln)
Armenian Architecture and Diaspora: Historicism and perpetuation of identity to reconfiguration of
‘Armenity’
Until the growth of the modern Diaspora, following the 1915 Genocide, architecture found in its
diverse communities was syncretic and had a close relationship to local styles. The 17th-century
Cathedral in New Julfa, Safavid Persia, incorporated parallels to mosques and homes of the ruling
elite. The iconography of the Cathedral made reference to European prints, reflecting the
circulation networks of artists and patrons (see: Landau 2012, Laporte-Eftekharian 2011, and
Babaie et al 2004). In the 20th century there was increasing recourse to historical models in
Armenian architecture. This can be seen in the Paris Church of St John the Baptist (built 1902),
which looks to the 10th-century Akhtamar Cathedral in Lake Van, Turkey. Following the Genocide,
medieval models became predominant. The spread of historicism was related to the academic
training of Armenian architects, archaeological discoveries and restoration works taking place in
the late 19th and early 20th centuries (see: Maranci 2002). Its continued use can be explained by
the trauma of Genocide and the stress within communities on keeping identity alive. The hybrid
side to Armenian architecture has been downplayed, in favour of national unity. Communal
changes and the 100th year commemoration of the Genocide have provided an opportunity to take
stock: the (winning) Armenian pavilion at the Venice Biennale, for instance, was on the subject of
‘Armenity’ and stressed the participants as global citizens in the process of reinventing Armenianness. This paper discusses Armenian Diasporic aesthetics as expressed through architecture and
recent reconfigurations of this identity.
Margarita Kamalyan (Institute of Arts, National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia)
Armenian Diasporic Artists in France: Integrating successfully, but retaining their roots
The modern Armenian diaspora was formed as a result of the genocide conducted by the
government of the Ottoman Empire (1915–23). One of its most eminent communities, not only in
terms of population but also artistic achievement, was that which established itself in France.
French painters of Armenian origin studied and adopted the methods of Modern European art
while producing work that was more or less influenced by their cultural traditions, beliefs and
memories. They founded artistic unions, such as Ani (1926),The Union of Free Armenian Artists
(1931) and Toros Roslin (1968), and many of them gained nationwide fame and honours. It was
the aim of these artists to express their gratitude to France and demonstrate their integration into
French culture whilst also testifying to the spirit and vitality of their own national, historical and
cultural heritage. They achieved this by producing an oeuvre of high artistic merit and humanism
1
which has been acknowledged in France as a contribution to that country's own culture. By
providing an overview of the lives and achievements of renowned diasporic artists such as Carzou,
Jansem, Shart, Melkon Kebabdjian, Zareh Mutafian, Richard Jeranian and others, and by
exploring the depictions of the Armenian themes, most notably the Armenian Genocide, this study
hopes to partially shed light on how the French-Armenian painters were able to integrate
themselves into the host society while maintaining their national identity through art.
Jonathan Blackwood (Gray’s School of Art, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen)
Diasporas of Dissolution: Artistic strategies in the post-Yugoslav space
This paper addresses the very specific circumstances faced by generations of artists, obliged to
enter into a diasporic relationship with a country – and set of social, historical and cultural
narratives – that no longer exists. It focuses on the implications of diaspora when forced upon its
subjects, rather than a diaspora based on communities of exile formed voluntarily for whatever
reason. The paper presents a diverse group of artists active in the territorial space of exYugoslavia. These artists can be seen as representative of a continually evolving ‘diasporic
experience’, using humour, performance, reflections on architecture and space, and on gender
politics. The unifying element amongst these diverse practices is political: the critical reflection on
the loss of one set of circumstances based on the official Yugoslav narrative of ‘Brotherhood and
Unity’. Interestingly, none of the artists whom we will present in this talk are what is disparagingly
referred to as ‘Yugonostalgic’; they are as critical of the socialist past, in most cases, as they are of
the neo-liberal present. Diaspora in this specific set of circumstances can mean the using of the
lessons from a time past to influence and inform political alternatives in times present; diaspora as
critical memory or reflection; the development of nomadic artistic practices. Deliberately, the artists
who have been chosen to illustrate this process are those who are active in 2015–16 and who
have a socially engaged, critical practice. Amongst the artists who will be presented are Adela
Jusic (Sarajevo, Bosnia), Andreja Kuluncic (Zagreb), Milijana Babic (Rijeka) and Oliver Musovik
(Skopje).
Leon Wainwright (The Open University)
Phenomenal Difference: Toward a philosophy of black British art
This presentation will respond to the challenge of how to account for the place of aesthetics in the
specific field of attention to diaspora culture, by exploring ‘affective’ modes of inquiry in the context
of the black British art. Grasping such art in its physical, perceptual immediacy can be assisted by
philosophical thought, ranging from early 20th century phenomenology to recent interest in the
emotions and embodiment. The emphasis here is on visual description, in order to satisfy the aim
of parsing concerns about art and aesthetics with those of the social imaginary and field of
representation that has characterised art historical work on diaspora. Such attention to the
materiality of the practices of diaspora artists bears a strategic purpose in recognising the
philosophical value of artworks from the 1980s to the late 2000s in Britain by artists of Africa, Asian
and Caribbean backgrounds. The presentation will contend that before contemporary scholarship
made its ‘ontological turn’, these artists had already undertaken to broaden and unsettle the more
familiar critical concepts that have circulated under the sign of diaspora cultural studies (‘diaspora
aesthetics’ not least among them). This is to be identified through what can be called ‘phenomenal
difference’: the chiasmic interworking and transformation of critical and aesthetic experience at the
site of artworks themselves.
2
Olga Speakes (University of Cape Town)
Out of the Diaspora: Moshekwa Langa’s travels, maps and landscapes
The paper situates itself in the field of visual studies of African diaspora artists and focuses on the
contemporary African diaspora in the West. It proposes that the concept of diaspora aesthetics,
within the context of Western institutional and art-market structures, has been used as a marker
and a condition of visibility for artists from the Global South residing in Western centres of artistic
production. It looks at some of the drivers behind the celebration and promotion of diaspora
aesthetics in the work of artists from the African continent and their inclusion in and, at times, cooption by the evolving Western-centric canon. Looking at the example of artistic practice of
Moshekwa Langa, a South African artist whose practice is located both in Europe (Holland and
Germany) and in South Africa, the paper sets to examine the role that the search for diaspora
aesthetics plays both as an enabling and a reductive force of his artistic career. It highlights
examples of how diasporic aesthetics is used as a signifier and a mechanism for admission into
Contemporary Art discourse and exhibition circuit. It addresses issues around artistic agency and
resistance strategies in Moshekwa Langa’s practice and in the way he actively positions himself
within rather than on the dedicated diasporic margins of contemporary global art practice and
discourse. The paper aims to critically engage with identity-based approach to aesthetics in the
work of diaspora artists and to propose alternative views that reflect the changing landscape of
contemporary art practice.
Natasha Bissonauth (Cornell University)
Brendan Fernandes’ Foe: Failed migrant sound
Brendan Fernandes’ video performance, Foe (2008), unsettles the fascination with hybridity, a
common theoretical reference in diaspora studies. Reciting lines from Coetzee’s 1986 novel, Foe,
in his Canadian, Indian, and Kenyan accents, Fernandes attempts the impossible task of parsing
out his so-called cultural allegiances, undermining any attempt to do so. As he fails to meet
conventional expectations around what ‘culture’ should ‘sound’ like, I draw on Jack Halberstam’s
queer failure to interrogate normative structures of success. Bearing Halberstam in mind, what
does it mean to inherit accents, to be instructed in these accents, to perform them and to fail at this
performance? Beyond the camera, we hear an acting coach, representing the voice of reason or
the way you are supposed to create the appropriate sound. Yet, despite clear instructions
Fernandes’s sound is not contained by his inheritance, nor by these instructions and, as such,
spills over. This excess subversively exposes the artifice of language. Furthermore, as close-ups
spotlight the physical stretching of his mouth and the forehead lines that mark his frustrations,
Fernandes’s performance embodies the cultural enactment of speech as a strained effort. And so,
when Fernandes frames his work as an investigation in language and cultural identity, I hesitate to
take him at his word, because I suggest Fernandes does more. He shatters expectations around
what constitutes Kenyan-ness, Indian-ness, diaspora-ness, yes, but does so through impossibility,
through unbecoming, rendering failure a productive and illuminating method couched in
embodiment and movement.
Hava Aldouby (The Open University of Israel)
Diasporic Skins: A somoto-cultural exploration of the 56th Venice Biennial (2015)
The present paper explores the recently closing 56th Venice Biennial (2015) as a site of pervasive
engagement with skin, a key topos of diasporic aesthetics. In a diasporic context, skin is a site of
uneasiness, alienation and lack, manifested in somatic as well as cultural registers. ‘Migratory
aesthetics’ has been defined by Mieke Bal (2007) as ‘a quality of the world in which mobility is not
the exception but on its way to becoming the standard’ (23). Subsumed under the curatorial
3
statement of All the World’s Futures, the Venice Biennial featured diverse engagements of (and
with) skin, which bear on the investigation of diasporic aesthetics. The present paper looks at
works by Chun Kwang Young (Korea), Pamela Rosenkranz (Switzerland), Mohau Modisakeng
(South Africa), and Wu Tien Chang (Taiwan), as representative of a wider range of works, on show
at the Biennale’s central and peripheral venues. The discussion shall focus on how the works at
stake render skin haptically present, activating networks of somatosensory arousal and empathy.
Drawing on recent studies in neuroaesthetics (Gallese 2005, 2007), it will be argued that the
recurrent engagement with skin, a primal site of pain, in fact constitutes a restorative countermove. Affording ‘sentient binding’ (Bal 2007), it restores a sense of embodiment, community and
presence to alienated subjects of the diasporic condition.
4