Introduction: Art and culture – actors or representatives?

ABSTRACT

Central Asian art and culture have been gaining increased attention both within the region and on the international scene. This special issue brings together scholars and participants in the Central Asian cultural scene who specialize in different, often isolated, spheres. This multidisciplinary approach will enhance understanding of the current trends of display, presentation, accessibility and analysis that relate to individual countries, as well as to the entire region. Some articles are by established scholars; most have resulted from extensive field research. The papers question existing notions of history and memory production by applying a decolonial discourse. Ultimately, the main unifying theme is that of identity and its formation, including national, ethnic, cultural, religious and gender. The main purpose of this special issue is to try to understand the role the cultural scene plays in society, the issues raised by cultural production and the shape it could take. The collection of papers here seeks to explore whether culture offers a representation of society and its potential for change, or the vehicle through which such change can be achieved.

KEYWORDS:

• culture
• art
• architecture
• music
• identity
• decolonial discourse
• gender

This special issue of Central Asian Survey is a collection of multidisciplinary papers providing a fresh, scholarly perspective on art and culture in Central Asia. The papers resulted from the Seventh Annual Doctoral Research Workshop on Central Asia, which took place at Senate House, University of London, on 26 January 2019. It was organized by Gül Berna Özcan, Aliya de Tiesenhausen, Gulzat Botoeva and Rosa Vercoe. The majority of the contributing articles originate from current or recently completed research studies.

Central Asian art and culture have been gaining increased attention both within the region and on the international scene. Influenced by the golden ages of its history – from the ancient Scythians, through the glory of the Persians and Turks, shaped by the Russian and later Soviet imperial powers – through historical and contemporary art, cinema, performance, architecture and literature, the region is seen as exotic, dramatic and universally topical. Art and culture are often viewed as part of the soft-power strategy employed by the states. At the same time, artists and authors increasingly find themselves at the forefront of social commentary.

This special issue brings together scholars and participants in the Central Asian cultural scene who specialize in different, often isolated, spheres. This multidisciplinary approach will enhance the understanding of the current trends of display, presentation, accessibility and analysis that relate to individual countries as well as the entire region. Contributions question the purely creative nature of art and present a critical approach to the role and use of culture by various actors – including states, commercial, charitable and non-governmental organizations, and individuals. This elucidates the complexity and interdependency of various stakeholders engaged in nation-building and the formation of national identities in the region.

Some of the papers are by established scholars; most have resulted from extensive field research. The articles question existing notions of history and memory production by applying a decolonial discourse. Ultimately, the main unifying interest is that of identity and its formation, including national, ethnic, cultural, religious and gender. Art and culture are shown to have active social roles – representing, analysing, questioning, and supporting social upheavals and change. All contributors use their disciplinary lenses imaginatively to tackle their selected issues and provide new ways to understand the social role of Central Asian art and culture.

Art history of any region or period offers a glimpse of society at the time. Some art supports known historical documents, other art contradicts and questions them. Whether it is one or the other is not in itself static – periodically reinterpretations of both history and art allow future generations to recognize new meanings, or in fact create them. However, it is the analysis of contemporary or recent art that presents the most pressing ethical as well as aesthetic questions which define or critique the current condition – both in the region and globally.

In contemporary Central Asia – the art scene is, according to Diana T. Kudaibergenova, an alternative forum for discussion (Kudaibergenova 2018b). In her view, it deals with four major themes: time, identity, state and self. Somewhat predictably, considering the fast-changing economic and political situation of the region, a lot of the discussion and analysis of this art resides in the oral and increasingly online spheres.

This journal itself is a testament to the strong interest in the region – in its society, politics and economy; however, less so in its cultural production. As the year 2020 has demonstrated, culture in most societies is often seen as a secondary activity, not vital to the functioning of society in times of crisis. However, this is a limited and top-down view – as opera sung on balconies, online theatre and artwork recreations on social media during the first quarantine attest. Culture may not be physically vital, but mentally it comes second only to live human contact.

This issue makes a contribution to a field (or several diverse fields) of study of Central Asian art and culture, with a particular interest in the recent research into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, dealing with issues that either directly affect contemporary Central Asian societies or are actively engaged in them. When one approaches the arts of this region and their study, it is necessary to note that both are quite different from Western notions of them. In the West, the art sphere relies on four pre-existing and well-established institutions: art education, art display, the art market and art criticism. All exist to some degree in Central Asia, but never to a defining extent, especially as far as contemporary art is concerned. On the one hand, state support for contemporary artists is uneven and limited, with some exceptions such as the extensive Focus Kazakhstan project in 2018, which while succeeding in producing four solid art exhibitions abroad nevertheless ended in several legal battles and a closure of the only Contemporary Art Centre at the National Museum. On the other hand, private interest is only starting to develop and is fragile – however, this is the only sphere where some consistency exists.

Criticism and analysis of art and culture in Central Asia happens on several interconnected levels. First, there is quite closely involved research, which includes the practitioners themselves – such as Tara Catherine Pandeya, Asel Kadyrkhanova, Saule Suleimenova and Kuanysh Bazargaliev (Pandeya 2020; Kadyrkhanova 2018; Suleimenova 2020a, 2020b; Bazargaliev, 2013). Although deemed problematic by some academic peers, this type of study is quite often an extension of historical or ethnographic research, which is recorded not only in text but also in physical (dance) or visual (art) interpretation. Therefore, one may suggest it is not purely research into the history of art, but certainly enriches such history.

Second, there are curator-critics who have strong and long-standing relationships with the practitioners – often having been instrumental in the development of their artistic careers. In Kazakhstan's contemporary art scene, these would include Valeria Ibraeva and Yulia Sorokina, Vladislav Sludsky and Aigerim Kapar (Ibraeva 2014; Sorokina 2006, 2015, 2016; Sludskiy 2020, 2021; Time and Astana, 2017; Yrysty 2019). This type of writing is for the most part highly informative, detailed and shows the expected intimate knowledge of both the artwork and the artist. It does place the art produced into the wider societal and art-historical context. To some extent, this writing functions as a continuation of the artwork, becomes part of its meaning. Both the practitioners and the curators produce content for exhibition catalogues, social media, and various local and international publications. Ibraeva's book is a notable exception – but it is in itself a compilation of her extensive writings on the Kazakh contemporary art scene. Both these groups of writers are taking an active part in the production and presentation of the new artistic material.

There are also local/internal researchers such as Alex Ulko, Moldiyar Yergebekov, Kulshat Medeuova, Alexandra Tsay, Alima Bissenova and Gulnara Abikeyeva who work with art, cinema, public monuments as expressions of memory or nation-building, and actively produce interdisciplinary academic analysis of the current situation from within (Ulko 2020; Yergebekov 2018; Medeuova 2020; Tsay 2017, 2018; Bissenova 2013; Abikeyeva 2003,2006). In addition, there are hybrid publications, mostly exhibition catalogues, which are produced outside of Central Asia, but in close cooperation between local and foreign professionals (Abykayeva-Tiesenhausen, 2016; Art from Central Asia: A Contemporary Archive, 2005; East of Nowhere: Contemporary Art from post-Soviet Asia, 2009; Erbossyn Meldibekov: The (Dis)Order of Things, 2009; Muzykstan: Media Generation of Contemporary Artists from Central Asia, 2007; Samman and Abykayeva-Tiesenhausen, 2007). There are also several notable researchers working abroad, trying to categorize and reorganize the information on Central Asian culture, or the wider former Soviet region, for the English-speaking audience. These include Madina Tlostanova, Diana T. Kudaibergenova, Rico Isaacs and Razia Sultanova.

In her writing, Madina Tlostanova addresses the role art plays in post-Soviet societies (Tlostanova 2017, 2018). The interplay of various conditions related to colonial past is revealed in her examination of art produced in as varied places as Estonia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Russia. These countries share a colonial past – some as colonizers, others as colonized. For the last 30 years they have inhabited a post-colonial narrative – both officially as independent states and within academic literature – and are subject to neo-colonial pressures from both old Eastern and new Western players. However, it is the decolonial nature of art-making and writing from the few artists whom Tlostanova analyses that gives a glimpse of activism and engagement and allows for new foundations and the possibility of a different, conceivably decolonial future.

Rico Isaacs his study of Kazakh cinema reveals the clear and consistent narratives that allow the reader to trace nation-building strategies and aspirations both dictated from above and offered from within the Kazakh society (Isaacs 2018). Isaacs draws a historical account of the development of Kazakh cinema from Soviet inception to contemporary times. By analysing it in a methodical and structured manner, the author provides an exploration of national identity and nationalism – imagined, portrayed or rehearsed on screen.

Diana T. Kudaibergenova explores national narratives from various perspectives. In her first book she traces the construction of history and nation through literature (Kudaibergenova 2017). Analysing major works of the Soviet period, their authors and context, Kudaibergenova draws a portrait of a cultural discourse that has shaped the national and nationalist ideologies that permeate both Soviet and post-Soviet Kazakh society. In her other writing the author addresses identity and social activism as parts of contemporary art structures in Central Asia (Kudaibergenova 2018a, 2018b).

Razia Sultanova's works give ethnomusicologist accounts of the results of an intersection of religion, gender and culture in Central Asia by looking at women's use of music within predominantly Muslim cultures that have been at different times historically and culturally affected by Shamanism, Sufism and Soviet policy (Sultanova 2014). By doing so, the author examines the historical and existing social norms as well as an interconnection between cultural production – such as music, and levels of personal and social identity and mentality.

The four authors above represent the current dominant English-language discourse surrounding Central Asian culture. This discourse centres on the interplay between social contexts of art/culture creation and consumption and the way context and product are affecting one another. The special issue aims to accomplish two things. On the one side, to examine new ways of seeing Central Asian culture by presenting recent research studies on the subject. On the other, to bring together scholars from fields of study that remain quite distant, yet on closer examination seem to share very similar issues and methods. The authors do bring out the relationship between culture and society and culture's ability to create meanings, however they do so by using new and often unexpected material. These include ‘heritaging’ of traditional social gatherings, artists and artworks that are often seen as marginal, a governmental building, a song that transcends religion and pop culture, an art scene which only counts a handful of players, and the peculiar fusion of gender as national identity. All six articles are united by the interest in the performed nature of culture; however, one can also sense a clear artistic agency in all the discussed cultural producers. While all deal to some extent with the issues of nation-building, most go beyond this very Central Asian concern and reveal interest in more intimate and delicate forms of identity search – rendering them more universal as a result.

In ‘Nation, religion and social heat: heritaging Uyghur mäshräp in Kazakhstan’, Rachel Harris and Ablet Kamalov take a close look at the tension and coexistence that can be associated with the use and revival of traditional forms of cultural exchange. The live and performed nature of tradition becomes a vehicle of exploration of wider society-defining issues such as nation, ethnicity and religion. The authors rely on extensive archival and ethnographic research into this intangible form of cultural heritage. They analyse its role on both the local and individual level and the international cross-border level. These traditional male gatherings play significant roles in transmitting language and culture while strengthening the communities. At the same time, their existence across the borders between Kazakhstan and China, and mäshräp's inscription on UNESCO's List of Intangible Cultural Heritage, underlines their importance for the preservation of Uyghur national identity. Preservation and revitalization of heritage are weighed against the ever-increasing pressures of state policy, Islamisation and nationalism. In the article, music, dancing and joking within this prescribed context are shown to become a forum for discussion and social action.

Christianna Bonin in ‘The art of the Sixtiers in Soviet Kazakhstan, or how to make a portrait from a skull’, examines another very current issue: that of representation and self-representation within a period that, while decisively post-colonial in the West, was nevertheless only the start of a possible grasp of the notion in the then-Soviet Kazakhstan. The article focuses on a generation of artists whose early careers coincided with the general loosening of the Socialist Realist grip and an opening towards modern art, which went hand in hand with their exploration of traditional folk handicrafts. These artists became known as the ‘Sixtiers’ and have been credited with creating an authentic national style of art. The author uses current decolonialist discourse to examine and question the marginal or derivative nature of their works. Having to work in a position of otherness from both the Western art sphere and Soviet centre, these artists and their works are shown to defy standard existing dualities of East/West, folk/modern, exotic/authentic, official/countercultural. The resulting analysis of tensions is relevant as ever in a region's art world where grappling with national or ethnic identity still largely outweighs personal and individual ones.

In ‘Soviet architecture, Kazakh nationalist sentiments and the making of Soviet Kazakhstan, 1925–33: the cases of Kyzylorda and the House of Government of the Kazakh ASSR in Almaty’, Basan Kuberlinov looks at the parallels between avant-garde architecture-building and nation-building in the context of Soviet Kazakhstan. The study examines in detail all stages of the construction of one building in particular – with all its political and cultural significance at the time. In what can be described as a rare occurrence, this piece of Soviet architectural design is shown to have had significance for both Kazakh and wider Soviet architectural scenes. Designed by one of the leading Soviet architects Moisej Ginzburg, the building project coincided with the Kazakh republic gaining autonomous status, a form of independence, albeit very limited. Drawing comparisons with other Soviet projects, the author searches to show the various balancing acts that both the local authorities and architects had to contend with in order to be stylistically avant-garde, universally Soviet and yet notably Kazakh – this project being a suitable metaphor for the social, cultural and political change that characterized the period.

Mu Qian, in ‘From Sufism to Communism: incarnations of the Uyghur song “Imam Hüsäynim”’, analyses several incarnations and appropriations of a traditional song. The essay stems from ethnographic research conducted in Xinjang or Chinese Central Asia. The song seems to attract the attention of very diverse audiences and cultural producers. Describing the martyrdom of the Shi’a Imam Hussayn ibn Ali, it is popular among Uyghur Sufis and performed in the dastan epic, mäshräp gathering and localized samāʿ ritual. However, alongside these more traditional incarnations, the song has been used in a cinematic comedy and as a promotional theme for the area. The subtleties of these crossovers and appropriations are dealt with in great detail in the article, seeking to establish reasons and intentions behind the song's various uses.

In ‘Contesting convention: agency in Dushanbe's contemporary art scene’, Kasia Ploskonka looks at how contemporary artists in Tajikistan's capital can challenge and address issues such as women's rights and Islamisation, national ideology and civil society. The author juxtaposes the limited contemporary art scene – consisting of fewer than 10 actors, with the state-sponsored art created in order to project and promote state symbols both within the country and abroad. Contemporary artists are shown to grapple with three diverse challenges – absence of an art market, censorship (including self-censorship) and state appropriation – issues that affect the art spheres in the wider region. Through artistic intervention these artists are shown to question existing conventions, while their own agency and autonomy are often challenged and threatened. In the absence of both art institutions and societal progress, art's role is examined as a form of social activism.

Saltanat Shoshanova in ‘Queer identity in the contemporary art of Kazakhstan’ delves into the overarching dichotomy of nationality and sexuality, which has taken root in Kazakh society and official discourse. Examining the position of queer citizens and the role of queer art and artists, the author presents a wider picture of bio- and gender-politics and exclusion that permeates this increasingly traditionalist society. This view also allows the article to question the notion of tradition itself – especially as a factor in nation and identity-building processes that the country has been struggling with for the best part of the last three decades. The article shows that homosexuality is often seen as a form of foreignness, excluding it from constructed national characteristics – making queer citizens into outsiders. The paper examines ways in which contemporary artists explore and challenge the dichotomy of nation versus sex before and at a time when gay propaganda law has been introduced in Russia – a culturally and politically significant neighbour. By representing an issue and visual image that is highly censored outside the art world, do the artists aim to simply make it visible, or in fact to challenge and change the existing narrative around it?

This issue is an outcome of a team effort that resulted in a workshop for doctoral students held in London. Being an art historian with particular interest in Central Asian Soviet and contemporary art, I was naturally drawn towards this field. However, having colleagues from other fields not directly related to art allowed for a broader selection of papers. Ultimately, one has to accept that the final list of participants was also determined by such factors and access to language – ability to write and/or present in English, as well as access to travel. We had support from Nurbol Bank, but that only covered some of the expenses involved in international travel.

From the very start the project was not aimed at research in the ancient past, but at cultural happenings that are affecting the contemporary situation – or describing it. The title of the workshop suggested a course: Art and Culture: Actors or Representatives? The main purpose was to try to understand the role the cultural scene plays in society, the issues raised by cultural production and the shapes it could take. Is culture only a representation of society and its potential for change or the vehicle for such change? It seems there can be more than one answer to this question and those presented in the papers in this issue are multifaceted. Culture is seen as an intrinsic part of society, while being affected by the specific historical context, it does at times affect it in return. From major socioeconomic and political shifts to smaller yet not less potent personal and individual identities, there are times at which culture plays a crucial role in opening minds and facilitating change.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.