Negotiating Histories

What does negotiating history mean? With whom and through whom is history negotiated and for whose benefit? Is history even negotiable? Or should we rather say: ‘re-negotiable’? And what terms and conditions might such re-negotiation involve? The fraught business of ‘negotiating histories’ is intrinsic to the postcolonial predicament, where the past is continuously pressing on, or erupting into the present. This is a topical, fascinating and unsettling phenomenon, and one of some urgency within the context of World Art. In the present issue it is addressed by a team of artists, curators and scholars with a particular focus on Asia and guest edited by one of our editorial advisory board members, Yuko Kikuchi, whose introductory editorial follows this one.

The title for this special issue of World Art came from a conference held in 2012 at Tate Modern in London. The full title was: ‘Negotiating Histories: Traditions in Modern and Contemporary Asia-Pacific Art’. At the opening the then director of that institution, Chris Dercon, acknowledged this as a key historical moment. Like many national institutions, Tate Modern is becoming increasingly global in its outlook. Tate has outstripped many art museums world-wide as a visitor attraction, and therefore carries an acute responsibility for collecting and exhibiting contemporary art. The establishment of the Asia-Pacific network has already signalled a new direction for expansion of the Tate collections as well as stimulating a broadening of scholarship. More recently, Chris Dercon reaffirmed this policy in the 2015 Robert Sainsbury Lecture at the University of East Anglia (video available at http://sifa.uea.ac.uk/robert-sainsbury-lecture). He emphasised that it is underpinned by a more general desire for greater representation of art production from different parts of the world and a respect for its diversity. The consideration of relationships between modern and contemporary art around the globe is one of the keys to the institution's taste-formation. Yet Tate does not espouse or even particularly support the notion of world art, as in their context, as a leading art institution, the term carries potential neo-colonialist and imperialist associations, or might indeed imply a particular kind of ghettoization.

For this journal however, the connotations are quite different and can afford to be much more inclusive and open, geographically, historically and intellectually. While the philosophy and ethos of World Art fits closely with Dercon's broader aspirations to recognise and foster equality and diversity, as a journal, we can be much more wide-ranging, speculative and provocative. We publish in hard copy and online but not otherwise; we do not face the risk of government scrutiny or interference, unlike a prestigious national institution collecting physical artefacts. We are not bound by art-world commercial interests or by practical display considerations, nor by status, or by taste-forming reputation. We can support the marginalised as readily as the most canonical; we are open to the tentatively experimental, to the deep past and the contemporary, to the rural and the metropolitan, in short, to all aspects of art from all places and times. Our major requirements are for cosmopolitanism (although we are aware of some of the problems attendant on that term), for a sense of critical openness and self-reflection in the way art is studied and represented, and for artistic and scholarly rigour and excellence of many kinds. We see these as crucial for how the concept of world art might help negotiate emerging histories in the future.

The title ‘negotiating histories’ was well chosen to stir up debate, to stimulate scholars, curators and artists to locate existing work within a new rationale or context. Using the plural, ‘histories’, is surely important. The last time such a title was used in public was for a conference hosted by another institution, the National Museums of Australia, which took place in July 1999 in Canberra. There the range of discussion was global but for very particular, locally grounded reasons. The ensuing publication was presented in the following manner:

Contributors explore how museums present Indigenous and settler/migrant histories and cultures, and environmental histories in postcolonial societies, particularly South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. They also explore the contemporary issues through which different groups in postcolonial societies engage each other (McIntyre and Wehner 2001).

The negotiating of history in that case implied a re-examination of the powers which had shaped the world between settlers and indigenous peoples. Thus ‘negotiating histories’ may be a lens to examine how the world is gradually being re-explored and re-mapped from different points of view and how past colonial imperatives might be reconciled with a more concerned and humanitarian present. Such acts of (re-)negotiation also enable formerly neglected areas of study to come to light. The impact is especially acute for those peoples from societies about whom we know the least, who either did not write or control writing about the past, or had no means of writing. We are often only left to study these contexts through close examination of fragmentary material culture. But ‘negotiating histories’ can also enable a rethinking of history to throw a sharper light on contemporary situations. Past issues of the journal, notably Outside Things (Vol 2.1) and Art Makes Society (Vol 3.1), show how a particular focus or theme can enable a completely new vision of the past to emerge and, consequently, for the world to be seen afresh. In turn, these new perspectives can inform further interpretations in and for the present day.

Situated, as we editors are, in the east of England, we are particularly aware of the United Kingdom's chequered history of global trade, imperialism and colonial exploitation in Asia. From this point of view, the power relations inherent in the negotiation and re-negotiation of history are of obvious importance and, in the articles in this issue considerable attention is paid to who negotiates history with whom and how. From this a number of important questions arise. Is an economically resurgent Asia negotiating new relationships with the West in order to return to its cultural prominence, traditions and impact (see Kajiya, Mitsuyama and Kikuchi in the present issue). Is negotiating history a response to, or a backlash against modernism and capitalism? Or, is it instead an embrace? Is negotiation synonymous with the relocation and re-contextualisation of ‘art’ (see Hopfener and Mori). Are new voices and gatekeepers in charge of history-making? (see Cheung and Wu), or are historical narratives necessary at all? This issue of World Art provides a forum for these fascinating but fraught issues, which we hope will stimulate further dialogue in the longer term.

Nota bene: we have preserved the original orthography and order of names in the contributions, so as to respect the intentions of the authors.