I went to an interesting panel discussion at The Photographer’s Gallery last night whose debate centred around the fact that many exhibitions seem preoccupied with nationality or the artist’s country of origin to underpin or define the exhibition. The underlying question was whether cultural distance and proximity were useful as defining factors from a curatorial perspective.

It’s an interesting area but I don’t really feel that the panel discussion explored all avenues. My interest in the subject stems from the fact that not only am I a British based Zimbabwean but because my major project deals with colonialism, nationalism and to a certain degree, class and ethnicity. Does that mean that there is an expectation that my work should contain particular themes within its practise and should I be restricted to those? Should photographic art serve in a documentary capacity where photography derives from an unknown area and is less accessible or can it be elevated beyond this to encapsulate other themes? Do we perceive work differently based on the nationality of the artist? Is the worth of the work determined by ‘national authenticity?’ Take the work of Maria Isabel Rueda, a Bogata based photographer whose work features Colombian Goths. Should we not expect reportage on Colombia’s political morass? Of course, there are artists whose nationality and work are intrinsically linked, photographers like David Goldblatt for example who has documented South Africa’s history pre and post apartheid but they’re only a part of the picture.

It’s interesting to also consider the role of funding within this construct, what of cultural handshakes, particularly in the developing world? The term ‘starving artist’ wasn’t coined without reason so do photographers peddle their nationality to help earn grants and in so doing, promote work that is devoid of meaning? It was interesting that one of the panel members expressed dissatisfaction that a fellow countryman never exhibited work in Bogata but on visiting England, he found a large amount of work hanging in London galleries. The criticism was that the artist in question was not contributing to the local art scene by exhibiting in Colombia and I think that’s a fair comment but on a practical level, I think that’s a fairly idealistic world view.

UPDATE: I was reading The Guardian today and came across an article on David Goldblatt who I went to see in conversation at the Tate Modern this evening. He actually makes the same point I did about the art market. I’ll blog on Goldblatt later, it’s time for bed.

May 28, 08:00 AM − Posted in