Berlin, February 03, 2017, http://transmediale.de/
A busy panel with lots of people: Jessie McLean, media artist, presenting eternal Photoshop climbing video. Grada Kilomba, writer and artist, focusing on colonial and postcolonial topics, emancipation of marginalized groups. Susan Schuppli, media artist, utilizing found footage of massacres to question mediated evidence. Ryan Bishop, media/political theorist talking about media, culture and nature. Richard Grusin, media studies theorist, talking about media and mediation as starting point of dividing binary definitions. Elvia Wik, writer and editor, moderated the discussion.
Kilomba caught my attention in a negative way in the beginning, as she appeared as the typical self-centered artist, attempting to use her 5 minutes of fame to explain her latest video installation from a recent biennale participation, and on top of that garnishing this self-promotion as a kind of important act of somehow overcoming colonial injustice. The art might have been good, but the presentation… a bit over the top. But that was not all… to be continued below.
Interesting ideas even though not revolutionary ideas came from Bishop and Grusin, both academics/theorists. Bishop reiterated the old idea that there is no nature before culture, i.e. that we live within culture, and everything we do, perceive or express is based on cultural patterns. Grusin chipped in his own five cents by adding that indeed, mediation should be seen as the beginning of everything: Only by expressing one’s view about the other, the other comes into being (culture vs. nature, black vs. white, etc.).
Thus, Grusin suggested that instead of trying to reverse or overcome divides between hegemonic and marginalized social groups, one should look at the origins of this divides and explain it from within. This was in part a reaction to Kiloba’s anti-hegemonic approach, trying to open up new spaces for new voices for the disenfranchised, get the power back. By this remark he clearly stepped on Kilomba’s toes, and Kilomba fought back: She accused him of speaking from a privileged position of a white male academic trying to whitesplain lain what the marginalized groups should do, while the marginalized groups themselves do not have the luxury to do so, because they are oppressed and without a choice but to push back against the power exerted over them.
I found her reaction both good but also worrisome. I found it good, because she clearly expressed her position as a black woman, and because it created a unity between what she was expressing in her artworks and what she was expressing in in her words. There was also a deep truth in her words: The oppressed do not get a chance to understand or explain their position, they must fight to be heard. I also found it worrisome, because it was a simple argument that can be used easily against any white male academic no matter what he says, even if he is, as Grusin, on the same (left) side of the political spectrum.
This was an interesting tension. Kilomba’s point showed the limitations of any “anti” movement: It always depends on the existence of the opposite side, which prevents it from ever achieving its goals of removing the differences between both sides. Grusin’s point, on the other hand, showed the limitations of any expression of goodwill from those in capacity of offering a helping hand: By siding with the oppressed, they will be accused of trying to recuperate their voices into the dominant discourse.
