Identity and Territory in the Art of 21st. Century.

Identity and Territory in the Art of 21st. Century.

Since less than ten years, Art Fairs has become a strong rival to international Biennials and Exhibitions. Nonetheless, a reaction did not wait long and an increased of international exhibitions is all over the world it took place today. In both venues, commercial and non-commercial, it is a constant the affluence of more diverse artists’ nationalities and forms of expressions - all of them together - being a challenge for a contemporary artist to be part of the global arena, it demands an understanding in the levels of exposure. Art is a powerful way of communication, sensitive to human spirit and unpredictable. Today, it is common to hear that “artists are pushing the boundaries”. 
My purpose in this thinking on contemporary art is to revisit on some concepts in the context of the present times, as: What is Art today, and what does it mean to be an artist in our Global Society?
If one has the opportunity during a whole year to visit all Art Exhibitions in the main cities of European and American Continents, perhaps by the end of that year, one would be suffering a stroke of confusion and exhaustion, because of the overload of information; such as visual, as conceptual, and sensorial. Probably, you doubt about what you saw was really Art. Most of the works you will see in these venues, is more connected to ordinary reality than you might imagine, but in a very particular point of view. That is what makes art of today different from reality and from Modernity. Definitely, the statement of contemporary art has changed. However, this change is not exclusive of Art, it is perceptible through all Human Sciences and many aspects of ordinary life.   
 – Postmodernity: a global moment

There is within the spirit of our times a necessity of be inform and, almost with same intensity, to produce information. Communication medias and technology have done this possible to a major population to access all kind of information. I am sympathetic to Luis Camitzer approach to the subject made in Frieze magazine, where he defined the spirit of our times in relation with Internet landing:

(…)“The erosion of geography for the benefit of infography: the Internet and the facilitation of travel allowed the formation of new communities bound by interest and causes than by location. While the physical neighborhood will always remain a factor in the creation of dialects (artistic and other), the redefinition and primacy of connectness is becoming a fundamental factor”.
The inclusion of a new reality as is Internet, has everything to do with a change in how contemporary society envisions reality. Since books like Apocalipticos e Integrados (…) which analyses the shape of a postmodern society within the Communication Media and Mass Culture Era; J. Baudrillard years later, less futurist and definitely with an apocaliptic vision, shows a society living irreality as it is reality in Simulacra and Simulation. With this book, Baudrillard forces the boundaries of teorical philosophy towards social philosophy. Once Baudrillard reaches this point, he inagurates a dialogue between philosophy and society. The opportunity that Internet technology has given to society does not have precedents in our History, this novelty of our times. It is a coded world that is trembling the traditional order and power centers toward public opinion, and to more possibilities of interchange among minorities or communities of the periphery. Likely, with major cities in the third world and first world, suburbs became overnight part of the main city, contributing with its developing and growing. 

This is what has shaped us as the society of globalize world, living a post-modern Era, striving between the extremes (bi-polar) and multiple perspectives. The past 2 decades, contemporary philosophers and sociologists have been dedicated exclusively to postmodernity theme. The vision that evolves from them is probably a mass of a chaotic forces pushing to something very new, but towards what, we might ask, what has changed? 

I find a link between the present times and 40 years ago. Studies hint origins of postmodernity back in the sixties. For me, its origins started with Apocaliptics and Insiders (Umberto Eco) and Simulation and Simulacra (Jean Baudrillard) publications.  

In the book After the end of Art, Arthur Danto clarifies a concern raised during the seventies when the dialogue between art and critic experienced a gap. The way avant-garde artists approached Art was pretty particular and didn’t show any mastery according to dominant narrative known as Modernism movement. However, it was accepted as a different form of modernism: conceptualism, still in its beginnings, and as a consequence, little studied. Today, it seems irrelevant to discuss further about this unfair issue. However, it worth to re-approach it from a different point of view. Danto’s practice of this new approach is expressed in Duchamp’s role:
    (…)el éxito “ontológico” de la obra de Duchamp, consistente en un arte que triunfa ante la ausencia o el desuso de consideraciones sobre el gusto, demuestra que la estética no es, de hecho, una propiedad esencial o definitoria del arte. Esto, según lo observo, no solamente puso fin a la era del modernismo, sino a todo el proyecto histórico que caracterizó al modernismo, esto es, por buscar distiguir lo esencial de las cualidades accidentales del arte, para “purificarlo”, hablando alquímicamente, de las contaminaciones de la representación, la ilusión y cosas semejantes. Lo que Duchamp hizo fue demostrar que el proyecto debería más bien disernir cómo el arte debía ser distinguido de la realidad.
 
By this present moment, it seems relevant to highlight the role of Art within reality. Not to differentiate it from reality, but bring attention to its capacity in representing and/or reflect reality. Instead, the question today might be what reality is. Contemporary Art discourse is turning around, carrying within simultaneously the information of History and the compromise with present times.
According to Danto’s words, in the moment when Art exposed the question of what is the difference between Art and Reality, the philosophical moment was reached, and as consequence, an inauguration of a never before in the History of Art was set in motion:

En mi opinión, una vez que el arte mismo se planteó la verdadera formula del problema filosófico, esto es, la cuestión de la diferencia entre las obras de arte y los objetos reales, la historia terminó. El momento filosófico se había alcanzado. Los problemas pueden ser explorados por los artistas interesados en ellos, y por los mismos filósofos, quienes ahora pueden comenzar a hacer filosofía del arte de un modo que producirá respuestas. Decir que la historia terminó, es decir que ya no existe un linde de la historia para que las obras de arte queden fuera de ella. Todo es posible. Todo puede ser arte. Y, porque la presente situación no está esencialmente estructurada, ya no podemos adaptarla a una narrativa maestra.
[Sin embargo], inaugura la época de mayor libertad que el arte ha conocido.

We have already reached that future that Modernists imagined once back in the XX Century, and now we are in Post-modernism era. No doubt is everywhere. In Art, the manifestation of this global state is not only reflected through the marketing and distribution of art works through main cities of the world, but indeed, the language artists are using to communicate is according to this new condition.  
The new condition is whom your message is directed or - as is said in marketing language “the target”.
Mass Media is a subject in contemporary art, and artists are exploring it from diverse standpoints — from its language structure, from its message subject, as well as aesthetic used.
Art is living a very peculiar period in history.