referential fields

The aim of proposing six referential fields (historicization, subjectivization, geopolitics, constituencies, commons, and other-institutionality) is to meet the need for discussions that can address various localities and temporalities. Contemporary art contains a variety of social, historical, cultural and political references that exist as referential fields outside the focal ideas, concepts, and artworks themselves. These references also condition the form and practice of artistic production.

 

Each narrator speaks from a particular point of view connected to their local historical and cultural conditions, choosing the ways in which they direct themselves to the world. Each term thus contains extratextual fields of reference, which are made visible in order to disrupt the existing dominant discourse in contemporary art. As a consequence, both the structures and semantics of these fields are subject to certain deformations. Each term may be connected to any other in an unpredicted manner, often surpassing cultural and geopolitical borders in order to form new contexts, which nevertheless include, and depend on, the very function these fields have within the structure of the dominant art world. This function provides the background against which the restructuring may take place. 

 

The compilation of the entries / terms for the Glossary of Common Knowledge results from discussions in five seminars at +Museum of Contemporary Art Metelkova in Ljubljana and one seminar at School of Art and Design, Liverpool John Moores University. Each seminar is dedicated to a different referential field.

 

One of the most significant processes undertaken by the method proposed by the Glossary of Common Knowledge is a shift from the act of selection to the act of combination, resulting in an intratextual crossing of cultural boundaries. This may be visible in a proposition of artistic neologisms (creleasure), neologisms from critical theory (heterochronia), culture-specific terms (kapwa and travesti). Throughout this process, the lexical meaning of a particular word fades out and a new meaning fades in, although without the loss of the original meaning. Another level of relationships is to be seen in the organization of specific semantic demarcations within the text, which give rise to intratextual fields of reference.

 

The various clusters of words that are interconnected, whether they are words with outstripped meanings or semantic demarcations transgressed by the narrative, are inseparably linked. They inscribe themselves into one another, every word becomes dialogic, and every intra-textual semantic field is doubled by another. Through this multi-voiced discourse, every utterance carries something else in its wake, and thus the acts of combination unfold a space between them. What is said ceases to mean itself, so that what is not said can thus gain presence. The multiple meanings of words that depend on the cultural, social, and temporal environments they emerge from and are used within are thus joined together in an unfamiliar way, and related through the different influences they have upon one another.