‘Ali-Asghar Gharebaghi
Tavoos  Art Quarterly,No. 8

Click here to view the slide show

For the past fifteen years, the concept of global art, or its  globalization has made quite a stir. Now, once again, this idea is buzzing in the West and in a few countries. With the onset of the third millennium, there are those who believe that this time, the idea of “globalization” has firmly established itself. The echo of these words has recently reached our land and enchanted those who have not reflected upon their own understanding of the issue of “global art.” Before a misunderstanding arises, a point must be made: today, the word “art” has a much wider meaning than before,

and this article is limited to its visual aspect.

It cannot be denied that the West has organized and compiled the history of art and distinguished its periods. By lining up the schools, styles and the celebrated artists of each period, it has given each its own niche. Thus the West views itself as the analyst, critic, and judge of art. It is also the West that has placed the term “globalization” on the tip of tongues; and when it speaks in this regard, it undoubtedly intends “others” to follow its path: its criteria, standards, and achievements.

The West knows only too well that what it means by “global art” is not an art which has its roots in various cultures, but rather, one that has been formed through the arts and artists of the world, embracing it completely. It also knows that “global art” means taking advantage of the talents of other countries and imposing changes on the styles and tastes of others. Finally, the West understands that “global art” is an art which must take shape within a cultural domain and is one of the methods of cultural colonization.

‘Ali-Asghar Gharebaghi

Perhaps due to a constant affliction of weak historical memory, the has forgotten that the West is aware that the idea of the “globalization of art” was not born today or yesterday; rather, it is an old story. Eighty years ago, in 1922, in a manifesto of the Congress of International Progressive Artists, the same issues were raised, keeping a few happy for a while, but events took the same turn, as they do now.

There was boasting and bluffing to the effect that, “Today, from all over the world, we hear cries for the need for a union of progressive artists. Today, the exchange of ideas between the artists of the world has taken the form of a necessity. The bonds which have been severed on account of political phenomena must be re-established. We seek an international and all-encompassing focus on art. We need international periodicals and permanent art exhibitions throughout the world. This long dreary isolation must now end. Art needs to be free from nationalities, political barriers, selfishness and self-centeredness; it requires the oneness of the creators of art. Our slogan must be this: ‘Artists of all nationalities, unite! Art must become global, or else it will perish!’ ”

However, experience has demonstrated that this bluff was but a ruse, a legerdemain, mere optimism and carelessness. Nothing more than superficial, unfounded sentimentality. It soon became clear what sort of “unity” was being promoted: the “artists of the world” only meant the artists of .