Geopolitics + Art
Geopolitics deals with interactions between politics and geographic territory. These interactions, when subjected to extreme force and abuse of power, become synonymous with conflicts that lead — as we are seeing today — to the migration of populations, the hardening of borders, and the instituting of various forms of surveillance.
It is difficult for art, when inserted into this context, to disregard these tensions that spontaneously call for activist practices. Some of these practices are analyzed in our thematic section, which underlines the dominance of politics over geography when it comes to the rights of Indigenous peoples, the indiscriminate force of globalization, the usurpation of nature by mechanisms of power, and the gentrification that leads to homogenization of populations. We also see how symbolic borders and historically meaningful regions, such as the Green Line in Beirut and the Canadian Far North, spur artists to propose a rereading of history beyond the usual signposts of the dominant discourse.
It is true that the notion of territory has taken on a completely different dimension since the advent of the Internet. Because of the Internet, traditional geographic spaces now include extraterritorial entities comprised of multiple digital networks. The Web, the cloud, and data centres have become important players on the international geopolitical chessboard. On the one hand, the Web enables us to see the world in its entirety, and thus to create a better-informed mapping of it. On the other hand, the Web can also be used for surveillance and controlling citizens — not only via the U.S. National Security Agency, among other bodies, but also through analytic systems that build consumer profiles. This surveillance economy, which consists of identifying, cataloguing, and painting portraits (termed “a geopolitics of personalization” in this thematic section) can also be observed in light of cognitive mapping, which enables us not only to recognize these power relations but to become aware of our position as objects, or as data, on different geopolitical maps (economic, political, ideological, and others).
In this issue, we also take a look at the new coexistence of geographic space, which is defined by borders, and virtual space, which is constructed, instead, in the form of interconnections. This coexistence leads to a reconsideration of the architecture of public spaces and the infrastructure of certain centres of technological control and power (the head offices of corporate Web giants, for instance).
It is a fact: the natural and political phenomena present in the global landscape have an impact on the field of art and to a greater or lesser degree influence its diverse manifestations. So do economic phenomena, if one judges by the trend toward the commercialization of art. Thinking about the connections between the art market and tax havens — another form of geopolitical territory — is enlightening in this regard.
What remains to be uncovered is the impact of art on major geopolitical issues. Is it still possible to imagine that art might adopt a critical stance with regard to what seems unacceptable to us and be a real vector of change; that it might influence political and economic decisions; that it might make the borders drawn by the different forms of power more porous; or that it might encourage us to hold a hand out to migrants seeking asylum?
“Although the power of globalization has invalidated the very concept of a boundary, people still die simply trying to cross borders between two countries,” writes Lina Malfona. Whether it is through art or through politics, it is important to think of territory as a site of encounters and exchanges motivated by respect for differences and democracy, rather than as a zone of conquest and oppression. More than simply a geopolitical option, it is a necessity for the future of humanity.
Translated from the French by Käthe Roth
