Altermodern: drawing together the divisions?

The [highly ambiguous] cultural movements of the past century have all made attempts to define the culture of the Now. The ambiguity comes in the sense that the definition is based on broad similarities occurring in the many cultural, literary, artistic and fashionable trends of the time. Modernism literally became the definition of the time – where connoisseurs of various practices tried to shake of traditionalism to assert the Now – an enlightened, modern approach emerged from socio-technological advance. Then followed postmodernism, a more specific movement, once again trying to define the state of the Now by shaking of modernist traditions: it attempted to guide the emergence of culture away from what was modernism – the new modernism. This came of course in a time of political unrest: a cold war influenced emergence of commercial values which were summed up in references to the state of society and the personal conflictions that prevailed. But it was also a revolution of current trend over defined structure of modernity.

Divided by Law suggests that postmodernism was the assertion of individuality: When difference was defined and “worlds apart” were created. I am suggesting that its power took over society and was celebrated in art, culture and politics. At the same time that literature and art took an introspective look at the individual so too did the law. And a deluge of anti-discrimination legislation (whilst necessary) was created on a bedrock of celebrated difference and freedom. This introverted existentialism provided a new look at morals and idealism and provided a new structure for the definition of Now.

I have no intention of suggesting what altermodernism is aside from pointing out that it must be a new suggestion of what is Now: a new attempt to define things as they have become [bear in mind that in most contexts attempts at such definitions are little more than hollow constructions]. The term, coined by Nicolas Bourriaud, is the theme of a current exhibition at the Tate Britain. The exhibition, whilst clearly a commercial stunt, in fact portrays some very positive themes for society as it is now seen through the ideas of a handful of artists. At points there is reference to how the once clear racial partitions in society have become so blurred that definitions are even harder to impose: thus these divisions are slipping into irrelevance and people are starting to think their traditions, whilst important, should do not hold back their future and they are free to allow clashes in culture, nationality or race to shape their present existence as if they were a natural part of it.

I must comment that this was purely my opinion and the movement is too fresh and, in fairness, abiguous to really suggest that these elements are solid aspects of it. One problem for me is that by defining a “movement” so early we will be led to falsely create things as part of that movement rather than letting them form part of it naturally (as they have been doing up to this point). And ironically the label of a particular concept threatens to be the cause of its downfall – but for the time being we can be pleased that there is an inkling of new enlightenments emerging in the artworld defining what Now is and pushing us in the direction of a less divided world.