DOI Artikel:
Bakoš, Ján: Art of hegemony: (theses on the center and periphery problem)
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.51721#0188
Art of Hegemony
(Theses on the center and peripheiy problém)*
Ján Bakoš
1. The phenomenon of peripheiy is not any peripheral pheno-
menon. It représente one of the central problems in the history of art.
Centers are rare and périphéries are numerous. Peripheiy représente
the more common situation in the artworld.
2. There is a complementaiy or reciprocal dependence between
Centers and périphéries. Not only is peripheiy dépendent on a center
but a center in its turn dépends on ite peripheiy: No center is concei-
vable without peripheiy and vice versa.
3. As a conséquence of the interdependence mentioned above the
différence between a center and a peripheiy is but relative. In synchro-
nical perspective: Centers can be not only primáty but also secondary
(tertiary and so on: A peripheiy can also hâve ite peripheral center)
and respectively there do exist not solely périphéries but also serni-
peripheries and so on. In diachronie perspective: Many former centers
tumed into périphéries but only very few former périphéries succee-
ded in changing into centers. The point is that it is easier to slide down
into a periphery than the other way round.
4. Due to that there is a relation of contempt (on the part of centers)
and of envy (on the part of périphéries) between centers and périphé-
ries. They represent the main source of dynamics that is veiy sympto-
matic of center - peripheiy relation. I would not characterize it as a
stable hierarchy but, rather, as a permanent rivalry.
5. There is a strong cultural historie case that the différence between
centers and périphéries considerably means that they do not differ in
substance but in fonctions. The primaiy fonction of peripheiy can be
characterized as a depository role. Peripheiy plays the role of a
store-house in two respecte: As a réservoir of earlier expérience and
Creative forces to centers. A/ Periphery as a depository of "verified"
wisdom conserves it, to be at hand if necessary. The rimes we live in
are thus: Postmodem culture does not only actualize historical tradi-
tions and perceive them as equally valuable but at that it does not
represent either rétrospective escape or historical revival but, on the
contrary, it can be characterized as a narcissistic anti-utopia. Bringing
forth, the role of périphéries can be regarded as a logical conséquence
of it. B/ Periphery fulfills also the fonction of a réservoir of newenergy,
insight and models to centers. Centers and périphéries do not differ
solely as to presence or absence or intensity of competitiveness as Jan
Bialostocki would like to hâve it, but also in narcissistn on the part of
centers and inferiority complex on the part of périphéries. Inferiority
fixation can cause not only passivity and its reverse, i.e. blinid and
destructive aggresivity characteristic of true périphéries but can also
generate and promote Creative energy symptomatic for semi-
peripheries. Ambitious men aware of backwardeness of the envi-
ronment they live in are spured by that deficiency towards an
extraordinaiy effort to catch up with centers. Due to the absence or
underdevelopment of social infrastructure they are forced to tiy to
narrowthe gapbetween the center and the peripheiy by means ofwhat
we can call "symbolic leap", e.g. by means of imagination and
intellectual and spiritual patterns. By doing so they frequently invent
chalengingly new, nonconformist and as often as not, utopianprojects,
that may prove highly inspiring to the narcissistic center. Two
examples: German Marxism or Russian avant-garde.
6. Roughly speaking there are two fondamental ways via which
périphéries tiy to match centers: A/ By means of imitation based on
the belief in universal values or B/ by means of réfutation of the
center’s patterns and glorifying particular values of their peripheral
area. Conceming the relation to Western culture, the first approach
is known under the term "occidentalism", the second is labelled
"anti-occidentalism". In both cases utopian projects materialized by
art played an important role. Nevertheless, art did not merely help to
manipulate people’s minds or assist peripheiy in ite effort to catch up
with the center. Expressive power of art and ite ability to excite
illusions hasveiy often been utilized as a tooí of exercising hegemony.
We can discriminate hère between an overt and a covert hege-
monianism. The first opérâtes squareiy by means of ideological
indoctrination or éducation. The second one manipulâtes in a more
sophisticated way. exploiting man’s etemal drive for pleasure and
illusions. Given that both center and periphery make recouise to al!
kinds of manipulation, one should not miss to see that primaiy and
self-sufficient centers prcfer hidden hegemonian practices, while
périphéries and semiperipheries as well as secondary centers, seeking
to improve their position utilize more often an explicit indoctrination.
Examples: Socialist realism and fascist art on the one hand and
non-figurative and pop-art in the other.
A center which makes use of services of art to confirm the status
quo, not only prefers real pleasure and excitements to utopian promi-
ses but also pursues a different stratégy in order to preserve ite
advantageous position: Higher and better off social classes, groups,
States or nations exploit the power of fashion and ite manoeuvres veiy
efficiently to secure their privilège. I mean the game of "see-saw
tempting and, in ite wake, withdrawal" fashion is based on: 1/ More
specifically, this means the ability to keep monopoly of shaping fashion
universe; 2/ to Iure the lower or worse off classes, communities and
ethnie groups into imitating them and 3/ in ite wake, to distance from
in such a way broadly accepted patterns with the view to secure the
exclusiveness of the privileged by means of creating ever new ideals
and images.
As a conséquence of the previous analyses three questions are
inviting themselves:
1/ Is the servitude of art to the hegemonian appetites an
unconscious act on the part of artiste, or is it a conséquence of the
silent pact with those empowered?
2/ Is the status of artist as a servant of market and money, which has
corne to be just a matter of fact, an expression of the post-avantgarde
disillusion and disbelief in utopias, or, perhaps, it is just a come-back
to the, if you want, normal but well-off life?
3/ We all too well know clutches of hegemonianism in ail guises. We
are also aware that solely critical selfreflection offers a chance to get
rid of disguised hegemony. Nevertheless, does the latest doctrine of
a global cultural pluralism represent a real affranchissement of hege-
monianism, or, on the contraiy, is it but a more sophisticated way to
maintain the status quo?
* This paper was written as contribution to the XXVI* General
Assembly of AICA and Public Symposium on Centre and Peripheiy,
1-6 June 1992, Palais Auersperg, Vienna.
178
(Theses on the center and peripheiy problém)*
Ján Bakoš
1. The phenomenon of peripheiy is not any peripheral pheno-
menon. It représente one of the central problems in the history of art.
Centers are rare and périphéries are numerous. Peripheiy représente
the more common situation in the artworld.
2. There is a complementaiy or reciprocal dependence between
Centers and périphéries. Not only is peripheiy dépendent on a center
but a center in its turn dépends on ite peripheiy: No center is concei-
vable without peripheiy and vice versa.
3. As a conséquence of the interdependence mentioned above the
différence between a center and a peripheiy is but relative. In synchro-
nical perspective: Centers can be not only primáty but also secondary
(tertiary and so on: A peripheiy can also hâve ite peripheral center)
and respectively there do exist not solely périphéries but also serni-
peripheries and so on. In diachronie perspective: Many former centers
tumed into périphéries but only very few former périphéries succee-
ded in changing into centers. The point is that it is easier to slide down
into a periphery than the other way round.
4. Due to that there is a relation of contempt (on the part of centers)
and of envy (on the part of périphéries) between centers and périphé-
ries. They represent the main source of dynamics that is veiy sympto-
matic of center - peripheiy relation. I would not characterize it as a
stable hierarchy but, rather, as a permanent rivalry.
5. There is a strong cultural historie case that the différence between
centers and périphéries considerably means that they do not differ in
substance but in fonctions. The primaiy fonction of peripheiy can be
characterized as a depository role. Peripheiy plays the role of a
store-house in two respecte: As a réservoir of earlier expérience and
Creative forces to centers. A/ Periphery as a depository of "verified"
wisdom conserves it, to be at hand if necessary. The rimes we live in
are thus: Postmodem culture does not only actualize historical tradi-
tions and perceive them as equally valuable but at that it does not
represent either rétrospective escape or historical revival but, on the
contrary, it can be characterized as a narcissistic anti-utopia. Bringing
forth, the role of périphéries can be regarded as a logical conséquence
of it. B/ Periphery fulfills also the fonction of a réservoir of newenergy,
insight and models to centers. Centers and périphéries do not differ
solely as to presence or absence or intensity of competitiveness as Jan
Bialostocki would like to hâve it, but also in narcissistn on the part of
centers and inferiority complex on the part of périphéries. Inferiority
fixation can cause not only passivity and its reverse, i.e. blinid and
destructive aggresivity characteristic of true périphéries but can also
generate and promote Creative energy symptomatic for semi-
peripheries. Ambitious men aware of backwardeness of the envi-
ronment they live in are spured by that deficiency towards an
extraordinaiy effort to catch up with centers. Due to the absence or
underdevelopment of social infrastructure they are forced to tiy to
narrowthe gapbetween the center and the peripheiy by means ofwhat
we can call "symbolic leap", e.g. by means of imagination and
intellectual and spiritual patterns. By doing so they frequently invent
chalengingly new, nonconformist and as often as not, utopianprojects,
that may prove highly inspiring to the narcissistic center. Two
examples: German Marxism or Russian avant-garde.
6. Roughly speaking there are two fondamental ways via which
périphéries tiy to match centers: A/ By means of imitation based on
the belief in universal values or B/ by means of réfutation of the
center’s patterns and glorifying particular values of their peripheral
area. Conceming the relation to Western culture, the first approach
is known under the term "occidentalism", the second is labelled
"anti-occidentalism". In both cases utopian projects materialized by
art played an important role. Nevertheless, art did not merely help to
manipulate people’s minds or assist peripheiy in ite effort to catch up
with the center. Expressive power of art and ite ability to excite
illusions hasveiy often been utilized as a tooí of exercising hegemony.
We can discriminate hère between an overt and a covert hege-
monianism. The first opérâtes squareiy by means of ideological
indoctrination or éducation. The second one manipulâtes in a more
sophisticated way. exploiting man’s etemal drive for pleasure and
illusions. Given that both center and periphery make recouise to al!
kinds of manipulation, one should not miss to see that primaiy and
self-sufficient centers prcfer hidden hegemonian practices, while
périphéries and semiperipheries as well as secondary centers, seeking
to improve their position utilize more often an explicit indoctrination.
Examples: Socialist realism and fascist art on the one hand and
non-figurative and pop-art in the other.
A center which makes use of services of art to confirm the status
quo, not only prefers real pleasure and excitements to utopian promi-
ses but also pursues a different stratégy in order to preserve ite
advantageous position: Higher and better off social classes, groups,
States or nations exploit the power of fashion and ite manoeuvres veiy
efficiently to secure their privilège. I mean the game of "see-saw
tempting and, in ite wake, withdrawal" fashion is based on: 1/ More
specifically, this means the ability to keep monopoly of shaping fashion
universe; 2/ to Iure the lower or worse off classes, communities and
ethnie groups into imitating them and 3/ in ite wake, to distance from
in such a way broadly accepted patterns with the view to secure the
exclusiveness of the privileged by means of creating ever new ideals
and images.
As a conséquence of the previous analyses three questions are
inviting themselves:
1/ Is the servitude of art to the hegemonian appetites an
unconscious act on the part of artiste, or is it a conséquence of the
silent pact with those empowered?
2/ Is the status of artist as a servant of market and money, which has
corne to be just a matter of fact, an expression of the post-avantgarde
disillusion and disbelief in utopias, or, perhaps, it is just a come-back
to the, if you want, normal but well-off life?
3/ We all too well know clutches of hegemonianism in ail guises. We
are also aware that solely critical selfreflection offers a chance to get
rid of disguised hegemony. Nevertheless, does the latest doctrine of
a global cultural pluralism represent a real affranchissement of hege-
monianism, or, on the contraiy, is it but a more sophisticated way to
maintain the status quo?
* This paper was written as contribution to the XXVI* General
Assembly of AICA and Public Symposium on Centre and Peripheiy,
1-6 June 1992, Palais Auersperg, Vienna.
178