Although I do not compare to Mr. Enwezor in any degree, my vision is
similar. The first show of technological art I did in 1999-2000 was unique
in that it was the first one to include works created on every continent
(the tough ones were Antarctica, then Africa). Secondly, there are times
when I feel that any feeling of 'investment' in any genre or ideology
results in terrible overhead, and creates immense inertia. Not that history
or the current art milieu should be ignored. Far from it. My problems come
from getting invested in any one track of thought or body of work, or even
geography (which I'm battling with, since I seem to be spending a lot of
time [virtually] in New York).
I also agree with the istitutional problems of not instituting a show until
they're sure it's goign to be a success. That's why in each of my shows, I
make sure to throw in some fresh, and often very raw perspectives that you
would never see at the MoMA or ICA, from matters of ideology to genre.
(A possibly damning sidenote to this is that is why I initially loved Max
Herman's Genius 2000 video, as it was this strange, raw perspective from an
outsider video/performance artist. However, in the two years fter its
release, Herman has used G2K as a kind of polemic brand to shove agendas of
aesthetic and intellectual anti-elitism down the throats of many, obscuring
anything the video did in the first place, making the project a tired old
pony that keeps making the rounds.)
I sometimes agree with my glass instructor from my post-bacc days when he
said, "Two-year olds have made som of the most honest art I have ever seen."