Khurana Chapter 4

From Paradise

Jump to: navigation, search


S.R.: Do you think that the conceptual paradigms are still in function?

S.K.: That's one thing which really not bothers me, but it occupies me because that's an interesting framing of question because I don't think they are contained paradigms any more. They are fluctuating to a great degree – if I get your question right.

S.R.: Do you think it's possible to renew (?) conceptual paradigms as, for example, feminist identity issues, body issues, to find a new conceptual approach?

S.K.: I'm not sure if there is a need for that because if you say, is it possible to renew?, then it implies that what's existing is either completely exhausted or the relevance has moved. Now, the relevance never moves away; it's different in different parts of the world. We are still dealing very much with issues of feminism, which maybe perhaps in the US or some of the Western world is done with a long time ago. So it's not as if there is a set of problematics which has been dealt with and then it's okay. And it's never exhausted. Rather than saying »renewed«, I would say it can be expanded. In that sense, I think it is of course possible, and it's very necessary to keep expanding and to insist on their relevance. For instance, when I started to think seriously of the framing or the historicity of what I was doing – and this was when I was studying in England – somehow making work which was about the body or issues like that seemed to others or those who were in a way instructing us, it seemed a bit - not to all of them, but to some of them – it seemed passé as a subject matter. And ironically, at that moment, what was really trendy was really cool formalistic painting for that time. But I don't think, I mean if it is really stemming from an inner need, which also then stems from the world, something which is coming from a felt need in a large part of the world, and I don't see why this has to take a back seat. Those issues still have relevance.


« Sonia Khurana »