by Parand Danesh
2024

Within the context of a normalized conflict zone and normalization of militarization, how does conflict shape our practice?  

Because the routine of militarization produces countless visible and invisible scars on landscapes and human bodies on a daily basis, it can trick us into focusing our attention on the immediacy of conflict – that very immediacy that makes conflict impersonal. To this immediacy that serves political and mediatic purposes, we must oppose a progressive, slow, intimate, micro-level and bottom-up approach of conflict so as to take account of the lived experiences of its normalization and, therefore, be able to formulate countless counter-narratives. Also, conflict – especially in normalized zones – challenges us to question how, why and to the service or disservice or whom violence has become inseparable from otherwise neutral geographies and ordinary people. For those of us who both work on and come from territories marked by years, decades or even centuries of conflict, our practice gets shaped by a reflexive and sensitive approach to the study of conflict precisely because it has become part of our ordinary. In my opinion, there lies the care component that can shape our relationship to the conflicts through which we curate. 

How do the materials we use, the themes we explore, the fundings we receive – enable and disable artists and the cultural landscape? 

Be it photography, video or mixed-media, the materials we use can generate the same effect of immediacy I was referring to above. For instance, a violent image might capture the reality of a conflict and even bear witness to it but it might simultaneously eclipse the wider context or subject the people portrayed in it to even more violence, symbolic this time. Regarding the question of fundings, resources often come with expectations. Whether state-sponsored, NGO-driven, or from private entities, there is always a narrative that needs to be pushed forwards when funds are allocated. Therefore, it is our responsibility to critically examine who funds our work as artists, researchers and curators, and why, as it invariably influences the cultural landscape we are part of. In addition to this, while funding can enable greater visibility and give a platform, it can also force us into certain themes in a non-intuitive fashion and/or reinforce mere trends. So we must be careful.

While working with vulnerable and oppressed experiences, how can we research and curate responsibly without exposing or exploiting the marginalized positions? 

I believe that individuals and groups affected by the violence that rages in conflict-torn territories should be allowed to be actively involved in shaping their own narratives. Informed consent should be put at the center of any project involving private citizens and full transparency in intent and methodology should also be a priority to ensure a respectful, authentic and dignified ethics-first approach. 

What are the best methods to be careful when approaching polarized, politically charged and historically excluded narratives? 

When addressing contentious topics, a multi-faceted approach helps. I believe in the power of very local sourcing and long-term fieldworks. The closer we get to the lived realities of conflict in its day to day management, in the very layers of its canvas, the better we can fact-check, confront and integrate testimonies and recollections. Equally important is being cognizant of the wider theoretical frames that help us analyze the deeper biological, cognitive, behavioral and historical mechanisms of conflict within any political or social setting. This can help us draw invariants from a various set of case studies and see patterns in the formation and perpetuation of conflict. Finally, we also need to be aware of our own biases and positionality throughout our whole creative and intellectual process.