Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In a globalizing world, the act of translation is potentially everywhere (Bassnett 2014; Blumczynski 2016, in Vidal 2022). It involves a creative process of transfer, interpretation, and transformation across sign systems, cultures, and worldviews – an act with profound socio-political implications. Within the visual arts field, it describes the practice of artists and curators who work increasingly internationally as ’material-semiotic actors' (Haraway 1988: 595), engaged in renegotiating semiotic and cultural frameworks while questioning the socio-political status quo. Yet, what are the limits of translation? What is lost or gained in this “necessary but impossible” act (Spivak 2022: 69)? Who translates in ‘power- differentiated’ contexts (Haraway 1988: 579-80)? This article outlines how artists and curators explore the possibilities and limits of translation within contemporary art to put forward the poetics of the untranslatable (Cassin 2014; Glissant 1990). It develops the concept of (mis)translation and positions the curatorial space as a translation zone (Apter 2006) – a dynamic, impermanent site of semiotic and cultural renegotiation, where hybrid languages, new forms, knowledges and relations can emerge (Bhabha 1994). In doing so, it embraces a ‘kaleidoscopic totality’ of world views (Bernabé, Chamoiseau and Confiant 1990).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Emily Butler (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: