NJP Reader #1 – Contributions to an Artistic Anthropology

The Nam June Paik Art Center developed a new publication, NJP Reader – Contributions to an Artistic Anthropology as a complement to its function as an exhibition space and to further its research into the artistic and intellectual legacy of Nam June Paik. The aim of the NJP Reader is to recontextualize Nam June Paik’s artistic thought and his “random access” strategies in a topical discursive practice. A leading question is : What is the meaning of Nam June Paik’s multi-medial experiments, performances, and sculpture for our current artistic practice and discourse?

Obviously, Nam June Paik’s work requires a conceptual framework that goes beyond an art historical narrative. Therefore, the NJP Reader introduces the novel concept of artistic anthropology into the art discourse as an invitation to produce new conceptual systems. The NJP Reader intends to be an open platform for generating novel ideas, connections and concepts(this intention is also reflected in choosing to use Nam June Paik’s initials for its title, rather than his full name). For that reason a stifling editorial input is avoided. Instead, the NJP reader invites as many artists and intellectuals as possible to participate in the editorial process. That is also why it was decided that the first edition of the NJP Reader should be based on a questionnaire, a conceptual inquiry that will help the NJP Reader in creating novel lines of thought and conceptual schemes. For the questionnaire three questions were formulated :

1. Artistic anthropology intends to produce novel models of relationality and connectivity. Could – Nam June Paik’s legacy as a form of – artistic anthropology contribute to an artistic discourse going beyond the framework of relational aesthetics? Who are the artists in our day developing relevant examples of rethinking and recontextualizing an artistic anthropology?

2. What could artistic anthropology mean for a current artistic practice? How could it relate to medium-specific qualities? Is it a form of artistic communication defined by a post-medium condition? Or is it a practice that demands the concept of medium-specificity to change?

3. What could artistic anthropology – as a form of knowledge production – mean for the current classification system? Will it challenge the dominant paradigms of the established humanities and sciences? What type of new models might this trigger? How can artistic anthropology contribute to a better and more political understanding of the human condition? And what could artsitic anthropology mean for the concept of art in general?