|592638||CLIP1.mov||Pekka Kantonen||All rights reserved|
|592640||CLIP2.mov||Pekka Kantonen||All rights reserved|
|592649||CLIP3.mov||Pekka Kantonen||All rights reserved|
|592659||CLIP4.mov||Pekka Kantonen||All rights reserved|
|592662||CLIP5.mov||Pekka Kantonen||All rights reserved|
|592667||CLIP6.mov||Pekka Kantonen||All rights reserved|
|592699||ekakuva.jpg||Pyry-Pekka Kantonen||All rights reserved|
|592702||tatuutsi.jpg||Pyry-Pekka Kantonen||All rights reserved|
|592705||kävely.jpg||Pyry-Pekka Kantonen||All rights reserved|
|592715||tsikwaita.jpg||Pyry-Pekka Kantonen||All rights reserved|
|592723||uhritLK.jpg||Pekka Kantonen||All rights reserved|
|592734||bordersISO.jpg||Pyry-Pekka Kantonen||All rights reserved|
|592745||V&Liso.jpg||Pyry-Pekka Kantonen||All rights reserved|
|596426||Indigenous Knowledge.jpg||Lea Kantonen||All rights reserved|
|596427||liso_new.jpg||Pyry-Pekka Kantonen||All rights reserved|
The following peer review was presented to the author during the process and has influenced the final exposition. It is here presented in a slightly edited form.
If you are asking me to give a general assessment of the “exposition”, I can summarize its argument. The authors have worked in collaboration with Wixárika (Indigenous Mexican) teachers and pupils, they have planned and carried out artistic performances in which video footage on pedagogical situations is screened and the teachers explain and practically demonstrate to the audience what happens in the footage. The Wixárika perform their interpretations. In this sense the authors are not just presenting a set of videos but a set of performances interpreting videos, which recursively, have been filmed. The central question that this set of works is addressing is translation in the wider sense, as a performative act.
Please evaluate how this exposition will be received or what its significance is in other disciplines:
I do not think it is possible to evaluate how it will be received, one can only evaluate retrospectively. I guess it can be well received in Anthropology, because it is making an interesting contribution to debates about visual ethnography.
How does the exposition illuminate the relationship between artistic practice and research?
It contains a description of the question (translation as performance), its research methods are innovative, it is contextualized in social and theoretical grounds, it provides new knowledge and the methods use are adequate and sound.
Does the exposition design and navigation support the (artistic) proposition?
I think that the online format is difficult for the peer reviewer because it is very difficult to mark comments on the text. I guess this is a fault of the platform rather than the authors. I think that in terms of the argument, it could be slightly reformulated. The texts move back and forth between different questions. It would be better if it had a more conventional structure. First introducing the project, then the theoretical question. Then explaining the context and the relation of the artists with this context. Then explaining step by step the project, and then writing the general conclusions.
Does the exposition need additional language checking or technical support?
Yes, there are some mistakes in English and Spanish, at least.
Not that I am aware of.
Overall, I think this is an extremely interesting project. The central idea, performing translation through the recursive projection of videos, I think is brilliant. As I pointed out there are some problems with the organization of the argument and some spelling mistakes, but otherwise this is an excellent piece. On the other hand, I think that the theoretical framework is not always working in favor of the argument of the piece. Decolonial theory, with its rather static and ideological distinctions between the West and the Rest, its insistence on restitution and the reification of the indigenous, may not be not very helpful for a project that is actually pointing to the creative potential of translation as a performative drift, a form of cultural production rather than a “problem” of political legitimacy and etiquette. These contradictions are apparent when at some point, some voice in the audience points to the symmetry between the Wixárika and the Sammi in their connection to nature. There is nothing more orientalizing and objectifying of indigenous peoples than saying that they are connected to nature. By trying to take part with the “indigenous” sometimes this pretended “decolonial” discourse does nothing but to recolonize the imaginary of the indigenous subjects. More informed theories of translation, following perhaps not decolonial, but postcolonial theories, following Derrida, following Peirce, could perhaps give a better account of the drift of translation as a recursive poetic mechanism.