CONICET | Buscador de Institutos y Recursos Humanos

In the midst of the sudden transformations of cognitive cultural capitalism, it is common to conceive of center/periphery relationships in terms of an expansion of the borders of the center, so as to include once marginal scenes or to proclaim the mere existence of a multicentrality. Several authors, such as Nelly Richard2 and Nikos Papastergiadis,3 have underlined the risks run by certain postmodernist postcolonial academic discourses based on multiculturalism and globalization, inasmuch as they prove to be functional to the new phase of capital expansion. Rather than insisting on the existence of two blocks or announcing their abolition, it is a question of eroding the binary order on which the articulation of this distinction is based, by ceasing to assume it as a stable dynamics. A question of drastically altering a perspective rooted in a hegemonic narrative of art history, undermining the unidirectionality of a mindset programmed to trace in the periphery the repercussions of the center in terms of derivations and the irradiation or diffusion of international art trends toward the margins?and in the best of cases, programmed to explain difference or distance in terms of exoticism or distortion. This in order to adopt a viewpoint which I propose to characterize as ?decentered,? and which affects the standpoint from which we consider our own dissimilarity, while at the same time exploring what in the center itself pertains to the periphery. Thus, by the term ?decentered,? I intend to allude not only to a position removed from the center but also to a center that no longer recognizes itself as such, to a disoriented and disconcerted center which has lost its axis and certainties. In other words, I propose observing the metropolis from an inner viewpoint that avoids the narrative4 that defines precisely what is included and what is not, what is center and what periphery.

enviar mensaje