The concept of borders is not new; borders have always existed in different forms with different functions and different meanings. However, for many years, the concept of the border remained relatively unexamined within the field of politics and international relations, and their naturalness and permanence were often assumed. It was not until the end of the Cold War when the world witnessed the collapse of former boundaries and the creation of new territorial limits that the concept of these ontologically natural borders came into question. Today, the optimistic cosmopolitan sentiment of the 90s is fast fading away; instead, we are witnessing refreshed fears surrounding national identity, territory and sovereignty (Brambilla, 2015). Consequently, we are observing a steady increase in the securitisation and militarisation of boundaries, walls, and borders globally (van Houtum, 2021; Jones, 2016). In light of this changing context, there is a renewed importance to reflect upon the evolution of the border concept and investigate its changing form, function, and meaning (Kudžmaitė and Pauwels, 2022; van Houtum, 2021; Brambilla, 2015).

This research project deals with the concept of a border with the aim of examining the political potential of border art in its ability to bring to light contending conceptualisations of borders. This is an important area of research because although there has been a broadening and a deepening of the field of Border Studies, existing border research often overlooks bottom-up narratives and their role in shaping the border concept. Increasingly, there have been calls within the field of Border Studies to uncover localised and diversified narratives and experiences from the border and investigate their influence on the border concept (Kudžmaitė and Pauwels, 2022; Rumford, 2012). Existing research has utilised many cultural fields, such as music, literature, poetry, and art, as fields of analysis to investigate such narratives (Schimanski and Nyman, 2021). Nevertheless, there is a limited exploration of specific cases of border art and their revelations. It is important to investigate these unseen conceptualisations in order to keep in good stead with the changing face of the border (Kudžmaitė and Pauwels, 2022). Therefore, this research project seeks to answer the question, ‘How can art at the US-Mexico border reimagine the concept of the border?’. The research project aims to attest to border art’s political potential in bringing to light reimaginations of the border through the application of Rancière’s notion of ‘the distribution of the sensible’ to border artworks. The research project will focus on three border artworks, namely Lorenzo-Hemmer’s ‘Border Tuner’ (2019), Aguiñiga’s ‘Metabolizing the Border’ (2020) and Jaar’s ‘The Cloud/La Nube’(2000). This line of investigation will bring an opportunity to reveal hidden narratives that exist concerning the concept of the border. This research project hopes to ultimately contribute to a more diversified, localised, contested, and complex understanding of the border.

Methodological Approach, Scope, and Limitations

The aim of the research project is to examine how border art along the US-Mexico border can reconceptualise the border concept. To complete the research aims, the research employs a case study research design with a desk-based approach, using academic literature as a source of data. Firstly, to test the hypothesis, the research project will use Rancière’s distribution of the sensible as a theoretical framework. The theoretical framework is then applied to three contemporary case studies to examine the extent to which art can help us reconceptualise the concept of border. The case study selection was based on a specific time period, between the turn of the century and the present day to present contemporary case studies. The research aimed to select case studies that were diversified but with a somewhat ‘stable’ presence to ensure the case studies were researchable whilst using a desk-based approach. However, the employment of a case study research design perhaps limits the generalisability of the research and its conclusions as the research is situated within a specific context, and moreover, the case studies are limited in number (Clark, Foster and Bryman, 2019). Nonetheless, this methodology was most appropriate to answer the research question, considering the aim of the research was to test a theoretical approach within a localised context.

Secondly, this research project undertakes a desk-based research approach to answer the research question. As part of this approach, the research project will primarily make use of academic articles as a source of data. Academic articles will be sourced through online academic journals and the university library resources. A literature-based approach to research can be limited as it is susceptible to bias in literature selection (Clark, Foster and Bryman, 2019). To account for this bias, the selection of literature will be based on its currency and relevance to the research question and literature that counters the research hypothesis will not be disregarded. While this approach may be limited in its ability to remove bias, this research approach reading is the most suitable way to answer the research question as it allows for an in-depth exploration of a wide range of accessible, stable, and valid literature (Clark, Foster and Bryman, 2019).

Plan of Development

The principal purpose of this investigation is to make visible hidden notions of the border concept. Through the investigation, the research project aims to demonstrate the political potential of art at the border, especially within a localised context of the US-Mexico border. As a way of answering the research question, the research project will approach the research question as follows. Firstly, there will be a review of the current literature with regard to the concept of borders. The exploration of the current Border Studies scholarship will reveal an opportunity to examine the extent of border art’s political potential within a more localised context. The literature review begins with the territorial and ontological concept of borders. The review will then discuss the processual turn in Critical Border Studies before turning to the cultural turn in border studies. Finally, the review will arrive at the concept of border aesthetics, from which the theoretical discussion will begin. Consequently, there will be a presentation and application of Rancière’s theory of the distribution of the sensible to establish a theoretical understanding of how border art has a political capacity. Subsequently, this theoretical framework will be applied to three diverse case studies of border art across the US-Mexico border. Through this application, each case study reveals different conceptualisations of borders. Firstly, Lorenzo-Hemmer’s ‘The Border Tuner’ (2019) illustrates the way in which the border can be reimagined from a space of exclusion into a bridge of communication, active participation and self-representation. Secondly, Aguiñiga’s embodiment of the border in ‘Metabolizing the Border’ (2020) infuses the objective and sterile borderscapes with emotion, transforming it into a place of intimacy. Thirdly, Jaar’s piece, ‘The Cloud/La Nube’ (2000), transforms the border space into a site of memorialisation of ‘ungrievable’ lives. Upon completion, the research project reiterates the need for more research in the field of cultural border aesthetics, particularly research which undertakes primary data collection on the impact of border art on opinions, experiences, and policy concerning the border.

Literature Review

To begin this, the research project will present and examine the theoretical evolution of the border concept as a way of situating the research’s theoretical groundings and identifying ways to contribute to the existing field of Border Studies. The discussion will begin with an exploration of the theorisation of borders as natural and static (Waltz, 1990). Secondly, there will be a presentation of the processual turn in border studies, which presents a re-conceptualisation of borders as a product of processes and performances (Amoore and Hall, 2010; De Genova, 2013; Parker and Vaughan-Williams, 2012). Thirdly, there will be a discussion of the cultural turn in Border Studies, which offers an understanding of borders as ‘borderscapes’ which are constructed at multiple levels by a plethora of actors (Brambilla, 2015; Rumford, 2012; Rajaram and Grundy-Warr, 2007). The cultural turn in border studies leads finally to the conceptualisation of borders as aesthetic entities, through which borders are understood as a concept riddled with “pathological in/visibilities” (Schimanski and Nyman, 2021, p.243). The exploration and evaluation of differing concepts and theories demonstrate that while the literature makes clear the prominence of the state in constructing and negotiating the conceptualisation of borders, there is a need to explore alternative narratives of borders. Therefore, this research aims to unveil alternative narratives by employing Rancière’s distribution of the sensible as a theoretical framework for three contemporary artworks.

For much of the 20th century, International Relations and Politics were dominated by realist and idealist philosophy, which, for ontological reasons, somewhat discarded borders as a field of analysis (Agnew, 1994). This was due to the underlying positivist epistemology of both realism and idealism, which was founded upon three interlinked ontological assumptions about politics and international relations (Agnew, 1994). Firstly, the assumption is that territory is fixed and lies within a sovereign space. Secondly, there is a separation between the internal sovereign space and the external anarchical world. Finally, the internal state is a priori. This ontological assumption resulted in two consequences. Firstly, the assumption is that we live within a closed system, meaning the territory is demarcated and enclosed (Agnew, 1994). Secondly, the conceptual and political merger between the state and the nation to produce the nation-state (Agnew, 1994). As a result, there was the creation of a binary identification of those that reside inside the territory and the external ‘Other’ that exists beyond the sovereign space (Newman and Paasi, 1998; Walker, 1993). It was assumed that only far from the anarchical world was a ‘territorial utopia’ where securitisation of rights, democracy, freedom, and justice is possible for the homogenous collective within (Wilson, 2020; Neocleous, 2008; Rajaram & Grundy-Warr, 2007). Therefore, out of epistemological necessity, the border was conceived as a static and natural demarcation of the internal homogenous community which resides within an a priori sovereign space from the external anarchical world (Agnew, 1994; Van Houtum, 2005; Wilson, 2020)). As a result of these assumptions, the border remained relatively unexamined in the field of Politics and International Relations. However, the definition of the borders as a static and fixed entity came into question in recent decades as arguably sovereignty, identity and territory could no longer be contained nor understood within a closed binary system (Agnew, 1994). In an ever-increasingly globalised world with increasingly de-territorialised borders, this separation seemed redundant, problematic, and unable to capture the complexity of ‘border’ (Parker and Vaughan-Williams, 2012). There was a call for a more ‘historically conscious’ border concept which does not rely on territorial epistemology and a-historicism (Agnew, 1994).

To capture the changing frontiers of the state, there was a theoretical shift in the concept of borders spearheaded by ‘Critical Border Studies’ (CBS), which was established by Parker and Vaughn-Williams (2012) in their seminal work ‘Critical Border Studies: Broadening and Deepening the ‘Lines in the Sand’ Agenda’. Principally, CBS problematised the natural and static line conception of borders, positing a border is not a line in the sand but a constructed concept built on performances and processes which are everchanging (Parker and Vaughan-Williams, 2012). As such, borders were no longer conceived as nouns but as verbs; ‘borders’ became ‘bordering’ practices (Van Houtum, 2021; Van Houtum and Van Naerssen, 2002). This processual shift brought to light how the construction of borders is heavily reliant on violent and exclusionary practices and procedures (Jones, 2016). These exclusionary practices are ‘necessary’, as concepts such as identity, sovereignty, and territory collective homogeneity are revealed not to be a priori, natural, or static, contrary to the realist and idealist traditions (Anderson, 2006). CBS reveals how these grand narratives must be constantly produced, performed, and perpetuated through exclusionary practices. At the edge of the state, these fallible narratives of sovereignty, territory, and identity become salient, as the concept of the static and natural border is constantly undermined by the people and things that traverse them (Salter, 2012). The concept of ‘b/ordering’ put forward by Van Houtum and Van Naerssen (2002) illustrates the constant performance of the exclusionary logic of inside and outside. B/ordering highlights how practices and performances at the border become an important tool to reinforce the narrative of utopic unity within and justify violent exclusionary practices in the name of the ‘imagined community’ (Salter, 2012; Anderson, 2006). CBS highlights how borders are much more than simple walls but are the physical manifestation of order through the performance of belonging and non-belonging (Van Houtum, 2021; Salter, 2012; Rajaram and Grundy-Warr, 2007). The performance of b/ordering has been analysed in many ways in the literature. For example, Amoore and Hall (2010) discuss the ways in which rituals in border security practices are performed to perpetuate and naturalise the narrative of difference while making concepts and practices of border unquestionable. Furthermore, other scholars have explored the spectacular enactment of exclusion, which creates a legitimate illegal and threatening figure of the ‘Other’ (Danewid, 2022; De Genova, 2013). Conversely, others have argued that some borders have become increasingly ‘unspectacular’, as often the most powerful border is not a wall but a passport as it discreetly decides who may move freely or who must apply for a visa, for example (Van Houtum, 2021). Moreover, CBS scholars have demonstrated that b/ordering practices do not only occur as the frontier of the state but in fact, these practices have been de-territorialised, moving inside and outside of the state so much so that the threat of exclusion has become omnipresent (El-Enany, 2020; Yuval-Davis, Wemyss and Cassidy, 2018; Mezzadra and Nielson, 2014; Salter, 2012; Rajaram and Grundy-Warr, 2007; Balibar, 2002).

Overall, CBS scholarship brings to light the violent undercurrent of bordering practices whilst emphasising the constructed and fluid quality of borders (Van Houtum, 2021). However, whilst it is important to recognise the persistence of state power and the hegemonic discourse in defining the border, scholars have put forward that we cannot fully comprehend borders through the lens of inclusion and exclusion alone (Mezzadra and Nielson, 2014). As the primary focus of the b/ordering concept is the state and its various apparatus’, it eliminates other narratives and actors in the construction of border and is therefore limited in the capacity to recognise contention (Brambilla, 2015; Rumford, 2012; Schimanski, 2019). Consequently, the b/ordering concept relies on a consensus of the border as something trapped within politics of fear and violence, which is orchestrated by the state (Brambilla, 2019; Rumford, 2012). Whilst we need to be aware of these mechanisms and their persistence, there is a necessity to open the space for other narratives from different actors to be able to free ourselves from the hegemonic narrative of inclusion and exclusion. Therefore, it is also imperative to look beyond the state’s prescription and acknowledge that there are competing narratives that exist and give the border meaning (Rumford, 2012).

The ‘borderscapes’ concept is another concept born out of the CBS scholarship, which accounts for contestation and resistance that the b/ordering concept cannot (Appadurai, 1996). The borderscapes concept represents a cultural turn in Border Studies and posits that the border is a “symbolic and material construction resulting from an interweaving of a multiplicity of discourse, practices and human relations” (Appadurai 1996, p. 33). The borderscapes concept thus highlights the co-constitutive relationship between individuals, communities, and bordering practices. This opening up of the border concepts meant that cultural artefacts such as discourse, imagination and symbolism are also mediators in how people related, constructed, and conceived the border. The borderscapes concept provides a ‘kaleidoscope lens,’ which has an emancipatory quality as it gives room to counterclaims and resistance to hegemonic borderscapes (Brambilla, 2015; Rumford, 2012). The borderscapes concept “shifts the focus and re-appropriates border narratives from the perspective of migrants, travellers, commuters, rendering them visible” (Heide, 2016, p. 192). Subsequently, the borderscapes concept means that the border becomes a site of struggle and dissensus rather than an exclusive site of exclusion (dell’Agnese and Amilhat Szary, 2015; Mezzadra and Nielson, 2014).

Newman (2003) posits that there is a need to explore and study the different perceptions of the border and explore how these perceptions can work to strengthen notions of the border or disassemble it. Within the borderscapes concept, there have been several methods to identify and analyse contending border narratives through more “interpretative, qualitative and ethnographic” means (Newman and Paasi, 1998, p. 198). The processual and performative conception of border opened up different fields of analysis as a way to explore these contending border narratives, such as poetry, art, film, and literature, which has come to be known under the umbrella of Border Aesthetics (Kudžmaitė and Pauwels, 2022; Schimanski and Nyman, 2021). What the aesthetic approach to borders is able to capture is the intrinsic visibility and invisibility of borders and bordering practices and what narratives and perspectives are hidden or brought to the fore (Kudžmaitė and Pauwels, 2022). Through this lens, aesthetics becomes an essential aspect of the political mediation of border-making, as it contributes to the negotiation of the concept of the border in the public sphere (Schimanski and Nyman, 2021; Brambilla, 2015; Szary, 2012). Border art has been a particularly fruitful area of analysis for uncovering these alternative narratives. However, there have been calls within the scholarship to investigate these different narratives through more “locally situated and diversified” forms of border research while also investigating the extent to which these artworks have political potential (Kudžmaitė and Pauwels, 2022). Therefore, this research project seeks to investigate three contemporary, unique and diverse artworks located at the US-Mexico border and apply Rancière’s........

© E-International