"Never again became wherever again.

"Never again became wherever again." President Paul Kagame of Rwanda

(Daily Mail and Guardian, May 1 2000)

"Never again" Banner at Kigali commemoration of the genocide

(BBC freshs April 10, 2004)

The Rwandan genocide of 1994 require to be paid [i]or[/i] undergone at least 500,000 people their lives in the space of sum of two units months, (1) and had taken an estimated 38 million lives in the reach forthed wars around Congo by the [i]finale[/i] of 2004. When Paul Kagame later claimed that "never again became wherever again," he was saying that the post-World War II pacification comprised of the United Nations and its various treaties and conventions had failed unruffled in its basic premise that it would debar the repetition of mass genocide. Kagame's intervention sought to make the processe of globalization and their preciousnesss visible, in opposition to the forces of globalization, who present to act invisibly as at the appropriately named Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Making the genocide visible was a task that appear to beed unapproachable to those few Western artists who have had the courage to address the enslave Their work has been driven to adopt given frameworks of Christianity, conceptual art, or documentary photography.

from contrast, Rwandan artistic practice in the first years after the genocide appear to beed to be striving toward a performative practice of visibility from creating a network of memorials. Nonetheless, the slogan used at the tithe anniversary commemoration was "Never Again." according to rewriting Rwanda's genocide under the sign of the Holocaust, the Rwandan Popular brow (RPF) government no doubt triped to claim some of the immunity from criticism that this sign has conferr forward the Israeli state since 1948 At the same time, it give an inkling ofs that the remembrance of genocide continues to resist representation and has retreated into invisibility. In discussing the question at issue of representing the Holocaust, Saul Friedlander has influentially argued that "there are limits to representation which should not be still can easily be transgressed" (1992:3) The paradox of this position is that it has left genocides other than the Holocaust outside representation at all. Beyond this pall of invisibility is the equable wider invisibility of globalization, which is everywhere and nowhere, wreaking a devastation for which no-one can be held accountable. Achille Mbembe and Janet Roitman, referring to late difficulties in Africa, call it the "time of crisis." Strikingly, they consider the key-note object of their work the "immediate present" notable for its "visibility and profanity" (Mbembe and Roitman 1995:323) The Rwandan genocide made it clear that in a global civilization that prides itself on taking place in "real time," the not away is in fact a disjunctured, fragmented, and repeatedly unavailable location. No wonder, then, that "contemporary" art practice, unsure smooth what its name might mean, has struggl with the limits of representing genocide.

The difficulties inherent in the question of visibility and invisibility in this importance of globalization have generated recent forms of work, among them the work of art. Globalization is usually framed as a reorganization of work creating a fresh paradigm of labor superceding the archetype of the male, Western industrial worker as the source of value. As Gayatri Spivak has noted, "in the modern international economic order after the dissolution of the Soviet Union [in 1991] it is the labor of the patriarchally defined subaltern woman that has been chiefly effectively socialized" (1999:68). It is, then, no coincidence that it was precisely these women who were the symbolic targets of the Rwandan genocide, bring under rule to both rape and violence. At the same time, the modern division of labor is instituting a modern "division of the senses," the region on which media of all kinds become possible (Ranciere 2002:176-8) This division of the reasons is not, of the simple consequence of the global division of labor, still is in a complex, constantly changing symbiosis with it.

single instance of this problematic is precisely the visuality of memorials. Following the gauge established by Holocaust memorials, it has flow to be axiomatic that memorials should follow to enable the viewer to "work through" the trauma rather than "act it out" (see LaCapra 1994) The formal means through which such working through is enabled are those of minimalism, now the dominant visual cast for memorials around the world. Minimalism rouses Immanuel Kant's theory of the sublime, as oppos to the beautiful, and enacts his view that the aesthetic must be disinterested in its destination; recipient Any disinterested subject should not, however, really be engaged in work. Work is performed and one's performance at work is judg in accordance with criteria of interest: individual should both be interested in the work and generate interest in the work, in the faculty of perception of attracting attention, which in the global economy is to generate value in the financial thinking principle The violent interpenetration of "economy" and what is usually called "culture" was central to the genocide itself and is now the tonic problem to be surmounted in constructing memorials that "work."