Given the structure of the current “Modus Operandi” the questions arises: Would it be better to be interconnected but halved, or unconnected but whole? There must be alternatives for redesigning this global “Modus Operandi”.

The title of my painting was inspired by the statement quoted from a report summary entitled “Alternatives to Economic Globalisation” by The International Forum on Globalisation, 2002:

“The central modus operandi of the globalisation model is to delocalise all controls over economic and political activity; a systematic, complete appropriation of the powers, decisions, options and functions that in the past were fulfilled by the community, region or state. When sovereign powers are finally removed from the local and vested in distant bureaucracies, local politics must also be redesigned to conform to the rules and practices of distant bureaucracies. Communities and nations that formerly operated in a relatively self-reliant manner, in the interests of their own peoples, are converted into unwilling subjects of this much larger, undemocratic, unaccountable global structure.

This artwork suggests the global dimension of the “new world order” which some authorities claim will benefit everyone. But it has been called to question for sometime and vehemently protested against by some groups, big and small, world-wide.
In “Modus Operandi”, the performativity brings to the fore the realities that seem artificial or fabricated, thanks to the current process of globalisation. The performativity here begins with the depiction of an irrational structure afloat on a crafted wooden sea. A cross bridge connects four boats. This symbolises the global vision of connecting all four corners of the world. Connection to this kind of structure means establishing the values of nations that coexist within the agreed parameters of international cooperation and trust – nations that compete at the same time. On the surface, the structure looks good but a closer, more intensive examination shows it to be unstable.

The cross bridge is structurally defective: it lacks symmetry. By actually using it, inequalities of opportunity are created on the global market. Noticeably, the boats are shown split into halves: this means participants in globalisation must compromise in any negotiation.
Rowing these four boats are four persons of different colour, representing different races, cultures and identity. They are however uniformly dressed, i.e. in clothes of the same style and material. Diversity of identity is thus being replaced by homogenisation. Given such a structure, would it be better to be interconnected but halved, or unconnected but whole?
Whether we like it or not, globalisation, beneficial or harmful is here to stay. But while this process is underway, with its cultural, economic, environmental and political impact on different levels of society, there are better alternatives being proposed for redesigning this global modus operandi.