“When it comes to art, nationalism is a goodticket to ride with,”says the title of areport in the Indian Express (Mumbai, 29 Oct 2000). The newspaper report goes on to saythat since Indian art was kept “ethnic”by colonialism, national liberation meant openingup to the world on India’s own terms. Advocacy, at the tail end of the 20th century, wouldcontrast dramatically with the call by Rabindranath Tagore, the founder of the academy atSantiniketan in 1901, to guard against the fetish of nationalism.“The colourless vaguenessof cosmopolitanism,”Tagore pronounced, “nor thefierce self-idolatry of nation-worship, isthe goal of human history”(Nationalism, 1917). This contrast is significant on two counts. First is the positive aspect of “nation”as a frame in art production or circulation, atthe current point of globalization when massive expansion of cultural consumers may berealized through prevailing communication networks and technology. The organization ofthe information market, most vividly demonstrated through the recent FIFA World Cupwhen one out of every five living human beings on earth watched the finals, is predicatedon nations as categories. An extension of the Indian Express argument would be thattagging of artworks along the category of nation would help ensure greatest reception, andwould in turn open up the reified category of “art,”so as to consider new impetus fromaesthetic traditions from all parts of the world many of which heretofore regarded as“ethnic,”so as to liberate art from any hegemony of “international standards.” Secondly, the critique of nationalism points to a transnational civic sphere, be itTagore’s notion of people-not-nation, or the much more recent “transnationalconstellation”of Jurgen Habermas (2001), a vision for the European Union where civilsphere beyond confines of nation opens up new possibilities, and may serve as a modelfor a liberated sphere on global scale. There are other levels of collectivity which art mayaddress, for instance the Indonesian example of local communities headed by Ketua RukunTetangga, the neighbourhood headmen, in which community matters of culture and thearts are organically woven into the communal fabric. Art and collectivity at the national-transnational level yield a contrasting situation of,on the idealized end, the dual inputs of local culture and tradition through “nation”as necessary frame, and the concurrent development of a transnational, culturally andaesthetically vibrant civic sphere that will ensure a cosmopolitanism that is not a“colourless vagueness.”In art historical studies, this is seen, for instance, in the recentdiscussion on “cosmopolitan modernisms.” Conversely, we may see a dual tyranny of a nationalism that is a closure (sometimesstated as “ethno-nationalism”which is disputable), and an internationalism that is evolvedthrough restrictive understanding of historical development within privileged expressions.In art historical terms, where there is a lack of investigation into the reality of multiplemodernisms, the possibility of a democratic cosmopolitanism in art is severely curtailed.The advocacy of a liberal cosmopolitanism without a democratic foundation returns art todominance of historical privileged category. A local community with lack of transnationalinputs may sometimes place emphasis on neo-traditionalism which is also a double edgedsword, as rekindling with traditions is both liberating andrestrictive, which in turninterplays with the push and pull of the collective matrix.